#21
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
In message , Fleetie
writes "Jonathan Silverlight" wrote Isn't the point that Jupiter (and Saturn, only more so) is radiating more energy than it receives? They both have internal energy sources. Uranus, OTOH, is not radiating an excess. IIRC, the Earth is currently radiating slightly _less_ energy than it receives. Interesting point, but if Earth were radiating less energy than it received, wouldn't that mean it was warming up? Global warming aside, cos I think that's a separate issue really, I would definitely expect Earth to be _cooling_ (still), albeit very slowly. Fair enough. There's heat remaining from Earth's formation (a lot), and there's heat from nuclear fission inside the planet. I think most people would argue with it being nuclear fission, unless they believe in J Marvin Herndon's "georeactor" :-) Radioactive decay is the usual suspect. And, I guess, heat from gravitational tidal forces, mainly from the Sun and the Moon. What about Uranus then? Are you saying you think it is at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings? (I don't know whether it is or not.) But again, intuition suggests to me that it probably still has residual heat to lose from its formation, and therefore probably is doing so, which by your definition would make it net luminous. Intesesting one. I still don't think it's as easy as people say, to say some planets (or whatever bodies) are "luminous" and imply that the rest aren't. But I think that's exactly what you can say :-) Jupiter and Saturn are radiating an excess which is detectable by remote sensing, and Uranus isn't. And while you probably can't tell if the Earth is cooling or not except by measurement on the ground, it's intensely luminous at radio wavelengths! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
Sjouke Burry wrote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article .com, Weatherlawyer wrote: You do realise that nuclear reactions of any sort have never been observed on any star, don't you? So what powers one? Knowing (or it would seem: think I knew) that there had ben no observed proof of a theory does not mean that I have proof of an alternative. There again of couse it does allow me to have an alternative theory. In fact the more alternative theories there are, the more likely that we will not be misdirected entirely through believing just one erroneous one.* And how do you explain the neutrino flood emitting from the sun. Each neutrino means some nuclear reaction has taken place. No reactions, no neutrinos. You know that for a fact? Or is this an ancillary theory extemporised to allow its adjacent to go through unopposed? *OT as this is an exemplar gratis and not a topic for discussion (by me at least) no doubt a number of monkeys will start rattling branches and repeating their mantras until they once again establish their faith as the acme of logical deduction: Consider the one theory doesn't fit any species known as evolution. No one particular brand can be seen to work. And none can be proven by reproduction. Yet most non thinkers believe that there is the one theory that ALL subscribe to called THE theory of evolution. Consider one small point in the now defunct Darwinian theory about finches: Because they lived on different islands, they developed different seed opening beaks. Did no 19th century agriculturalist point out that on any island, a wide variety of seed would likely be available to all and that any finch stupid enough to concentrate on one particular variety would die out in the 11 months or so, that such seed was unavailable? It was utter twaddle and yet widely touted as a fact. Which left any disbelievers of the theory in the unenviable position of having to disprove it in order to continue believing the alternative, more sensible ones. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
In article . com,
Weatherlawyer wrote: Sjouke Burry wrote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article .com, Weatherlawyer wrote: You do realise that nuclear reactions of any sort have never been observed on any star, don't you? So what powers one? Knowing (or it would seem: think I knew) that there had ben no observed proof of a theory does not mean that I have proof of an alternative. There again of couse it does allow me to have an alternative theory. In fact the more alternative theories there are, the more likely that we will not be misdirected entirely through believing just one erroneous one.* And how do you explain the neutrino flood emitting from the sun. Each neutrino means some nuclear reaction has taken place. No reactions, no neutrinos. You know that for a fact? Or is this an ancillary theory extemporised to allow its adjacent to go through unopposed? Neutrino observations? *OT as this is an exemplar gratis and not a topic for discussion (by me at least) no doubt a number of monkeys will start rattling branches and repeating their mantras until they once again establish their faith as the acme of logical deduction: Consider the one theory doesn't fit any species known as evolution. No one particular brand can be seen to work. And none can be proven by reproduction. Yet most non thinkers believe that there is the one theory that ALL subscribe to called THE theory of evolution. Consider one small point in the now defunct Darwinian theory about finches: Because they lived on different islands, they developed different seed opening beaks. Did no 19th century agriculturalist point out that on any island, a wide variety of seed would likely be available to all and that any finch stupid enough to concentrate on one particular variety would die out in the 11 months or so, that such seed was unavailable? It was utter twaddle and yet widely touted as a fact. Which left any disbelievers of the theory in the unenviable position of having to disprove it in order to continue believing the alternative, more sensible ones. AH so you're an idiot then. You used a lot of words, but all it did was reveal your stupidity -- The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. e=pc / p=hk Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE". Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? "Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
In article . com,
Weatherlawyer wrote: Sjouke Burry wrote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article .com, Weatherlawyer wrote: You do realise that nuclear reactions of any sort have never been observed on any star, don't you? So what powers one? Knowing (or it would seem: think I knew) that there had ben no observed proof of a theory does not mean that I have proof of an alternative. There again of couse it does allow me to have an alternative theory. In fact the more alternative theories there are, the more likely that we will not be misdirected entirely through believing just one erroneous one.* And how do you explain the neutrino flood emitting from the sun. Each neutrino means some nuclear reaction has taken place. No reactions, no neutrinos. You know that for a fact? Or is this an ancillary theory extemporised to allow its adjacent to go through unopposed? *OT as this is an exemplar gratis and not a topic for discussion (by me at least) no doubt a number of monkeys will start rattling branches and repeating their mantras until they once again establish their faith as the acme of logical deduction: Consider the one theory doesn't fit any species known as evolution. No one particular brand can be seen to work. And none can be proven by reproduction. Yet most non thinkers believe that there is the one theory that ALL subscribe to called THE theory of evolution. Consider one small point in the now defunct Darwinian theory about finches: Because they lived on different islands, they developed different seed opening beaks. Did no 19th century agriculturalist point out that on any island, a wide variety of seed would likely be available to all and that any finch stupid enough to concentrate on one particular variety would die out in the 11 months or so, that such seed was unavailable? It was utter twaddle and yet widely touted as a fact. Which left any disbelievers of the theory in the unenviable position of having to disprove it in order to continue believing the alternative, more sensible ones. We got a live one here. -- The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. e=pc / p=hk Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE". Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? "Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
Mike Williams wrote in
: Wasn't it Gene E. Bloch who wrote: We have discovered new objects larger than Pluto circling our own star. They are Kuyper Belt objects with orbits beyond that of Pluto, and as I recall, there are already two of them known to be larger than Pluto. So far, I don't want to demote Pluto, and I don't want to accept the new ones as planets. I'd imagine most people would be happy with that if we could produce a sensible objective definition of "planet" that gives that result and can also be used when we start to observe Pluto sized objects in other solar systems. The problem is that any sensible criterion would be expected to either include both Pluto and 2003-UB313 and some other large KBOs that are only fractionally smaller, or exclude them all. The only thing that Pluto has going for it, that 2003-UB313 doesn't, is history. Yeah. And as we know, history counts. Press coverage does too. Also, Clyde Tombaugh, from all I've read, was a really nice guy, and reasonably modest. He deserves a planet :-) In truth, I don't think it matters much what the Pluto-sized objects, Pluto included, get called, and I suspect that the IAU might end up with a classification scheme that is a bit fuzzy in that size range. Conservative thinking will rule: Pluto's already a planet, but the other ones are far away, cold, and dark, and they're just parvenus anyway. -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) ... letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
Gene E. Bloch wrote: Also, Clyde Tombaugh, from all I've read, was a really nice guy, and reasonably modest. He deserves a planet :-) I think that someone being a nice guy is about the worst reason considered so far for calling Pluto a planet. OTOH, what is to be done for all the conceited buffoons intent on taking me to task for having one or two opinions that they can't get their heads around? Un name them? Disenfranchise their spheres? In truth, I don't think it matters much what the Pluto-sized objects, Pluto included, get called, and I suspect that the IAU might end up with a classification scheme that is a bit fuzzy in that size range. Quite so. They are a long way from home. Even our great, great, grand children will hold that opinion, no doubt. Conservative thinking will rule: Pluto's already a planet, but the other ones are far away, cold, and dark, and they're just parvenus anyway. One major problem is that Christendom has run out of western pagan gods to name them. Which begs the question: How international is the IAU? Since the Kuiper belt seems to occupy the abode that Bode's law would indicate holds the next planetary orbit after Uranus, would that put Neptune in the spot as the largest asteroid so far known? And what is the next distance out that fits in the law? Is there anything at that (what is the term?) orbital distance? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
On 7/01/2006, Weatherlawyer posted this:
Gene E. Bloch wrote: Also, Clyde Tombaugh, from all I've read, was a really nice guy, and reasonably modest. He deserves a planet :-) I think that someone being a nice guy is about the worst reason considered so far for calling Pluto a planet. OTOH, what is to be done for all the conceited buffoons intent on taking me to task for having one or two opinions that they can't get their heads around? Un name them? Disenfranchise their spheres? I think you're just being silly in the above two paragraphs...I believe that "nice guy" is a great reason, and I think those "conceited buffoons" believe that the one having trouble with various ideas is you. I know that I do. In truth, I don't think it matters much what the Pluto-sized objects, Pluto included, get called, and I suspect that the IAU might end up with a classification scheme that is a bit fuzzy in that size range. Quite so. They are a long way from home. Even our great, great, grand children will hold that opinion, no doubt. Conservative thinking will rule: Pluto's already a planet, but the other ones are far away, cold, and dark, and they're just parvenus anyway. One major problem is that Christendom has run out of western pagan gods to name them. Which begs the question: How international is the IAU? Begs the question? It has no relationship to the question. It is the IAU that names astronomical objects, not Christendom. The IAU is very international, more so than World Cup Soccer/Football. Since the Kuiper belt seems to occupy the abode that Bode's law would indicate holds the next planetary orbit after Uranus, would that put Neptune in the spot as the largest asteroid so far known? Bode's law is not a law, but an approximate relationship that Bode and Titius noted a while back (latter 18th century). It calls for an empty space where Neptune is; Pluto fills the slot after Uranus. The Kuiper Belt is a belt - at 30 to 50 AU, it is far wider than the narrow zone that Bode's law would imply (which would be at ~40 AU, Pluto's neighborhood). Also, objects well beyond the 50 AU distance are known. (I misspelled Kuiper in another post in this thread - life's tough.) And what is the next distance out that fits in the law? Is there anything at that (what is the term?) orbital distance? After 38.8 (Pluto) would come 77.2. The Oort cloud is expected to be out in light year territory, or around 50000 AU, extending to even twice that, so it has no cozy relationship to 77 AU. I had to check a bit with the aid of Google to get some numbers about Oort and Kuiper, but as a result, I trust what I said above better than my unaided memory would have provided. Of course, I didn't try to be accurate to the nearest kilometer. -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
In article ,
Gene E. Bloch wrote: On 7/01/2006, Weatherlawyer posted this: snip And what is the next distance out that fits in [Bode's] law? Is there anything at that (what is the term?) orbital distance? After 38.8 (Pluto) would come 77.2. The Oort cloud is expected to be out in light year territory, or around 50000 AU, extending to even twice that, so it has no cozy relationship to 77 AU. The object provisionally designated 2003 UB313, but nicknamed "Xena" while it awaits an official name and number, averages about 68 AU. 90377 Sedna's perihelion is about 76 AU, but its mean distance from the Sun is more like 500 AU. They also have highly inclined orbits. These minor planets, well beyond the Kuiper Belt, are classified as "Scattered-Disk Objects". -- Odysseus |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
Odysseus wrote: In article , Gene E. Bloch ignoring the title of this thread, wrote: After 38.8 (Pluto) would come 77.2. The Oort cloud is expected to be out in light year territory, or around 50000 AU, extending to even twice that, so it has no cozy relationship to 77 AU. The object provisionally designated 2003 UB313, but nicknamed "Xena" while it awaits an official name and number, averages about 68 AU. 90377 Sedna's perihelion is about 76 AU, but its mean distance from the Sun is more like 500 AU. They also have highly inclined orbits. These minor planets, beyond the Kuiper Belt, are classified as "Scattered-Disk Objects". In so many years from now when there aare decent research vehicle up there (once we get rid of the Texas Maffia) maybe we will come to know more about the Titius Bode thing. The trouble with self contented Geneii is that they think in terms of averages where astrometry is a little more precise. There are reams of pages of these newly discovered outer space objects. Who is to say where the point of balance is if they were all pulled together. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
On 7/05/2006, Weatherlawyer posted this:
.... In so many years from now when there aare decent research vehicle up there (once we get rid of the Texas Maffia) maybe we will come to know more about the Titius Bode thing. We know all there is to know about "the Titius Bode thing". It is a formula that encapsulated the observed distances of the planets into a simple and approximate relationship of no physical significance. It was not at all accurate when it was proposed, and fell apart rather quickly as more planets were discovered in our system. The trouble with self contented Geneii is that they think in terms of averages where astrometry is a little more precise. There are reams of pages of these newly discovered outer space objects. What are Geneii? It seems not to be a word in English or Latin. Astrometry is relatively precise these days, now that we have very accurate satellite-borne telescopes and huge radio telescope interferometers, but what has that to do with our attempts to find Kuiper and Oort objects? Quite often, astronomers are very happy to estimate some of the numbers they care about within a factor of two. Who is to say where the point of balance is if they were all pulled together. Obviously the point of balance - if you mean the centroid of these objects - is at or very near the sun. If you literally mean "if they were all pulled together", then the point of balance is the point we pull them together to. But I still can't ascribe any useful meaning to your remark. -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Multidimensional Man | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 31st 06 04:58 PM |
THE SECRET TEACHINGS OF THE MYSTERY SCHOOLS | [email protected] | Policy | 0 | December 21st 05 10:40 AM |
THE SECRET TEACHINGS OF THE MYSTERY SCHOOLS | [email protected] | Policy | 0 | December 21st 05 10:40 AM |
Beyond Linear Cosmology and Hypnotic Theology | Yoda | Misc | 0 | June 30th 04 07:33 PM |
Mind-2, Time waves and Theory of Everything | Yoda | Misc | 0 | April 20th 04 06:11 AM |