Sun's Hot Surface: Influence of Jupiter on our Sun~~~

In message , David Knisely
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 "****off go to hell." (do
a search if you want).

"David Knisely" wrote in message
...
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.

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 W. Knisely
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 *
**********************************************

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.

"granite stone" wrote in message
ups.com...
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

David Knisely wrote in news:689b8$43fcc727$8b37d1c0
:

granite stone posted:

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.

He's already been told this the last time he posted this nonsense. I
suspect he's just seeking attention.

Klazmon.

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

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.

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 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

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).
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

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/