pzkpfw

And some magic, you forgot the magic.

The orbits of the planets around our sun are pretty complicated, because they all affect each other to some extent. The orbits are of course not the perfect ellipses normally drawn. But that's all obvious and well known. It so well known that (e.g.) "In 1846, the planet Neptune was discovered after its existence was predicted because of discrepancies between calculations and data for the planet Uranus. Astronomers found the new planet almost exactly at the position predicted by the calculations of Leverrier (Adams had also calculated the position independently)." http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/perturbations.html (For that matter, the Sun itself isn't "fixed" as such, the planets affect it: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter)

People get emails from Nigerian Princes who are asking for a little money to help getting their vast money out of the country, in exchange for sharing that vast money. Some people send those "princes" money , get asked for more money; and in the end never see any of it again. Other people ignore and delete the spam, because they have working bullshit detectors. Your bullshit detector is broken.

For Bmpbmp1975 this is clearly less entertainment, and more unhealthy obsession. (Even in his reply to you.) But of course I'm not qualified to judge, and I'm not trying to. I'm suggesting he or she ought to go see a professional who can.

Betelguese is just one of several topics I've seen you post about on more than one forum; all leading to doom. Every answer, you twist (and misunderstand) into reinforcing your belief. You clearly want us all to be doomed. Medical advice is something you shouldn't get from a web forum, but I think it's acceptable to say that you do need medical advice. Go find a counsellor or psychologist to talk to. Science discussion won't help you. You need to know why you want us all to be doomed.

Since I can't see inside dad's head, I can't assume he has a brain exactly like everyone else. So, I propose it's made of green cheese.

Did Eddington's experiment actually need the exact kind of eclipse we now get? The point is starlight "bent" around the Sun, and the Moon eclipsing the Sun making it possible to record that. If the Moon were only partially blocking the Sun, I don't see why a similar experiment couldn't have been performed; maybe just with slightly more difficulty.

"... In the what-keeps-me-up-at-night category, this object ranks pretty low. ..." It means stop trying to find things to worry about. Your doomsday cult should be based on some real, identifiable risk, like climate change. (Also, why does your profile say your favourite area of science is "astrology"? That's NOT a science.)

As it says in the page you linked to : "Due to the uncertainty in the value, this age for the star may or may not conflict with the calculated age of the Universe". And "... if the assumptions of stellar evolution are correct in the report ...". And "... Theories exist allowing for an older age of the universe than conventionally accepted ..." (I bet you are hoping it's close, and about to go "pop", so you can be worried something will kill us all. Are you trying to start a doomsday cult?)

So, another speculative theory framed (hidden) as a question.

What do you think the reaction would be if bananas purple angst flowerpot?

For one thing, a body is made of parts. If you lift a 60 kg weight with your arm, the arm has to cope will all 60 kg. A 60 kg person lifting themselves, does it in parts. Their neck lifts their head. Their core lifts their torso plus neck plus head. Their legs lift all the above. It's not an apples to apples comparison. A 60 kg person doing a one-handed pull up or press up, would be a fairer comparison.

*there

The deepest mystery in physics is people who don't know things, complaining about the people who do know things - not everything - and who are trying to learn more. Why is it so? Possibly the Dunning–Kruger effect.

We're watching you.

I try to avoid magical thinking, but a certain, um, speculators recent ranting threats had me wondering.

The OP also included "... What about home stereos, car stereos; do they lack the CD now ? From 8 track to cassette to CD to MP3 to nothing. Where do modern people keep their music, videos, movies ..." and that's where a lot of the conversation went. As for personal files, for years I've seen a heck of a lot more USB connected hard drives (now transitioning to SSD) used than CD. Add to that a good cloud backup solution, still no need for CD's. I'm not sure I'd trust a writable CD for very long term storage. Not a regular HDD either. Probably they key with digital information is to keep transferring to newer formats (and in multiples). (... don't want to end up like NASA, with data stored on tapes for which they have trouble finding readers.)

My large pile of CD's is in a box somewhere, next to my two beer crates of vinyl. Not taking up room in my lounge, not getting scratched or lost. Instead, everything I ever owned - and much much more - is available via Spotify, on my PS3, connected to my stereo. (No antivirus needed.) I already have internet etc anyway, so that's no extra cost. And Spotify itself costs less per month than one CD per month would have cost. And in any case, it's bundled with my cell phone plan so works out cheaper than sticker price. (Yes, no free lunch and all that.) With bluetooth, and access via my phone, which has GB and GB of space (and Spotify allows downloads) I have my music everywhere. I don't miss CD's.

Ever been in a 747 and have a ships' radar pick you out?

You started the thread, it's up to you to provide something of substance to back up your claim of a "theory". Instead you've spent most of your time complaining about another poster. Let it go. Try "doing science".

*you're *medal

Post #49 here contains some great animations that I think are relevant: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-velocity-of-a-moving-frame-of-reference.972860/page-2

Polarising filters may be relevant.

You've heard of clouds?

It's not about transparency, it's about the light from stars being dim and being washed-out by daylight. Your eyes can't cope with bright light from your surroundings, and see the stars. Same reason photos taken on the Moon generally don't show stars - even though there's practically no atmosphere there. A satellite camera will be arranged so that direct sunlight doesn't cause the same issue. There's no reason for simple air to be one-way transparent. edit: at night, where do you think the atmosphere goes to make stars visible?