> Hi,
 >> None of the nearby stars have planets in a
 >> configuration that will
 >> support life as we know it. We cannot see the planets
 >> (if any) but
 >> we can detect a wobble from the star. This is a dead
 >> giveaway that
 >> one or more planets exist in an orbit around the star.
 >>  We know of
 >> no nearby stars that have such a wobble.
 >  According to the 'experts' on the astronomy echo there are
 > several within 50 light years that show evidence of planets.
...But are the stars of a group that could have planets capable of
supporting life as we know it?  They would have to be of the G-2 class.
 >> faster. The fastest
 >> speed measurement ever made of an object containing
 >> mass was that of a
 >> receding quasar clocked at .75c. The energy source for
 >> this feat can
 >> be attributed to the energy released at the time of
 >> the Big Bang itself.
 >  REf. as above; If one takes the earth as being the object in
 > question then relative to any objects we can see, from the
 > position they are relative to us, we are travelling away from them
 > at over .9c
Any planet we were moving away from at that speed would probably not
be able to observe us. I have a problem with your statement, but lack
the science background to argue the issue with you. Where's that
science officer when I need him? George? George, George, George of
the (cyber) jungle, where are you?
Jack
--- FMail 1.22
---------------