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

In message MPG.1e699d3260160b4989b18@localhost, Craig Oldfield
writes
In article .com,
says...
****off 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.

no i disagree. the energy that placed the planets where they are in
the solar system was enormous. that energy is slowly being exerted on
the sun. (i think you will not like this one). the galaxy is a giant
sytem spinning. the energy that formed the galaxy, long ago, is being
exerted on it's centre.

no i disagree. the energy that placed the planets where they are in
the solar system was enormous. that energy is slowly being exerted on
the sun. (i think you will not like this one). the galaxy is a giant
sytem spinning. the energy that formed the galaxy, long ago, is being
exerted on it's centre.

interesting. i still think the planet/orbits are not kinetic energy.

just go on and read other posts. freedom of speech. your stepping on
my rights to post a post.

es the planets/obits are not in kinetic state and are losing energy,
thus the orbits would get smaller over time.

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.



interesting........but i still think none of the planets have kinetic
energy and are exerting forces on the sun.

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.


interesting........but i still think none of the planets have kinetic
energy and are exerting forces on the sun.

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


interesting........but i still think none of the planets have kinetic
energy and are exerting forces on the sun.

--
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/

"granite stone" wrote in message
oups.com...
****off 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/