Sun's Hot Surface: Influence of Jupiter on our Sun~~~
granite stone
Sun's Hot Surface: Influence of Jupiter on our Sun
By: Jon Riley B.A., Toronto, Canada, x34...@yahoo.com
all pictures at;
Abstract
All planets or moons that have active volcanoes with magma, such
as Earth and Io, rotate at high speeds (Earth 24 hours).
It is possible in theory that if the largest planet, Jupiter gives
the Sun elongation (bulge), and with the Sun's rotation at 25 days as
being a high speed, since the Sun's mass is large, the hot surface
maybe the result of high rotation speed and elongation (bulge).
Elongation is when the two bodies bulge one another and friction is
created when the bodies spin within the bulge. A tide on Earth is when
the Moon and Earth line up to force the waters of the ocean into a
bulge giving two high and two low tides. In the same way, the largest
planet Jupiter may force the Sun into elongation and create a hot
surface. Moreover the Sun maybe is in extreme elongation when Jupiter,
Saturn and the Sun are in lineal orbit and increase the solar energy to
Earth during these times making hot climates possibly every thousand
years. Also, Earth's magma and the Sun's hot surface maybe the
result of the same action.
Introduction
The hot surface of the Sun and the magma of Earth come from the
same theory, having a high rotation speed and being elongated from
other planets or moons, that is, bulging with another body and spinning
within the bulge.
Earth rotates in 24 hours and Io in 1.7 days and both have a hot
centre with magma. All other satellites and planets in our solar
system rotate at roughly 15 days and have zero volcanic activity. See
table 1. A second factor is needed for magma, having a satellite or
being a satellite. And a third factor is needed for magma, a similar
mass of planet or satellite.
The old theory of where magma comes from is that there is pressure
on the planet from itself. This is not possible if other planets or
moons similar to Earth have no volcanoes and magma. With the Sun, it
is thought that the hot surface is from something similar to a nuclear
reaction and will burn out in 10 billion years. This is not so, the
Sun is hot due to the orbit it has with Jupiter and the two form a
friction.
Table 1: Rotation Speeds of Planets and Moons
planet or moon rotation speed - Earth days
earth 1
earth's moon 0
Venus 20
Mars (no large
Satellites) 1.05
Sun 25
Mercury 58.6462
Io 1.769138
Europa 3.55
Ganymede 7.15
Callisto 16.689
Since high rotation is needed for the creation of magma, looking
at table one, it is noted that all planets of moons with low rotation
speeds have zero volcanic activity. And Earth and Io have high
rotation speeds giving way to volcanic activity. Mars has a satellite
with a rotation speed of 1.05 days and would therefore have magma but
the two moons of Mars are very small with a mass of Deimos at 1.8 x
10^15 kg and Phobos at 1.08 x 10^16 kg compared to the mass of
Earth's Moon Luna at 7.36 x 10^22 kg. Earth's Moon Luna would have
magma if it rotated but does not rotate. As for Venus which has
volcanoes it may elongate with the sun since it has no moon.
Looking a figure 2 one can see that the planet is forced to be
elliptical with high rotation giving way to the Earth' s crust bending
with friction and creating magma.
The tides on earth have two low and two high. In the same way
tides exist due to the elongation of the planet by the moon. Old
faithful in Yellowstone Park has a period similar to the moon's tide
but stems from the earth magma. Since the tides of Earth and magma of
Earth have similarities, Earth's moon, Luna, creates both. Old
Faithful has almost a daily burst to the hour. However, the Luna
rotates every 27.5 days around the Earth. Therefore in days the number
is 27.5/30 in a month of 30 days. Equal to .916 days, that is, for
every Earth day, Luna rotates .916. Old Faithful is active every .916
days showing that Luna is the source of activity. As said earlier a
third factor is needed, high rotation of the planet. As Earth rotates
in 24 hours in the elongation of a .916 day of Luna, friction is given
on the crust giving magma and energy for Old Faithful.
Magnetic Poles
In theory if the high rotation of a planet and being with a
satellite creates magma other forces must result. The magnetic force
of Earth's two magnetic poles must also be from these two factors.
As the planet rotates with a moon the planet acts as a giant turbine
creating a magnetic current and two poles. In theory all stars, planets
and moons with high rotation and elongation, will have magnetic
currents and magnetic poles.
The Solar System is like Jupiter
If it is true and the Sun has a hot surface due to being with a
giant planet, Jupiter, it may be correct to judge our solar system as
being similar to the area of Jupiter and Jupiter's moons. Jupiter and
Jupiter's moons are a tiny solar system compared to our solar system.
And the Sun with planets is a giant Jupiter system with moons.
Craig M. Bobchin
influence of Jupiter or any other planet in the solar system. It has to
do with Hydrogen fusing into Helium via nuclear (or as Bush prefers
Nukular) fusion.
How would you explain the temps. of stars that have no planetary
systems? Or are you suggesting that all stars have planetary systems
around them?
Please read some basic physics books.
In article <1140635883.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
x34...@yahoo.com says...
--
You have no right to protection against being offended.
Chu Mai Wang
"granite stone" <x34...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140635883.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I have re-written the article. Hope you understand it.
>
> Sun's Hot Surface: Influence of Jupiter on our Sun
>
> By: Jon Riley B.A., Toronto, Canada, x34...@yahoo.com
>
> all pictures at;
>
> www.kfcircuits.com/Sun.pdf
>
> Abstract
>
> All planets or moons that have active volcanoes with magma, such
> as Earth and Io, rotate at high speeds (Earth 24 hours).
ROFLMAO!!!
George
"Chu Mai Wang" <C...@ysbqsgd.net> wrote in message
news:ys3Lf.14960$jh5.9456@edtnps84...
Umm, Mars rotates roughly the same speed as the earth, and as far as I
know, it has no active volcanoes. NEXT!
George
David Knisely
> All planets or moons that have active volcanoes with magma, such
> as Earth and Io, rotate at high speeds (Earth 24 hours).
snip...
> Table 1: Rotation Speeds of Planets and Moons
>
> planet or moon rotation speed - Earth days
>
> earth 1
> earth's moon 0
> Venus 20
> Mars (no large
> Satellites) 1.05
> Sun 25
> Mercury 58.6462
> Io 1.769138
> Europa 3.55
> Ganymede 7.15
> Callisto 16.689
No, I'm afraid not. Venus rotates *very* slowly (243 days, *not* 20).
It had (and probably still has) active volcanoes. The Earth's moon
rotates (with respect to the stars) in a period of 27.322 days. It is
in tidal lock with the Earth (as is Io with Jupiter), so only one face
is observable from Earth, but it *still* rotates. If you lived on
Jupiter, you would also see only one side of Io.
As for the rest of your posting, there is so much wrong with it that I
can only say you need to take some basic science courses and come back
when you understand what their teachers have told you (and stay off of
sci.astro.amateur, as this is rather off-topic for that newsgroup).
Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************
granite stone
> Umm, Mars rotates roughly the same speed as the earth, and as far as I
> know, it has no active volcanoes. NEXT!
>
> George
As I said in the article, Mars is the same as Earth with rotation and
size but has no large moons.
granite stone
making it a star. How do you know some stars have no planets?
granite stone
rotation time.
Insults are not needed.
David Knisely
> Your facts are wrong. You are getting an obit time mixed up with a
> rotation time.
No, I'm afraid that your "facts" are what is wrong. You don't
understand that rotation is not necessarily relative. The moon does
rotate with respect to an interial frame. It just happens to rotate at
about the same rate as it revolves around the Earth which is why we only
see mostly one side when we stand here and look at it. If we somehow
remmoved the Earth, the moon would continue rotating every 27 days or
so. If you were standing on the sun and looked at the moon with a
telescope, you would be able to see each side as it rotates, just as
when we look at Io from Earth, we can see it rotate as well. With
respect to the sun, the Earth's moon rotates. If you were standing on
the moon and looking at the stars, you would see them rise and set.
With respect to the stars, the moon rotates. The moon's orbit is also
not circular, so at times, its velocity is different than its rotation
speed. Thus, we can see the moon appear to rock back and forth thus
demonstrating that it *does* rotate.
Venus does rotate, but not in 20 days! This is again an incorrect
statement.
> Insults are not needed.
No insults were provided! You don't appear to understand things when
many people here have been patient enough to try to explain things to
you. You can't seem to grasp how rotation works (as well as a bunch of
other things which you made mistakes on). The fact is that you *need*
to take some courses in the sciences so you can understand basic
astronomical concepts. You also haven't read the sci.astro.amateur
charter which states that discussions like this are somewhat off-topic
for that newsgroup (sci.astro.amateur is for the hobby of amateur
astronomy and not speculative scientific discussions). To continue with
your postings here is to invite derision. So be it....
David Knisely
> According to my theory, all stars would have a planet like Jupiter
> making it a star. How do you know some stars have no planets?
How do you know that all stars *do* have planets? The is *no*
requirement that a star have planets to be considered a star. Sirius-B
very likely has no planets, and many very low-mass or extremely
high-mass high-luminosity stars probably don't have them either. Many
eccentric binary stars probably do not have planets, as the wildness of
the orbits and the gravitational perturbations would cause any planetary
bodies to either collide with one of the stars or be ejected from the
system.
Stephen Tonkin
>I have re-written the article. Hope you understand it.
I understood it the first time.
It was BS then; it is still BS. It is riddled with elementary errors.
However, we should never allow inconvenient trivialities like evidence,
facts or reason get in the way of inane crackpot theories...
Best,
Stephen
Remove footfrommouth to reply
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | <http://astunit.com> +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Jonathan Silverlight
<KA0...@navix.net> writes
>granite stone posted:
>
>> Your facts are wrong. You are getting an obit time mixed up with a
>> rotation time.
>
>No, I'm afraid that your "facts" are what is wrong.
David, before you encourage this offensive little troll any more you
should know that eventually his reply will be "fuckoff go to hell." (do
a search if you want).
Sam Wormley
> I have re-written the article. Hope you understand it.
>
Flush that attempt down the toilet! You would benefit
greatly from studying some first year college physics.
Dan
mass planet present?
Dan
"granite stone" <x34...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140640109.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Craig M. Bobchin
In article <aadd2$43fcd672$8b37d1c0$28...@ALLTEL.NET>, KA0...@navix.net
says...
> granite stone wrote:
>
> > According to my theory, all stars would have a planet like Jupiter
> > making it a star. How do you know some stars have no planets?
>
> How do you know that all stars *do* have planets? The is *no*
> requirement that a star have planets to be considered a star. Sirius-B
> very likely has no planets, and many very low-mass or extremely
> high-mass high-luminosity stars probably don't have them either. Many
> eccentric binary stars probably do not have planets, as the wildness of
> the orbits and the gravitational perturbations would cause any planetary
> bodies to either collide with one of the stars or be ejected from the
> system.
>
--
Home Despot
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:ZP5Lf.784161$x96.398507@attbi_s72...
You mean university physics..UN-I-VERSITY!
Llanzlan Klazmon
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> I have re-written the article. Hope you understand it.
It's still nonsense.
Klazmon.
Llanzlan Klazmon
$29...@ALLTEL.NET:
He's already been told this the last time he posted this nonsense. I
suspect he's just seeking attention.
Klazmon.
Starlord
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
"Home Despot" <Despot@ynjhg ybj.com> wrote in message
news:tK6Lf.2151$Cp4.1688@edtnps90...
George
You said in your post "All planets or moons that have active volcanoes with
magma, such
>> as Earth and Io, rotate at high speeds", and that is incorrect, since
>> Mars rotates just as fast as the earth, yet has no active volcanoes, as
>> I've pointed out.
George
George
"David Knisely" <KA0...@navix.net> wrote in message
news:e9b02$43fcd420$8b37d1c0$27...@ALLTEL.NET...
> granite stone posted:
>
>> Your facts are wrong. You are getting an obit time mixed up with a
>> rotation time.
>
> No, I'm afraid that your "facts" are what is wrong. You don't understand
> that rotation is not necessarily relative. The moon does rotate with
> respect to an interial frame. It just happens to rotate at about the
> same rate as it revolves around the Earth which is why we only see mostly
> one side when we stand here and look at it. If we somehow remmoved the
> Earth, the moon would continue rotating every 27 days or so. If you were
> standing on the sun and looked at the moon with a telescope, you would be
> able to see each side as it rotates, just as when we look at Io from
> Earth, we can see it rotate as well. With respect to the sun, the
> Earth's moon rotates. If you were standing on the moon and looking at
> the stars, you would see them rise and set. With respect to the stars,
> the moon rotates. The moon's orbit is also not circular, so at times,
> its velocity is different than its rotation speed. Thus, we can see the
> moon appear to rock back and forth thus demonstrating that it *does*
> rotate.
He has been told this by at least a dozen people here.
John Carruthers
"granite stone" <x34...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140635883.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I have re-written the article. Hope you understand it.
>
> Sun's Hot Surface: Influence of Jupiter on our Sun
>
> By: Jon Riley B.A., Toronto, Canada, x34...@yahoo.com
>
> all pictures at;
>
> www.kfcircuits.com/Sun.pdf
>
> Abstract
>
> All planets or moons that have active volcanoes with magma, such
> as Earth and Io, rotate at high speeds (Earth 24 hours).
Might I suggest, as politely as possible, that as you have an interest in planetary science, you
take a look at the Open University course S283, "An Introduction to Astronomy and Planetary Science"
along with its sister course S282 they give a fine grounding in this fascinating subject. I feel you
would enjoy them. Successful completion of both courses entitles one to use the letters Cert APS
(Open).
--
John Carruthers
Cert APS (Open)
Cert Nat Sci (Open)
http://mysite.freeserve.com/jc_atm/
Dr John Stockton
, dated Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:18:03 remote, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy,
granite stone <x34...@yahoo.com> posted :
>I have re-written the article. Hope you understand it.
>
>Sun's Hot Surface: Influence of Jupiter on our Sun
>
>By: Jon Riley B.A., Toronto, Canada, x34...@yahoo.com
> All planets or moons that have active volcanoes with magma, such
>as Earth and Io, rotate at high speeds (Earth 24 hours).
Scientific illiteracy. Speed and angular velocity are dimensionally
different.
> It is possible in theory that if the largest planet, Jupiter gives
>the Sun elongation (bulge), and with the Sun's rotation at 25 days as
>being a high speed, since the Sun's mass is large, the hot surface
>maybe the result of high rotation speed and elongation (bulge).
Linguistic illiteracy. "Maybe" and "may be" are not interchangeable.
>Elongation is when the two bodies bulge one another and friction is
>created when the bodies spin within the bulge. A tide on Earth is when
>the Moon and Earth line up to force the waters of the ocean into a
>bulge giving two high and two low tides.
Geometrical illiteracy. Two bodies cannot line up.
> In the same way, the largest
>planet Jupiter may force the Sun into elongation and create a hot
>surface.
And we see that the rest is no better.
Since Ham's job is no longer on offer, you should consider a career as a
politician; your abilities are not adapted for anything else.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Laury
news:1140635883.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Abstract
|
...
| It is possible in theory that if the largest planet, Jupiter
gives
| the Sun elongation (bulge), and with the Sun's rotation at 25 days as
| being a high speed, since the Sun's mass is large, the hot surface
| maybe the result of high rotation speed and elongation (bulge).
If I understand you correctly, you hypothesise that the
heating of a the Sun is due to, and only to, gravitation
distortion by Jupiter (and perhaps other planets?).
I think you should prepare an energy analysis to validate
your hypothesis. I've done a very rough one below based on
figures which are very approximate and unchecked.
First you need to know the energy given off by the Sun which
is about 4 x 10^33 ergs per second.
I expect you know that heating of a body due to
gravitational distortion is at the expense of the kinetic
energy of the two (or more) bodies involved. So let's see
how much energy we have to play with:
Rotation energy of the Sun
--------------------------
Sun's moment of inertia is 4 x 10^54 gm cm^2
Sun's rotation is about once in 27 days, or 3 x 10^-6 radians/sec
So energy of rotation of the Sun is about 2 x 10^41 ergs
Orbital energy of Jupiter
-------------------------
Jupiter's mass 2 x 10^30 gm
Jupiter's orbital speed 10^6 cm/sec
So energy of Jupiter's orbital motion = 10^42 ergs
So the energy available is of the order of 10^42 ergs.
So, how many seconds would this keep the Sun going? In the
order of 10^9 seconds, or 30 years.
Well, perhaps I got some calculations or figures wrong.
--
Laury
granite stone
earth always faced the sun, earth would not be known to rotate.
Richard Tobin
granite stone <x34...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>moreover, the planets and moons are moving from a "big bang" or
>something similar. the movements give friction to the sun.
Are their orbits changing in accordance with the energy that they
are losing to the sun?
-- Richard
Phil Wheeler
> moreover, the planets and moons are moving from a "big bang" or
> something similar. the movements give friction to the sun.
>
Good grief. Time for another troll filter.
granite stone
orbits has nothing to do with the energy that they are losing to the
Sun.
granite stone
sun most likely equal the energy of the heat of the sun.
also, the energy to move all the planets is greater than anything in
our solar system. the movement of the planets today is far greater
than the energy of the sun.
Brian Tung
I suspect you're unlikely to accept this, but you are comparing two
utterly incomparable things.
Objects in motion have a certain amount of energy, which we call
kinetic energy. In the mks metric system, it is measured in joules.
If you were to cut off any energy generation to the planets, they would
continue to rotate and revolve just as they do now. The Sun would also
continue to rotate.
The heat of the Sun, however, is not an energy. It is power, or energy
per unit time. If you cut off the Sun's power supply, whatever it
happens to be, it stops shining. In mks, we measure the Sun's power in
watts, which is equivalent to joules per second.
In other words, comparing the kinetic energy of planetary revolution
and solar rotation to the power of the Sun's heat and light is like
comparing the distance between two objects to their velocities. They
are measured in different units altogether and can't be compared like
that, nor can you add one to the other.
--
Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
It takes no energy to move the planets. Because they are moving, they
possess kinetic energy, which can be transferred to other objects
(indeed, many space probes increase their own energy by stealing energy
from planets during flybys). When a planet gives up some of its orbital
energy, it necessarily drops into a different orbit.
It is not difficult to calculate what would happen to Jupiter's orbit if
it were powering the Sun.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
granite stone
reference to earth, and the 4 ocean tides each day.
Richard Tobin
You miss the point. If they are losing energy to the sun as you claim,
their orbits must be changing to match. Are they?
-- Richard
Richard Tobin
granite stone <x34...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>if the planets have kinetic energy what energy does the moon have with
>reference to earth, and the 4 ocean tides each day.
Because the earth rotates on its axis faster than the moon orbits the
earth, the moon is gaining kinetic energy from the earth because of
tidal drag, and the earth is losing it. Eventually (ignoring other
events) the moon's orbit will match the earth's rotation, and the moon
will be fixed in the sky from the viewpoint of the earth, just as the
earth is fixed in the sky from the viewpoint of the moon.
-- Richard
Craig Oldfield
x34...@yahoo.com says...
> fuckoff go to hell.
>
>
You really are a sad pathetic nutter.
--
Craig Oldfield
granite stone
giving forces to other
planets/orbits. the tidal force on earth due to the orbit of the moon
is the same as the force of Jupiter on the sun.
i am going to be famous.
granite stone
thus the orbits would get smaller over time.
Jonathan Silverlight
<cr...@craigoldfield.co.uk> writes
>In article <1140802394.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>x34...@yahoo.com says...
>> fuckoff go to hell.
>>
>>
>You really are a sad pathetic nutter.
I did warn you. It's his stock response. Kill file him, and have done
with it. And file an abuse report. Google can't have more than a few
thousand already - they admit they don't act on them. Kill file the
whole domain.
granite stone
the solar system was enormous. that energy is slowly being exerted on
the sun.
granite stone
my rights to post a post.
granite stone
granite stone
>possess kinetic energy, which can be transferred to other objects
>(indeed, many space probes increase their own energy by stealing energy
>from planets during flybys). When a planet gives up some of its orbital
>energy, it necessarily drops into a different orbit.
>It is not difficult to calculate what would happen to Jupiter's orbit
>if
>it were powering the Sun.
interesting........but i still think none of the planets have kinetic
energy and are exerting forces on the sun.
John Carruthers
"granite stone" <x34...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140825429....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
--
You keep repeating this mantra Jon, but it is still not true and cannot be proven. You might seek
out the late Prof Feynman's thoughts and views on such a situation.
John Carruthers
http://mysite.freeserve.com/jc_atm/
John Carruthers
> fuckoff go to hell.
>
"Be sure the words you use are sweet and tasteful - you might have to eat them tomorrow"
--
At the risk of repeating myself
".. If you could work out a test, say predicting the properties of extrasolar planets not yet
detected, correctly, you might be on firmer ground. :-) Though it will be some time I think before
we can infer molten cores in any extrasolar planets. How do you define 'magma' ? molten silicates or
any eruptive fluid ? (I'm thinking of cryovulcanism here)
At which point of a planet's (or planetesimal's) geologic history does this idea refer ?
Larger/denser bodies retain their primordial accretional heat better and so longer. Radiogenic
heating plays a very large part. Tidal heating also, but more if there's a greater disparity in the
bodies' masses. Atmospheres and distance from their star as well as the star's energy output all
contribute..."
Some food for thought;
How old would you estimate the sun and planets to be ?
I take it you do not agree with the accretional model of solar system formation ? (Google for "Jeans
mass")
Or the conservation of energy laws ?
How much of the phenomena that we see on the sun's surface do you attribute to magnetic forces ?
John Carruthers
http://mysite.freeserve.com/jc_atm/
Craig Oldfield
x34...@yahoo.com says...
> i am saying the planets and orbits are not kinetic energy. the orbit
> of the moon around
> earth gives us huge tital forces everyday, two high and two low tides.
> that is not kinetic energy.
>
> i am going to be famous.
>
>
--
Craig Oldfield
Förster vom Silberwald
granite stone wrote:
> I have re-written the article. Hope you understand it.
>
> Sun's Hot Surface: Influence of Jupiter on our Sun
>
> By: Jon Riley B.A., Toronto, Canada, x34...@yahoo.com
>
> all pictures at;
>
> www.kfcircuits.com/Sun.pdf
Hello: I have not studied your texts in depth. However, let me point
out there appeared some articles in the 60's or 70's (if I recall
rightly) in peer-reviewed journals about the topic.
Where did you got your idea? It would be a good idea if you will cite
your references.
Schneewittchen
Förster vom Silberwald
David Knisely wrote:
> As for the rest of your posting, there is so much wrong with it that I
> can only say you need to take some basic science courses and come back
> when you understand what their teachers have told you (and stay off of
> sci.astro.amateur, as this is rather off-topic for that newsgroup).
> Clear skies to you.
As I wrote elsewhere I believe he pinched the idea from some other
sources. However, there were indeed some papers in peer-reviewed
journals who tried to make some correlations between solar sunspots,
solar surface and the gravity exposed by planets.
I have never red any of this papers. It would have been interesting
where he got his sources. It would have been also interesting whether
he red some of the original "ideas"-papers since they were written by
professional astronomers.
Schneewittchen
granite stone
asking where I copied this from. Still an insult but I have moved out
of the gutter to the sidewalk.
You will not believe this but I thought of the idea that magma and the
hot surface of the sun are from the same force, elongation. (see my
article for elongation) And too, from high planet rotation. Last
summer on my sailboat I started to write this article. I first thought
of it when I was asked "where does magma comes from" on a term paper at
Lakehead University. I was studying Geography and had a course
Astronomy under my belt. During my research, just done at google, I
looked at the planets and moons that had high rotation and compared
this to planets and moons that had a magma surface. During my google
search I saw that the sun rotated at 25 days and it too, might be from
the same forces, elongation and high rotation. Earth and Io rotate at
higher speeds, 1 day, but the sun, since it is so big, might have a hot
surface from the result of high rotation speed and elongation (bulge).
In the fall, when I just had 2 pages written, I went to NASA websites
and read articles about Mars and any new articles on magma. I tried
emailing authors about my new idea but just got a few emails back that
"magma remains a mystery". And that I was wrong. I had a feeling that
my article was not read. But, I did get one email from a scientist at
NASA which has motivated me being here. THis is the place to be for
new ideas but the ridiculing is so much!
Jon Riley
granite stone
John Carruthers
> hot surface of the sun are from the same force, elongation. (see my
> article for elongation)
You should publish Jon, if this is as hot as you hope the journals will be fighting for it.
--
John Carruthers
http://mysite.freeserve.com/jc_atm/
George
> with reference to earth, the moon does not rotate. if the same side
> earth always faced the sun, earth would not be known to rotate.
"Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a
different result"
- Albert EInstein
George
granite stone
can think of, is to compare the energy of the Jupiter obit to the
energy of the sun. But, I would not know where to start on this one.
>How do you define 'magma' ? molten silicates or
>any eruptive fluid ? (I'm thinking of cryovulcanism here)
I define magma as a fluid from the core of the planet that reaches the
surface. This would include cryovulcanism.
>At which point of a planet's (or planetesimal's) geologic history does this idea refer ?
Some planets and moons have old volcanic craters and it does not
include these planets or moons. I am referring to planets and moons of
today and what is going on today.
>Larger/denser bodies retain their primordial accretional heat better and so longer. Radiogenic
>heating plays a very large part. Tidal heating also, but more if there's a greater disparity in the
>bodies' masses. Atmospheres and distance from their star as well as the star's energy output all
>contribute..."
This is the theory I found for magma but I disagree with it.
>Some food for thought;
>How old would you estimate the sun and planets to be ?
I know Hubble is finding galaxies that are 13 billion light years away
so I don't believe in the big bang 4 billion years ago. I think our
galaxy is trillions of years old and so is our sun.
>I take it you do not agree with the accretional model of solar system formation ? (Google for "Jeans
>mass")
I did a google search and found this interesting but disagree. You
have recommended taking a course but I think reading good
books/internet sites is the same thing. I have learned so much writing
here.
>How much of the phenomena that we see on the sun's surface do you attribute to magnetic forces ?
If this is referring to the Sun being like a nuclear reaction, I
disagree.
granite stone
from? No one has answered this. It would not be kinetic energy.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>I say this and ask where does the energy of the Moon and the tides come
>from? No one has answered this. It would not be kinetic energy.
And why not? All the planets and their satellites have kinetic energy,
both from their orbital motion and their rotational motion. The energy
that originally set these bodies in motion was from the gravitational
collapse of the nebula that produced the Solar System.
All of the bodies in the Solar System affect each other gravitationally,
transferring energy between themselves. In some cases this is
measurable. The Moon and Earth produce tidal forces on one another, and
this has resulted in a tidally locked Moon, which has a rotation period
and revolution period that are the same (on average). These tides are
transferring energy from the Earth to the Moon- we see this as a slowing
down of the Earth's rotation, and an increase in the size of the Moon's
orbit. Both effects are confirmed by actual measurement.
Something similar is going on between the Sun and Jupiter. I seem to
recall that a tiny tidal bulge may have been measured on the Sun,
although I don't recall the reference. In any case, the tidal forces
between the Sun and Jupiter are extremely small because of their large
separation. Any energy transfer between the two is extremely tiny
compared with the energy output of the Sun.
By my calculation, Jupiter's total KE is equal to the total energy
output of the Sun for 13 years. Not very impressive in the grand scheme
of a solar system that is nearly 5 billion years old.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
granite stone
do with me. Thought that this was kind of funny since the source of
magma has never been discovered. I think I need to rewrite a better
paper and submit again. It has hard explaining this theory to
astronomers. Sometimes I feel if I die no one will ever publish this.
I really think I have discovered something. Maybe you could help me.
Want to write a 20 page paper?
Jon Riley
x34...@yahoo.com(no spam)
Laury
|
| Laury,
| Actually you got me thinking. Is the movement of Jupiter
| the same energy as the heat from the Sun?
Well, your idea got me thinking and I thought I'd work out how much heat
could be generated by the tidal effects you suggest.
I'm not sure how best to answer your question, though. The reason is
that my previous answer provided that answer, but your knowledge of
physics is not enough to allow you see the implications.
I'm sure you know that if you brake a car, the disks get hot because the
energy of the car's motion is being turned to heat energy.
One of the fundamentals foundations of physics is that energy is neither
created nor destroyed. If the Sun is radiating energy, something is
losing energy. Your idea is that Jupiter's tidal forces are heating the
sun. As a consequence, Jupiter and/or the Sun must be losing energy. I
looked at Jupiter's kinetic energy (energy of motion) and worked out how
long it would last if it was being converted into heating the Sun. As
with a car braking, so Jupiter would be slowed down.
What the figures showed was that, if all the energy stored in Jupiter's
motion were turned to heat in the Sun, it would allow the Sun to shine
at it's current level for another 30 years. A that time, Jupiter would
have been slowed to a stop, and the sun would stop shining.
I simplified it a bit because I was interested in seeing whether the
energy would last for days, years or millennia. I didn't have a clue
when I started. The answer was 30 years, but that's a very very rough
figure. But you can be fairly sure that it's between 3 and 300 years.
Incidentally, I used the centimetre-gram-second system for my
calculations which rather old-fashioned. In that system, energy is
measured in ergs, an erg being about as much energy as a flea jump.
I hope that helps.
--
.-. Laury
(o o)
{\0/}
Laury
news:0apuv1t2c55v2glqr...@4ax.com...
| It is not difficult to calculate what would happen to Jupiter's orbit
if
| it were powering the Sun.
Out of interest, I did that calculation in another post here, and
estimated Jupiter would slow to a stop in about 30 years if all its
orbital kinetic energy were converted to 'sunlight'. I'd welcome it if
you could tell me of any glaring errors. I rounded everything to one
figure as I was intersted in seeing the order of magnitude.
--
Laury
Laury
| By my calculation, Jupiter's total KE is equal to the total energy
| output of the Sun for 13 years. Not very impressive in the grand
scheme
| of a solar system that is nearly 5 billion years old.
Aha! My order of magnitude figure was 30 years including energy of
rotation of the Sun, with the Sun contributing 1/6th. Thanks.
--
Laury
John Carruthers
--
John Carruthers
http://mysite.freeserve.com/jc_atm/
"granite stone" <x34...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140881393.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
granite stone
very large. (by the way, I have a college physics course behind me)
How can you work out the energy of the orbit as being low? Jupiter is
very large. In comparison to Saturn, 3 times bigger. The energy to
form Jupiter and put it into place, if that is what happened, was
enormous. I think the energy of the obit of Jupiter is very large.
Also, the Moon has been giving Earth a tide for millions of years.
Please explain how much energy is in our moon's orbit.
Phil Wheeler
> Good morning......Wow. Someone instead of telling me I am a troll is
> asking where I copied this from. Still an insult but I have moved out
> of the gutter to the sidewalk.
Trolls live under bridges, I believe .. not in gutters.
But you perhaps are not a troll .. merely uninformed and uninformable.
> THis is the place to be for
> new ideas but the ridiculing is so much!
>
This forum (saa) is exactly NOT the place for these ideas. There are
forums for such discussions, but this is not one of them .. as an
earlier poster pointed out with a detailed listing of the charter of
this forum. The point is not your ideas (as specious as they are) but
whether this is the place to inflict them on readers: It is NOT!
If you insist on discussing off topic material, you are properly a troll
and should be under a bridge :)
Phil
Jonathan Silverlight
Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes
>On 25 Feb 2006 06:14:46 -0800, "granite stone" <x34...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I say this and ask where does the energy of the Moon and the tides come
>>from? No one has answered this. It would not be kinetic energy.
>
>
>output of the Sun for 13 years. Not very impressive in the grand scheme
>of a solar system that is nearly 5 billion years old.
Interesting :-) So it takes the total output of the sun for years to
affect Jupiter.
But don't forget that we already know what this little troll's response
will be when it gets bored.
Sci.astro.amateur trimmed.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>I read all your posts. Well, I think the energy of Jupiter's orbit is
>very large. (by the way, I have a college physics course behind me)
>How can you work out the energy of the orbit as being low? Jupiter is
>very large. In comparison to Saturn, 3 times bigger. The energy to
>form Jupiter and put it into place, if that is what happened, was
>enormous. I think the energy of the obit of Jupiter is very large.
The kinetic energy of Jupiter's orbital motion is
0.5 * 1.9e27 kg * 13.1 km/s * 13.1 km/s = 1.6e35 joules
By human standards, that's a lot of energy. But the Sun's output is
3.8e26 joules/s. So how long could Jupiter's orbital kinetic energy
power the Sun?
Jupiter also has some rotational kinetic energy. This is difficult to
calculate precisely because of all the differential rotation going on in
Jupiter, but if you simply take the planet to be a solid sphere you'll
get a reasonable estimate. Since you've got a college physics course
behind you, you shouldn't have any problem with this calculation (hint:
it is a little less than the orbital kinetic energy).
Add the two energy sources together. How long could Jupiter's total
kinetic energy power the Sun? (Hint: less than your age assuming you've
attended college.)
>Also, the Moon has been giving Earth a tide for millions of years.
>Please explain how much energy is in our moon's orbit.
_You_ can repeat the above calculations for the Moon. BTW, over millions
of years both the length of a day and the distance to the Moon have
changed considerably, due to the transfer of energy between the two
bodies.
Claudio Grondi
Sorry, but I see the only trolling part of this thread in the responses
in which the authors instead of making the effort of providing some
clear evidence why the concept is wrong(and it appears to me to be
wrong) by themselves, has chosen to try to animate the originator of it
to provide it himself (who, if I understand him right, admits he is not
capable of and asks here for help).
The only useful response in this thread was from my point of view
provided (up to now) by Laury and Chris L Peterson, so I wonder why so
many have chosen to loose their time responding in other branches of
this thread instead to confirm or reject the provided calculation or at
least give an order of magnitude of the influence of this effect on the
movement within Suns planetary system and/or the Earth/Moon movement.
I can remember a discussion about the impact of relativity theory on
calculation of planet orbits in another newsgroup (sci.physics?) where
it was not possible to get responses with any very clear statements.
On one side I would not recommend to try to re-post to sci.physics as
the probability of getting insults as response is from my experience
much higher there than here (one of the reasons why I am no more reading
it or posting there), but on the other side I have to admit, that in
some cases it is possible to get excellent replies there, so maybe it is
worth a try, because of the chance, that someone confirms or rejects the
calculation provided by Laury giving very clear details (best in the
metric system and including links to sources from which the used assumed
values were taken).
Claudio
Phil Wheeler
> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>
>> granite stone wrote:
>>
>>> Good morning......Wow. Someone instead of telling me I am a troll is
>>> asking where I copied this from. Still an insult but I have moved out
>>> of the gutter to the sidewalk.
>>
>>
>>
>> Trolls live under bridges, I believe .. not in gutters.
>>
>> But you perhaps are not a troll .. merely uninformed and uninformable.
>>
>>> THis is the place to be for
>>> new ideas but the ridiculing is so much!
>>
>>
>>
>> This forum (saa) is exactly NOT the place for these ideas. There are
>> forums for such discussions, but this is not one of them .. as an
>> earlier poster pointed out with a detailed listing of the charter of
>> this forum. The point is not your ideas (as specious as they are) but
>> whether this is the place to inflict them on readers: It is NOT!
>>
>> If you insist on discussing off topic material, you are properly a
>> troll and should be under a bridge :)
>>
>> Phil
>
>
> Sorry, but I see the only trolling part of this thread in the responses
> in which the authors instead of making the effort of providing some
> clear evidence why the concept is wrong(and it appears to me to be
> wrong) by themselves, has chosen to try to animate the originator of it
> to provide it himself (who, if I understand him right, admits he is not
> capable of and asks here for help).
But saa is not a "concept" forum.
> The only useful response in this thread was from my point of view
> provided (up to now) by Laury and Chris L Peterson, so I wonder why so
> many have chosen to loose their time responding in other branches of
> this thread instead to confirm or reject the provided calculation or at
> least give an order of magnitude of the influence of this effect on the
> movement within Suns planetary system and/or the Earth/Moon movement.
Surprising he got any.
> I can remember a discussion about the impact of relativity theory on
> calculation of planet orbits in another newsgroup (sci.physics?) where
> it was not possible to get responses with any very clear statements.
>
> On one side I would not recommend to try to re-post to sci.physics
Or one of the cosmology/theory sci.astro forums.
Phil
granite stone
you up. The other posts being very critical just make you angry and
achieve nothing. Why is my posts not for astronomy? At alt.catholic
can you posts religious articles or I am wrong there too. I guess
there are now four things not to talk about, money, religion, politics,
and astronomy.
Dr John Stockton
, dated Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:59:15 remote, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy,
granite stone <x34...@yahoo.com> posted :
>I read all your posts. Well, I think the energy of Jupiter's orbit is
>very large. (by the way, I have a college physics course behind me)
That reminds me of a saying, possibly apocryphal, of Winston Churchill.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Dr John Stockton
dated Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:38:10 remote, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy,
Laury <gniK...@BTInternet.omc> posted :
Javascript code, constants from oldish book, evaluated in js-quick.htm :
Mj = 1900e24 // kg
Vj = 2 * Math.PI * 777.7e9 // m
/ (12 * 365 * 86400) // s
Ej = 0.5 * Mj * Vj*Vj // J
Es = 4e9 // kg photons /sec
c = 3e8 // m/s
Es = Es * c*c
Years = Ej / Es / (86400*365)
Evaluates to 13.95
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
granite stone
Galaxy was formed some the energy was released into stars and black
holes. In a natural river current they are little twirls when the
river snakes left or right. In the universe, in the same way, a giant
mass is moving and the twirls are Galaxies, or in other words, Galaxies
are twirls with energy released from the giant mass. The Galaxy then
releases energy into stars in the same way they are twirls in a river
corner. Therefore, the giant mass releases energy into Galaxies and
Galaxies release energy into stars. And stars release energy to
planets.
Förster vom Silberwald
granite stone wrote:
> Good morning......Wow. Someone instead of telling me I am a troll is
> asking where I copied this from. Still an insult but I have moved out
> of the gutter to the sidewalk.
I did not want to insult you. However, it is often the case that some
newer ideas already have been formulated by someone else in the past.
Take climate change and soot. Arhenius over more than 100 years ago
made first statements that the planet will become hotter. It often
seems that "soot" and climate is an invention of the 1980's or 1990's.
Nevertheless, I will try to get to the references of the articles. I
have a colleague who once told me from this if I recall right. But I
have never read them thus far.
Schneewittchen
PS: A good place of your kind of motivations is the magazine
"Science&Technology in the 21st century". I haven't figured out their
motivation yet: they follow the principle of least action:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
Förster vom Silberwald
granite stone wrote:
> In the fall, when I just had 2 pages written, I went to NASA websites
> and read articles about Mars and any new articles on magma. I tried
> emailing authors about my new idea but just got a few emails back that
> "magma remains a mystery". And that I was wrong. I had a feeling that
> my article was not read. But, I did get one email from a scientist at
> NASA which has motivated me being here. THis is the place to be for
> new ideas but the ridiculing is so much!
Hello:
First let me say I do not see why your post shouldn't belong here.
Otherwise what has false color in a refractor to do with
sci.astro.amateur.
I red your original post and must say: you will have some hard times to
become heard. And it is always easier for people to deride than to give
hints (I for one am a physicist in the field of climate change and
atmospheric sciences for a living and become often derided too since I
am sceptical about Darwin's theory without a Good and I for one believe
in Good and some kind of intelligent design).
There are some weak points:
a) as already pointed out by others: what are about all the other stars
without planets
b) you miss the point that the solar corona has a temperature of 1
million degrees as far as I remember (during physics courses it is
often asked by the professor whether you will feel such a strong
temperature when putting in your hands: the student must then say "no"
since temperature is related to kinetic energy (k and T) and the solar
corona is very tiny compared to the solar surface or a hands
chemical/physical composition),
c) It is not clear yet whether you speak of "hot spots" at the solar
surface or the whole solar surface.
However, as I already wrote you should get your hands down to the
papers from the past who tried to point out correlations between solar
activity (sun spots) and gravity of planets.
Schneewittchen
PS: Last time there were a guy at our department who tried to convince
us that relativity theory is wrong he had some arguments of space
around for example the moon. However, after talking with him I realized
he had now clue that tides appear on both sides of the plante due to
vector forces! He always thought that tides appear only on one side:
the side most close to the Moon. After that digression his new theory
about space and time was also spoiled.
Förster vom Silberwald
Not directly related to your theory, however you should consult the
philosopher and physicts "Ernst Mach" (the
march-supersonic-sound-velocity is named after him) who had a theory
that every in the universe,... but let me give the following random
link and it will answer your question:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Ernst-Mach.htm
It was formulated more than 100 years ago at the beginning of the 20st
century and quantum mechanics started to see first light. It was the
turning of classical to new physics. But Mach still belonged to the old
scholars.
Schneewittchen
Förster vom Silberwald
Förster vom Silberwald wrote:
> It was formulated more than 100 years ago at the beginning of the 20st
> century and quantum mechanics started to see first light. It was the
> turning of classical to new physics. But Mach still belonged to the old
> scholars.
Maybe as an addendum: not related to your particular new theory.
However, I dare to suggest two philosophers who discuss how hard it is
to bring in new theories in physics:
a) Kuhn (book: "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"), b) Feyerabend
(book: "Against Method").
And you could also read Sir K. Popper and he will tell you why they do
not like your theory on sci.astro.amateur.
Regards,
Schneewittchen
Förster vom Silberwald
Förster vom Silberwald wrote:
> However, as I already wrote you should get your hands down to the
> papers from the past who tried to point out correlations between solar
> activity (sun spots) and gravity of planets.
Maybe as a tip: you shouldn't browse google alone. For a scientific
work you must investigate a lot more of papers. For my PhD in physics I
had to cite more than 100 peer-reviewed papers in the field I am
working in.
The NASA abstract service (papers and references from all physics
related fields) could be a good resource for you to start with.
Schneewittchen
Förster vom Silberwald
Förster vom Silberwald wrote:
> However, as I already wrote you should get your hands down to the
> papers from the past who tried to point out correlations between solar
> activity (sun spots) and gravity of planets.
Maybe as a tip: you shouldn't browse google alone. For a scientific
Laury
news:JUV+JjB+...@merlyn.demon.co.uk...
|
| Evaluates to 13.95
Thanks John. Looks like I got Jupiter's energy wrong somehow. Probably
forgot the '1/2' in the KE calculation!
So, it all comes to an end in 2020, then!
--
Laury
Andrew Robert Breen
Laury <gniK...@BTInternet.omc> wrote:
>"Dr John Stockton" <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:JUV+JjB+...@merlyn.demon.co.uk...
>|
>| Evaluates to 13.95
>
>Thanks John. Looks like I got Jupiter's energy wrong somehow. Probably
>forgot the '1/2' in the KE calculation!
Still OK to an order of magnitude, which is generally good enough to
get a feel for things.
I made it 13.3 years, using the mean orbital velocity for Jupiter
from the NASA ephemeris (cross-checked with orbital period vs.
circumference of a circular orbit of mean-Jovian distance from Sun radius)
and the average solar flux from Lang (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Sun).
Orders of magnitude less than even the "Thompson lifetime", with solar
energy assumed to be produced by gravitational contraction, anyway :)
>So, it all comes to an end in 2020, then!
I think the decrease in Jovian orbital distance between Voyager and
Galileo would have been noticed if this model were correct.
The Super-K neutrino fluxes, OTOH, agree well with the standard model
of solar enegy release by proton-proton fusion.
--
Andy Breen Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
One man does not make an island, but several stacked together
can make a good bonfire (Stephanie Petrie)
granite stone
Phil Wheeler
> granite stone wrote:
>
>
>>In the fall, when I just had 2 pages written, I went to NASA websites
>>and read articles about Mars and any new articles on magma. I tried
>>emailing authors about my new idea but just got a few emails back that
>>"magma remains a mystery". And that I was wrong. I had a feeling that
>>my article was not read. But, I did get one email from a scientist at
>>NASA which has motivated me being here. THis is the place to be for
>>new ideas but the ridiculing is so much!
>
>
> Hello:
>
> First let me say I do not see why your post shouldn't belong here.
> Otherwise what has false color in a refractor to do with
> sci.astro.amateur.
>
False color in a refractor affects viewing .. which is part of the
forum's charter, posted by David Knisely early yesterday. He did not
invent it; it was established when saa was.
Uk.sci.astro may have a different charter.
Phil
David Knisely
> Otherwise what has false color in a refractor to do with
> sci.astro.amateur.
Again, read the charter!
--
David W. Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************
granite stone
Dr John Stockton
2006 14:18:24 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur, Andrew Robert
Breen <a...@aber.ac.uk> posted :
>In article <dts3so$q96$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
>Laury <gniK...@BTInternet.omc> wrote:
>>"Dr John Stockton" <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:JUV+JjB+...@merlyn.demon.co.uk...
>>|
>>| Evaluates to 13.95
>>
>>Thanks John. Looks like I got Jupiter's energy wrong somehow. Probably
>>forgot the '1/2' in the KE calculation!
>
>Still OK to an order of magnitude, which is generally good enough to
>get a feel for things.
>
>I made it 13.3 years, using the mean orbital velocity for Jupiter
>from the NASA ephemeris (cross-checked with orbital period vs.
>circumference of a circular orbit of mean-Jovian distance from Sun radius)
>and the average solar flux from Lang (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Sun).
>Orders of magnitude less than even the "Thompson lifetime", with solar
>energy assumed to be produced by gravitational contraction, anyway :)
Using the mass-energy output of the Sun makes the calculation relatively
simple, but the figure is not exact.
Phil Wheeler
> where is the charter?
>
From David's earlier msg:
> The sci.astro.amateur charter -----------------------------
> The original version was written by Ken Kirksey <kkir...@world.std.com>:
>
>
> What Is sci.astro.amateur?
>
> sci.astro.amateur is forum for amateur astronomers to discuss topics
> of mutual interest, with a focus on astronomical observing.
>
> What Are Suitable Topics For sci.astro.amateur?
>
> Discussion in sci.astro.amateur includes, but is not necessarily
> limited to, the following topics:
>
> Observing Using the naked eye, binoculars, or telescopes The Moon,
> Planets, Stars, The Sun, Comets, Deep Sky Objects, Constellations,
> et. al.
>
> Equipment Choosing Telescopes/Binoculars Choosing Accessories
> (Finders, Drives, Eyepieces, Filters, Observatories, etc.) Building
> Telescopes, Backyard Observatories, etc.
>
> Astrophotography Traditional CCD Image Processing
>
> Astronomy Software Planetarium Programs Deep Sky Programs Observatory
> Programs Educational Programs
>
> Tips & Techniques for Amateur Astronomers
>
> Literature covering the topics listed above
>
> What Topics Are *Not* Suitable for sci.astro.amateur?
>
> Anything of a highly technical, theoretical, or cosmological nature
> <G>. Seriously, one of the major reasons that sci.astro.amateur was
> created was that people were tired of wading through all the black
> hole, origin & fate of the universe, Steven Hawking | Carl Sagan is a
> twit, et. al. kind of posts to get to the ones discussing the topics
> listed in this charter. While some of the theoretical/cosmological
> topics may be of interest to some amateur astronomers, discussion in
> sci.astro.amateur should be pretty much limited to the PRACTICE of
> amateur astronomy. We'll leave the heavy topics for sci.astro.
granite stone
porn site. as of now this is a porn site.
Phil Wheeler
> if a charter is from a post then I going to change the charter to a
> porn site. as of now this is a porn site.
>
Your logic and science is equal to the offense offered by porn sites.
Stupidity is bad. The unwillingness to be informed is even worse.
Phil
David Knisely
NO more is more.!!
'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / |_| |_|
The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ _ _
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
Förster vom Silberwald
David Knisely wrote:
> > First let me say I do not see why your post shouldn't belong here.
> > Otherwise what has false color in a refractor to do with
> > sci.astro.amateur.
>
> Again, read the charter!
I haven't read the charter. However, a good sense of imagination should
be enough.
What I often do not understand: why this quick and strong objection to
such individuals like the original poster in this thread.
I cannot recall the details and cannit give the exact references.
However, I red a comment in the past about "moon-landing was a fake".
One comment made me stunning: there were an individual who denied that
man has landend on the Moon. But instead of deriding him he had the
chance to give a talk to scientists ,(I think at NASA but I am not sure
about that). The scientists thought it will be the best to give the man
a chance for his arguments, even though, the scientists did know well
in advance that he is truly wrong.
Schneewittchen
Förster vom Silberwald
granite stone wrote:
> Thanks for the critique! I will look up those articles.
My English isn't that good. However, all I wanted to point out is the
following: scientists work and live in their own world. They do not
have any proof for their physics, though, some of them believe in it.
That is all. However, there are good reasons for scientists to defend
their position. Yes there are good reasons for that science and
sometimes it works so good and makes things predictable (look into your
emphemeris atlas from year 2010 and wait until that time and you will
see things will likely come out as described and forecast).
You should take this into account next time when you will experience
some strong objections. And do not forget: you must first study a
scientists system and literature otherwise they will quickly put you
down.
There is a huge difference between a guy who has a good basic knowledge
(e.g. a PhD in physics) and has never worked as a scietists but someday
will have a good idea (e.g. Einstein was not always in the bussines of
science) or the guy who has only a basic knowledge of physics at the
level of introductory college physics (at age 20).
Schneewittchen