Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Astronomy / August 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Time to travel through the solar sistem

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
gato2004_cl - 24 Aug 2004 19:36 GMT
¿What is the time to travel(speed of light) through the solar sistem,
starting for the sun to the outers planets?

Example From the sun to earth, thetime is aprox 8 minutes.
Ugo - 24 Aug 2004 20:06 GMT
> ¿What is the time to travel(speed of light) through the solar sistem,
> starting for the sun to the outers planets?
>
> Example From the sun to earth, thetime is aprox 8 minutes.

It takes light around 8.3 minutes to traverse one astronomical unit (AU).
Neptune is located 30 AU from the Sun, it takes light about 4 hours and 9.5
minutes to reach Neptune.
As to how long does it take light to cover the *entire* solar system, it
depends on where you consider its border to be...

Signature

The butler did it.

Paul Lawler - 24 Aug 2004 21:00 GMT
gato2004_cl <gato2004_clSINESTO@vtr.net> wrote in news:cgg1uf$nbi$1
@news1.nivel5.cl:

> ¿What is the time to travel(speed of light) through the solar sistem,
> starting for the sun to the outers planets?
>
> Example From the sun to earth, thetime is aprox 8 minutes.

Because their orbits are slightly elliptical, the time is not constant.  
But all you have to do is take the mean distance from the sun of the planet
in question and divide it by C.  

Mars   12.7 light minutes
Jupiter .72 light hours
Saturn  1.3 light hours
Uranus  2.7 light hours
Neptune 4.2 light hours

Pluto, of course, is not really a planet. <g>
md - 25 Aug 2004 11:31 GMT
> gato2004_cl <gato2004_clSINESTO@vtr.net> wrote in news:cgg1uf$nbi$1
> @news1.nivel5.cl:
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Pluto, of course, is not really a planet. <g>

and hence not part of the solar system?? odd.
--
md
Paul Lawler - 25 Aug 2004 13:02 GMT
>> gato2004_cl <gato2004_clSINESTO@vtr.net> wrote in news:cgg1uf$nbi$1
>> @news1.nivel5.cl:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> and hence not part of the solar system?? odd.
> --

I'm sorry... did I say that?  I most certainly did not.
md - 25 Aug 2004 16:15 GMT
> >> gato2004_cl <gato2004_clSINESTO@vtr.net> wrote in news:cgg1uf$nbi$1
> >> @news1.nivel5.cl:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> I'm sorry... did I say that?  I most certainly did not.

you did not say it, nor write it, but you implied it by explicitely leaving pluto out of the
list.
--
md
Paul Lawler - 25 Aug 2004 18:57 GMT
>> >> gato2004_cl <gato2004_clSINESTO@vtr.net> wrote in
>> >> news:cgg1uf$nbi$1 @news1.nivel5.cl:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> leaving pluto out of the list.
> --

Rubbish.  I implied (no, actually, I stated outright) that Pluto is not a
planet, but I never implied that Pluto is not part of our solar system.  
It certainly is.  As are all Kuiper Belt objects.
Double-A - 25 Aug 2004 20:57 GMT
> >> gato2004_cl <gato2004_clSINESTO@vtr.net> wrote in news:cgg1uf$nbi$1
> >> @news1.nivel5.cl:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> I'm sorry... did I say that?  I most certainly did not.

Don't forget Sedna.  Since it appears to be about the same size as
Pluto, those who DO still consider Pluto to be the ninth planet will
have to consider Sedna to be the tenth.  There is evidence that it may
have a moon as well.

Sedna's distance from the sun is 3 times that of Pluto, so you can
multiply whatever size you thought the solar system to be by 3.

Double-A
Mad Scientist - 25 Aug 2004 19:01 GMT
Why not just ask ET how it is done?

> ¿What is the time to travel(speed of light) through the solar sistem,
> starting for the sun to the outers planets?
>
> Example From the sun to earth, thetime is aprox 8 minutes.

Professor exposes the aliens among us

In the world of academia, Northern Kentucky University philosophy
professor Dr. Robert Trundle realizes his beliefs are not exactly widely
embraced. "Shunned" is the word he sometimes uses.

The title of his forthcoming book is, in part at least, in response to
what he calls "the cowardice and vanity of a sizeable percentage of
American professors." Scheduled for release early next year, it's called
"Is ET Here? No Politically, but Yes Scientifically and Theologically"
(EcceNova Editions, Victoria, British Columbia).

Dr. Trundle, 60, occupies an almost monastic office on the second floor
of NKU's Landrum Hall. It's a room about 10 by 10, and every available
square foot is piled high with texts of one sort or another. I was
careful not to touch off an avalanche when I sat among the stacks the
other day and asked him to boil his book down to its basics.

So what does he mean by that title? Do beings from places other than
this planet walk among us?

"Yes, I believe contact was made 50 years ago -- and I believe beings
from other planets are here now, mainly to study us," Dr. Trundle said.

"Does ET exist from a political perspective? No, because the government
is afraid of the culture shock and public panic. For the government to
acknowledge the existence of extraterrestrials here would be to admit it
can't protect us from them.

"Scientifically, I argue that thousands of well-regarded witness
accounts cannot simply be dismissed. I'm talking about pilots who have
come forward even though it's meant they've had to undergo psychiatric
exams as a direct result."

At the very least, he said, we can't use current science as the standard
for excluding the possibility of a more advanced science:

"For example, science says it's impossible to travel at the speed of
light. If it were possible, it would take four years of traveling at the
speed of light to get to the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri.

"Given our current technology, it would probably take us 50,000 years to
get there, plus or minus. Based on that, the scientific establishment
somewhat blithely dismisses the existence of extraterrestrials.

"It's like saying if we can't do it, they can't do it either."

Dr. Trundle's book is not an easy read, but it's an intriguing sampler
of UFO lore, sightings and documents, including this Freedom of
Information Act version of a March 22, 1950, FBI memo stating in part:

"An investigator for the Air Force stated that three so-called flying
saucers had been recovered in New Mexico -- circular in shape with
raised centers, approximately 50 feet in diameter. Each -- occupied by
three bodies of human shape but only 3 feet tall."

It's a subject Dr. Trundle has been chasing for years. His grandfather,
president of the now-defunct Trundle Engineering Co. in Cleveland, was
fascinated with extraterrestrials and, when he died in 1954, left Robert
a small collection of books about UFOs. His first article to the effect
that ETs are here, entitled "Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Challenge to
Theology, Physics and Metaphysics," was published in 1994. His second
book, "Illustrated News of the Unbelievable," was co-authored with
George Filer, a retired Air Force intelligence officer.

Dr. Trundle paints a virtual "Men in Black" picture of the ET scene in
which several species are visiting the earth, most in a human form. But why?

"There are benign scenarios in which they might be seen as
anthropologists coming here out of curiosity," he said.

"Then there is a more threatening scenario, which is that they're
studying to see if the earth is habitable. An even more worrisome
possibility is that they have a hybrid program of sexually mating with
humans to strengthen their species."

No doubt about it. Dr. Trundle would have an easier go of it if he stuck
to Socrates.

"But I'm trying to apply the truth in the way Socrates called for it to
be applied to everyday life," he said.

He's convinced he's right. All he's lacking is cold, hard proof.

"If I had that, it would be the most astonishing event since the
resurrection of Christ."

Contact David Wecker at (513) 352-2791 or via e-mail at sambets@choice.net.

http://www.cincypost.com/2004/07/15/wecker071504.html
anon - 25 Aug 2004 19:29 GMT
<snip>
> He's convinced he's right. All he's lacking is cold, hard proof.
Mad Scientist - 25 Aug 2004 19:58 GMT
Thats all you guys can do is say 'where is the proof, where is the
evidence' over and over again like somehow it makes you look intelligent.

> <snip>
>
>>He's convinced he's right. All he's lacking is cold, hard proof.
anon - 25 Aug 2004 19:59 GMT
> Thats all you guys can do is say 'where is the proof, where is the
> evidence' over and over again like somehow it makes you look intelligent.
>
> > <snip>
> >
> >>He's convinced he's right. All he's lacking is cold, hard proof.

its in your own words you f.cking clown, you wrote it
Mad Scientist - 25 Aug 2004 20:08 GMT
>>Thats all you guys can do is say 'where is the proof, where is the
>>evidence' over and over again like somehow it makes you look intelligent.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> its in your own words you f.cking clown, you wrote it

Here anon makes a good case for why there should be another 'mass
extinction event'.
anon - 25 Aug 2004 20:11 GMT
> >>Thats all you guys can do is say 'where is the proof, where is the
> >>evidence' over and over again like somehow it makes you look intelligent.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Here anon makes a good case for why there should be another 'mass
> extinction event'.

defeated by your own argument so you resort to type.  Yeayy for our team
Mad Scientist - 25 Aug 2004 20:16 GMT
>>>>Thats all you guys can do is say 'where is the proof, where is the
>>>>evidence' over and over again like somehow it makes you look
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> defeated by your own argument so you resort to type.  Yeayy for our team

Ha, laughing at the possibility of your own extinction I see.
Paul Lawler - 25 Aug 2004 20:54 GMT
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:wj5Xc.20931$UTP.3782
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:

> Thats all you guys can do is say 'where is the proof, where is the
> evidence' over and over again like somehow it makes you look intelligent.

No, but it certainly does make you look disingenuous.
Mad Scientist - 25 Aug 2004 21:09 GMT
No, it makes you look deceptive.

> Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:wj5Xc.20931$UTP.3782
> @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> No, but it certainly does make you look disingenuous.
Paul Lawler - 25 Aug 2004 21:40 GMT
> Paul Lawler wrote:
>> Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> No, it makes you look deceptive.

Okay... I'll bite.  How does asking for evidence make me look deceptive?

Mad Scientist - 25 Aug 2004 22:15 GMT
>>>Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Okay... I'll bite.  How does asking for evidence make me look deceptive?

It's a ploy used by kooks on Usenet all the time and it really
illustrates quite a bit about their psychology and underlying motives.
It's no different than saying there is no proof of Pyramids on Mars when
the pictures are staring you in the face. It's no different than saying
'slaves hauled up 200 ton stones to the height of 3000 feet above sea
level' and snickering when challenged on that ridiculous statement.  Not
to mention the 2000 ton stone which rests atop an arch 13,000 feet above
sea level when archaeologists know that the quarry site from where the
hewn stone came from is 2000 feet below it and 10 miles across a lake,
and since the architecture is attributed to the Inca, must mean they
used their reed boats to transport 2000 ton stones in?  Such is the
logic of those who deceptively ask for 'evidence' of anything they don't
want to hear.  Fact is Manchu Piccu and Teohuanico were heaved up to
their present altitude during the last cataclysmic so-called polar
reversal event.  Never mind how 'slaves' managed to move 2000 ton blocks
of stone, let alone the primitive Inca.  I was asked for evidence that
such a polar reversal event would be 'cataclysmic' and I pointed out the
existence of these ancient structures literally "on the top of
mountains" as evidence, to which the 'slave' bullshit was the reply.
These deceivers ignore how narrow and steep the so-called Inca trail
remains which doesn't allow for any blocks to pass through it, since you
have to go through a cave which barely allows a person to fit through,
let alone 200 and 2000 ton blocks of stone.

The Great Pyramid in Egypt is aligned with the stars, and expert
engineers (the top in their class of architecture) have already been
consulted and they said in no uncertain terms, 'even with today's
technology we could NOT reproduce the contruction of the Great Pyramid'.
(Some people forget that its height rivals the world's tallest buildings
and could be argued is what actually led to governments historically
funding projects that would construct 'skyscrapers' as 'taller
structures')  Ofcourse the deceptive will still cry, 'where is the
evidence' without doing a single inch of research on their own.

The underwater Pyramidal cities discovered at the bottom of the ocean
floor contain stones in their construction which dwarf 2000 tons.
Detractors state, 'those aren't Pyramidal cities and temples, its just
water erosion', while ignoring the steps, platforms, and doorways which
have been photographed.  All the platforms and steps found in many of
these so called cities remain perfectly level (as do the structures 'on
the top of mountains' in high in the Andes) despite sinking to the
bottom of the ocean.  This is also offered as evidence of a worldwide
cataclysmic polar reversal event which took place very rapidly.

No it is clear to those studying these particular ancient monuments are
troubled by the implications of an ancient worldwide Flood event.  So
they continue to say, 'where is the evidence, there is no evidence' in
order to maintain their delusional thinking.
Paul Lawler - 25 Aug 2004 22:33 GMT
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:Nj7Xc.22793$UTP.9498

>> Okay... I'll bite.  How does asking for evidence make me look deceptive?
>
> It's a ploy used by kooks on Usenet all the time and it really
> illustrates quite a bit about their psychology and underlying motives.

*snipped for brevity*

> No it is clear to those studying these particular ancient monuments are
> troubled by the implications of an ancient worldwide Flood event.  So
> they continue to say, 'where is the evidence, there is no evidence' in
> order to maintain their delusional thinking.

Thank you for clarifying your position.  Unfortunately it is incorrect.  It
is the responsibility of the person making a claim to do every "inch of
research" and provide credible evidence.  But please... don't take my word
for it, ask any debate coach.

If the person making the claim does not do this, then their claim is
dismissed for lack of credible evidence.  You may not fault anyone for not
examining your evidence until you actually provide it.

Now... how about telling us who you consider the "real men" who use "real
logic" in this newsgroup?
Mad Scientist - 25 Aug 2004 23:16 GMT
> Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:Nj7Xc.22793$UTP.9498
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> *snipped for brevity*

Snipped because you have nothing to say. NOTHING which can refute the
evidence.

>>No it is clear to those studying these particular ancient monuments are
>>troubled by the implications of an ancient worldwide Flood event.  So
>>they continue to say, 'where is the evidence, there is no evidence' in
>>order to maintain their delusional thinking.
>
> Thank you for clarifying your position.

What position would that be?  That people believe whatever they like and
will still demand evidence even when it stares them in the face.

> Unfortunately it is incorrect.

How so?

 It
> is the responsibility of the person making a claim to do every "inch of
> research" and provide credible evidence.  But please... don't take my word
> for it, ask any debate coach.

I have already proved my point about an ancient global catastrophe.  Now
it is your turn to refute the evidence, not say, 'you gave no evidence'.

> If the person making the claim does not do this, then their claim is
> dismissed for lack of credible evidence.

What 'lack of credible' evidence would that be?

 You may not fault anyone for not
> examining your evidence until you actually provide it.
>
> Now... how about telling us who you consider the "real men" who use "real
> logic" in this newsgroup?

It is everyone's responsibility to find the evidence because it also
everyone's responsibility to think.  I won't think for you, and if you
insist on saying the 'crab nebula' is the star of Bethleham, it is up to
you to prove it, not the other way around.
Paul Lawler - 25 Aug 2004 23:44 GMT
>> Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in
>> news:Nj7Xc.22793$UTP.9498
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> What position would that be?  That people believe whatever they like
> and will still demand evidence even when it stares them in the face.

No, the position that whatever you happen to believe (or at least pretend
to believe) at the moment or whatever you read on some web site
constitutes evidence.  It does not.

> How so?

It is the responsibility of the person making a claim to do every "inch
of research" and provide credible evidence.  But please... don't take my
word for it, ask any debate coach.

> I have already proved my point about an ancient global catastrophe.
> Now it is your turn to refute the evidence, not say, 'you gave no
> evidence'.

NO, you did NOT prove your point.  That requires credible evidence, not
personal speculation.

>> If the person making the claim does not do this, then their claim is
>> dismissed for lack of credible evidence.
>
> What 'lack of credible' evidence would that be?

All the credible evidence you have been asked to provide.  Again, your
speculation or quoting of persons or web sites already deemed to be not
credible do not constitute proof.

>   You may not fault anyone for not
>> examining your evidence until you actually provide it.

> It is everyone's responsibility to find the evidence because it also
> everyone's responsibility to think.  

No, I'm sorry, this assertion incorrect.  It is the claimant's
responsibility (and no one else's) to find the evidence.  It is
everyone's responsibility to think when examining the evidence, but not
to provide it.

> I won't think for you, and if you insist on saying the 'crab nebula'
> is the star of Bethleham, it is up to you to prove it, not the other
> way around.

That is exactly right, and supports what I just told you.  I agree
completely that if I claim that the Crab Nebula is the star of Bethlehem
then it is up to me to prove it.  Likewise if you insist on saying that
moon landings (or photos) were faked, or there are undesea cities, or the
Earth's poles have shifted in historic times, it is (to use your words)
up to you to prove it, not the other way around.
Mad Scientist - 26 Aug 2004 00:01 GMT
>>>Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in
>>>news:Nj7Xc.22793$UTP.9498
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> to believe) at the moment or whatever you read on some web site
> constitutes evidence.  It does not.

I am waiting for you like the other idiot then, to explain how the
stones got where they did?  I won't hold my breath deciever.

>>How so?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> NO, you did NOT prove your point.  

Yes I did. I was asked what proof do you claim as evidence for an
ancient global catastrophe.  I gave my evidence, now it is your turn.
But instead you do what all quacks do, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.  You
sure you didn't get your science knowledge from Sesame Street?  I hear
the Snuffaluffagus and Big Bird calling your name.

That requires credible evidence, not
> personal speculation.

Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss....what a joke.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> speculation or quoting of persons or web sites already deemed to be not
> credible do not constitute proof.

Liar.  Dismiss some more...and some more, and some more.....

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> everyone's responsibility to think when examining the evidence, but not
> to provide it.

You love that word eh?  Incorrect, incorrect, incorrect....maybe you
take lessons on science from the Muppets? Do I hear Miss Piggy and
Kermit calling you?

>>I won't think for you, and if you insist on saying the 'crab nebula'
>>is the star of Bethleham, it is up to you to prove it, not the other
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Earth's poles have shifted in historic times, it is (to use your words)
> up to you to prove it, not the other way around.

Maybe you get your understanding of science from the Simpsons?  Do I
hear Mr. Smithers calling you back to rub his shoulders?
anon - 25 Aug 2004 22:42 GMT
> The Great Pyramid in Egypt is aligned with the stars, and expert
> engineers (the top in their class of architecture) have already been
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> structures')  Ofcourse the deceptive will still cry, 'where is the
> evidence' without doing a single inch of research on their own.

The great pyramid at Giza is 241 m tall.  The list of 100 tallest buildings
in the world shows heights all over this, hardly "rivaling"
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001338.html

> The underwater Pyramidal cities discovered at the bottom of the ocean
> floor contain stones in their construction which dwarf 2000 tons.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> bottom of the ocean.  This is also offered as evidence of a worldwide
> cataclysmic polar reversal event which took place very rapidly.

Do these windows and doors lead to rooms or interiors?  I havn't seen the
pictures so I have to ask.
Wally Anglesea - 26 Aug 2004 04:38 GMT
>> The Great Pyramid in Egypt is aligned with the stars, and expert
>> engineers (the top in their class of architecture) have already been
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> in the world shows heights all over this, hardly "rivaling"
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001338.html

Bullseye! And another "fact" in MS's fantasy world falls apart to facts of
the real world.
Paul Lawler - 25 Aug 2004 22:57 GMT
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:Nj7Xc.22793$UTP.9498

> The underwater Pyramidal cities discovered at the bottom of the ocean
> floor contain stones in their construction which dwarf 2000 tons.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> bottom of the ocean.  This is also offered as evidence of a worldwide
> cataclysmic polar reversal event which took place very rapidly.

Thank you for alluding to (but not providing) evidence in support of a
worldwide cataclysmic polar reversal event.  

Would you be speaking of a magnetic polar reversal event or a spin axis
polar reversal event.  Do you know the difference?
Mad Scientist - 25 Aug 2004 23:26 GMT
> Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:Nj7Xc.22793$UTP.9498
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Thank you for alluding to (but not providing) evidence in support of a
> worldwide cataclysmic polar reversal event.  

You haven't got a clue.  If you do, then explain how 200 ton stones,
2000 ton stones came to be at the top of mountains so high above sea
level.  Explain why ancient city structures are at the bottom of oceans
and remain perfectly level.  I bet you will try the same tired and worn
out line of reasoning that the other idiot, you know, your pal with the
same level of intelligence, said.

> Would you be speaking of a magnetic polar reversal event or a spin axis
> polar reversal event.  Do you know the difference?

Do you?
Paul Lawler - 25 Aug 2004 23:50 GMT
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:6m8Xc.24133$UTP.500

> You haven't got a clue.  If you do, then explain how 200 ton stones,
> 2000 ton stones came to be at the top of mountains so high above sea
> level.  Explain why ancient city structures are at the bottom of oceans
> and remain perfectly level.  I bet you will try the same tired and worn
> out line of reasoning that the other idiot, you know, your pal with the
> same level of intelligence, said.

I am not required to explain how the stones GOT there... I am simply
required to point out that you have not provided any evidence (other than
suggestion) that they got there as the result of a polar revesal event.  
The fact that they are there is not, in itself, evidence for your
particular explanation.

Just for your education and enlightenment, this is a logical fallacy
because you are saying if you can't explain it, then my explanation must be
right.  However, there may exist any number of possible explanations.

>> Would you be speaking of a magnetic polar reversal event or a spin axis
>> polar reversal event.  Do you know the difference?
>
> Do you?

Yes, I do... but that was not the question, was it?  Are you speaking of a
magnetic polar reversal event or a spin axis polar reversal event?
Mad Scientist - 26 Aug 2004 00:05 GMT
> Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:6m8Xc.24133$UTP.500
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> The fact that they are there is not, in itself, evidence for your
> particular explanation.

Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss....Elmo knows more about science than you do.

> Just for your education and enlightenment, this is a logical fallacy
> because you are saying if you can't explain it, then my explanation must be
> right.  However, there may exist any number of possible explanations.

List them.  oh by the way, please explain why the Inca buried a mummy at
the highest mountain peak in the Andes, and why there was no structure
remaining (which all  other burial sites had) and why anthropologists
are stumped?  Please do while you list the 'any number of possible
explanations'.  And while we're at it, I guess there are 'any number of
possible explanations' other than the Big Bang as to how the universe
got here right?

>>>Would you be speaking of a magnetic polar reversal event or a spin axis
>>>polar reversal event.  Do you know the difference?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Yes, I do... but that was not the question, was it?  Are you speaking of a
> magnetic polar reversal event or a spin axis polar reversal event?

You sure you didn't get your science knowledge from Looney Tunes? I can
hear Daffy Duck calling your name.
Ralph Hertle - 31 Aug 2004 16:26 GMT
Mad Scientist - 25 Aug 2004 19:02 GMT
Why not just ask ET how it is done?

> ¿What is the time to travel(speed of light) through the solar sistem,
> starting for the sun to the outers planets?
>
> Example From the sun to earth, thetime is aprox 8 minutes.

Professor exposes the aliens among us

In the world of academia, Northern Kentucky University philosophy
professor Dr. Robert Trundle realizes his beliefs are not exactly widely
embraced. "Shunned" is the word he sometimes uses.

The title of his forthcoming book is, in part at least, in response to
what he calls "the cowardice and vanity of a sizeable percentage of
American professors." Scheduled for release early next year, it's called
"Is ET Here? No Politically, but Yes Scientifically and Theologically"
(EcceNova Editions, Victoria, British Columbia).

Dr. Trundle, 60, occupies an almost monastic office on the second floor
of NKU's Landrum Hall. It's a room about 10 by 10, and every available
square foot is piled high with texts of one sort or another. I was
careful not to touch off an avalanche when I sat among the stacks the
other day and asked him to boil his book down to its basics.

So what does he mean by that title? Do beings from places other than
this planet walk among us?

"Yes, I believe contact was made 50 years ago -- and I believe beings
from other planets are here now, mainly to study us," Dr. Trundle said.

"Does ET exist from a political perspective? No, because the government
is afraid of the culture shock and public panic. For the government to
acknowledge the existence of extraterrestrials here would be to admit it
can't protect us from them.

"Scientifically, I argue that thousands of well-regarded witness
accounts cannot simply be dismissed. I'm talking about pilots who have
come forward even though it's meant they've had to undergo psychiatric
exams as a direct result."

At the very least, he said, we can't use current science as the standard
for excluding the possibility of a more advanced science:

"For example, science says it's impossible to travel at the speed of
light. If it were possible, it would take four years of traveling at the
speed of light to get to the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri.

"Given our current technology, it would probably take us 50,000 years to
get there, plus or minus. Based on that, the scientific establishment
somewhat blithely dismisses the existence of extraterrestrials.

"It's like saying if we can't do it, they can't do it either."

More:
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/07/15/wecker071504.html
Paul Lawler - 25 Aug 2004 19:23 GMT
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:6v4Xc.58582$pTn.14089
@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:

> "Does ET exist from a political perspective? No, because the government
> is afraid of the culture shock and public panic. For the government to
> acknowledge the existence of extraterrestrials here would be to admit it
> can't protect us from them.

I'm sorry... weren't you just arguing in another thread that the governments
of Russia, Japan, Poland, Mexico and Israel all openly acknowleged the
existence of alien spacecraft UFOs?
Ugo - 26 Aug 2004 01:20 GMT
> Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:6v4Xc.58582$pTn.14089
> @news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> of Russia, Japan, Poland, Mexico and Israel all openly acknowleged the
> existence of alien spacecraft UFOs?

Why, oh why, oh why do you even bother Paul???

I've long been reluctant to give anyone the priviledge of being the first
in my killfile, but reading Mad Scientist's spewings gets him on the very
edge of sinking into my very own black hole...

The only thing that keeps me from doing it is watching some of you folks
trying desperately to straithen Mad out, but to no effect...
I'm curious, are you amused by him as well or simply bored with nothing
better to do? :)

Signature

The butler did it.

Wally Anglesea - 26 Aug 2004 04:17 GMT
>> Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:6v4Xc.58582$pTn.14089
>> @news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> I'm curious, are you amused by him as well or simply bored with nothing
> better to do? :)

My own position is that Mad Scientist is kind of like the heckler at the
back of the audience demanding attention, and trying to disrupt the rest of
the audience.
I've seen it at the occasional public session, discovery night, and public
viewing night. For the genuinely misinformed, I'm polite. For the
deliberately misinformed, you don't have to be polite for long, once you see
their agenda. So I stop being polite. The rest of the audience sees the big
lie that people like MS call out, and the rest of the audience gets an
education, and pretty soon they themselves see that they can dismiss the
rantings of the deliberately misinformed. So it's often beneficial.

Other times, my colleagues have shut up the deliberately misinformed by
saying something along the lines of "I've already shown your position to be
wrong, now if you don't mind, The rest of the people are hear to learn
something".

I prefer the former, so my colleagues often send the odd kook to me.

If anyone ever stumbles along looking for answers in this newsgroup, they
would see how easy it is to counteract anything MS says, and be less likely
to think he has anything to contribute.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.