|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#22
August 13th 03, 07:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
How much of a ball/material to reduce Sun radiation by 20% Mercury swallowed by Sun, loss of solar radiation?
Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:13:58 GMT "John Baker" wrote:
(snipped) The mass extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous were likely brought about by a massive asteroid impact. The existence of a gigantic impact crater (Chixalub) of the correct age combined with a thin layer of iridium rich sediments at the K/T boundary strongly support this hypothesis. However, I'm pretty sure you already knew this, and simply chose to disregard it in favor of your own pet "theory." You seem to disregard the fact that the dinosaur extinction began some 100 million years before the bolide ever set course for the planet Earth. Do you understand that you cannot explain the Jurassic mass extinctions on a bolide that would occurr 100 million years later? end-Cretaceous 66 46 82 23 120 16 end-Jurassic 144 20 160 20 190 23 end-Triassic Granted a bolide wrecked havoc on Earth at the end of the Cretaceous but it is deaf dumb and silent as to what caused the mass extinctions leading up to the KT extinction. Your bolide theory is a naive theory for it answers only a few thousands of years when the question is what caused the 100 million year extinctions. And here is where my theory makes the bolide theory wholesome and rich. I say, in my theory, that the Sun was swallowing up a great deal of matter from the Jurassic and into the Cretaceous. Perhaps the mass and matter of a planet such as Mercury that was busted up into a asteroid belt. And during the Jurassic and Cretaceous as the Sun was traversing the heavens it encountered this asteroid belt and began swallowing up the chunks of matter. One swallowing of say 1/4 of this asteroid belt some 82 million years ago reduced the Sun's radiation so much that 23% of the species were mass extincted. And as for the KT bolide that struck Earth, well, that was a stray asteroid that should have been swallowed by the Sun and it would have not made the KT extinction to be 46% but a smaller number. So you see, John Baker, my theory expands the KT bolide and explains all the other extinctions of dinosaurs right up to the KT. We'll get to the Permian in a bit... How big of a ball falling into the Sun will cut the solar radiation by 20% and cause Ice Ages on Earth. I can't tell you that, but I can tell you that there's no evidence for any such event, nor is it required to bring about an ice age. While some scientists do propose a periodic reduction in solar output as a possible cause of ice ages, most consider the cause of any such "slowdowns", assuming they exist, unknown at present. Well it will be required because if you pin the Ice Ages on "migration of tilt of axis" then you run into the logical problem that Ice Ages of repeating glaciation mixed with interglacial periods have to be throughout the geological history stretching all the way back to the origin of Earth. Ice Ages in every 2 million years interval all the way back to 4 billion years. But there is no evidence of such a pattern. That suggests that tilt of axis migration is not the cause of the Ice Ages but something else. Which leads to the theory that the Sun was cooled 4 times in that 2 million year interval. A coolant would be a swallowing of a meteor shower trail or an asteroid belt on four separate occasions. And what material is the best to slow down or stop fusion reactions in the Sun? Is it lead? And how big of a ball of lead would cut solar radiation by 20%? About the size of Mercury? And how would it work? Would the lead vaporize and thus form a blanket inside the Sun and impede the fusion of hydrogen? Or perhaps there is another weak-point in the fusion reactions in the Sun for which some other material would be best in achieving a Sun cooldown. Question: What is the difference in radiation between the summertime and the wintertime by the Sun. Is it a 20% reduction in Solar radiation that distinguishes winter from summer (due to the 23 degree tilt). I am wondering how much of a loss in Solar radiation would create a global Ice Age which the Permian probably was. Nope. There was a brief cold period toward the end of the Permian, that's true, but it's not what did the deed. (in fact, the fossil rich Permian strata of the Karoo Basin show that the Late Permian ice age, while it did indeed bring about some extinctions, didn't have as great an impact as might be expected) The Permian mass extinctions were probably caused not by an ice age, but by a heat wave. During the Late Permian, the planet's main continents were coming together to form the supercontinent of Pangaea. With the majority of Earth's land area fused into one gigantic continent spanning nearly from pole to pole, the mitigating effects of moisture laden air moving inland from the oceans could no longer reach most of the dry land area. Most if not all of the moisture would be lost long before the winds could reach the interior of the continent. The result was that most of Pangaea was a vast, hot desert surrounded by a habitable zone at most a few hundred miles wide. Life forms adapted to the cooler, moister conditions existing through most of the Permian could not tolerate the hot, dry climate that was emerging, and by the beginning of the Triassic, most had died out. Some Permian forms managed to survive a bit longer, but with the emergence of the dinosaurs in the Middle Triassic, ultimately they too became extinct. By the end of the Triassic, Pangaea had begun to break up, and by the Late Cretaceous, most of the major land masses had assumed a form not all that different from what we see today. I suspect the "Earth heating up during the Permian" is a wild guess and not a confirmed fact. About the only solid fact of the Permian was that it was an Ice Age. My theory of a Sun Swallowing to create the Permian mass extinction would still hold if there was GlobalWarming and an Ice Age. Because, if the swallowed astro body was not a metallic planet like Mercury but rather a gas giant of 1/4 or 1/8 the size of Jupiter. It the Sun were to swallow a smaller gas giant then the sun radiation would heat up and create a Earth global warming, but as the gas giant core of metal was vaporized it would have a tendency to lower the temperature of the sun and create a Permian Ice Age at the end. So that if the Sun were to swallow a metal planet like Mercury, then Earth would go into a Ice Age with mass extinctions. But if the Sun were to swallow a small gas giant the extra hydrogen would heat up the Sun and Earth initially and then when the metal core was vaporized then cool the Sun. John, I believe you are assuming the Permian as a period of GlobalWarming on Earth as proven. I suspect it is just an "opinion" with little hardcore evidence. However, I do believe the Ice Age of the Permian is proven beyond reasonable doubt. P.S. forgive the duplicate posts for still having lingering problems with ISP posting. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 
|
|
#23
August 13th 03, 09:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How much of a ball/material to reduce Sun radiation by 20% Mercury swallowed by Sun, loss of solar radiation?
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:53:39 +0100 wrote: Sorry, but the interactions of fusion reactor systems with iron dust are only a very vague approximation of the effects of Mercury, or another large object, impacting the Sun. If you think it's a close match then show us how you came to that conclusion instead of just hand-waving. Conditions in a fusion reactor are very different from those in the Sun. I am not privy to the information of JET or TFTR as to how much of a perturbation a BB dropped into the peak performance would occur. The information is available, although the fine details might not be easily available. However, the masses, temperatures, pressures etc. are. But it looks like you'd rather indulge in vague claims rather than actually gather the data and do any kind of calculation.... It is an approximation, but it is the best we have other than to actually direct a asteroid into a collision course with the Sun and to measure the lowering of SolarRadiation. Another test is to place a lead drum into a collision course with the Sun and measure for decrease in Solar Radiation. As has been pointed out, comets collide with the Sun all the time. I'm sure you can get figures for the approximate masses of these, rough compositions and numbers colliding in a given time. Again, the data is available, and other people's calculations (as well as the empirical evidence) show that they have almost no measurable effect on the Sun. If you can show something else, either through observation or theory, then present it here. If you can't, it's all just vague hand-waving opinions. I offered a 1/2 reduction in temperature of JET when a BB is dropped only because I am not privy to any of the data that may deliver the answer. The scientists who work at TFTR or JET would offer more precise data. Or you could actually make an effort to find out for yourself.... And the difference between a volume of the Sun equal to the volume of JET is that the Sun is sustained "natural fusion" whereas JET is "artificial environment fusion". What I mean by that is if JET temperature drops by 1/2 with the dropping of a BB into the plasma, the same volume in the Sun will not drop by 1/2 temperature due to a BB introduction. And I am counting on the idea that a BB of iron or copper or lead when dropped into plasma will vaporize and in the vaporization will spread out and thus create more of a temperature drop as it interfers with the fusion reactions. I do not know what chemical element when introduced into the Sun will drop its temperature by greatest amount. I am guessing it is lead, but maybe a surprize is in store? Guesses aren't valid in science. They might be a starting point for the development of a hypothesis, but they should be replaced by good theoretical work and observations as soon as possible. You're still at the "guess" stage - it's time to move on to proving them one way or the other. Then you find out how much of this iron dust cools a Tokamak plasma by 1/2 temperature. Then you compute how many JET plasma volumes are in the Sun which is a very huge number indeed. And then you multiply that huge number by the amount of iron-dust that cooled the Tokamak by 1/2. And then you see if this number is the mass of Mercury. Albeit, Mercury is not a 100% ball of iron but close enough to it. If you have the data on tokamak plasma volumes relative to the Sun's volume, and the effects of dust on it, then show us the calculations that support your hypothesis. Say the BB is made of iron and vaporizes and evenly distributed into the plasma and that each atom of iron in the BB stops a fusion reaction. So it becomes almost a linear relationship of the number of atoms for fusion compared to the number of atoms that would thwart the fusion. Say that a BB has 10^21 atoms of iron and say the atoms of hydrogen participating in the fusion process is 10^22; if it were 10^21 then the BB could smother the fusion completely. Again, this is all guesswork and opinion. "Say that a BB has 10^21 atoms of iron" - have you actually worked out if it has? It's a very simple calculation. I'm beginning to suspect you'd rather someone else did all your work, either because you're too lazy to do it yourself, or because you don't understand it  As far as I can see, the calculations presented so far are perfectly valid, and show that impacting a Mercury sized boy would have an almost unnoticeable effect on the Sun. If you think differently it's up to you to prove it. That is because childish viewpoints of the Sun swallowing are based on preconceptions that the Sun is huge and that Mercury if swallowed would just find a home in the core and live happily ever after. No, it's because mercury would be vapourised by the Sun, and its material would then spread through the Sun's volume. Some of it may find its way into the core after a very long time, but it would only be a small fraction. We had childish preconceptions that greenhouse gases do not affect Earth by much. You may have, but most people working on the question knew that the effects would be quite considerable. remember the "greenhouse effect" isn't something new that's been caused by emissions in the last 20 years. It's been active for a very long time, and is the reason the Earth today is habitable instead of a frozen ball of ice So it does not surprize me that most scientists would have childish preconceptions that Sun swallowing seldom if ever affects its solar radiation output. I think the one with childish ideas is on the other side of the argument here As I said before, you need to move on from guessesand opinions to some real science, even if it's just doing the basic calculations to back up your ideas. DP -- David_Paterson = ¦ ; Senior programmer There are three kinds of people in the world - Visual Science Ltd. those who can count, and those who can't...
|
|
#24
August 14th 03, 06:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How much of a ball/material to reduce Sun radiation by 20% Mercury swallowed by Sun, loss of solar radiation?
13 Aug 2003 17:26:06 -0700 Mark Martin wrote: At any rate, a body of iron falling upon the Sun won't get homogenously distributed through the solar mass. It'll be vaporised in the outermost layers and remain suspended there due to the intense radiative output, coupled with the increasing mass density with depth. I take issue with that scenario. For one thing, the outer layers of the Sun are thin gaseous layers and so when a solid object such as Mercury falling into the Sun, that yes much of Mercury's surface will be vaporized but with the speed of fall and the "coldness of Mercury's inner layers" that much / most of Mercury will end up in the core and be vaporized into the core region of the Sun. I would agree that a comet consisting mostly of ice would never reach the Sun core but with Mercury, I would say that 75% or more will reach the core if it is a direct plunge. But if it is a slow decay fall-in to the Sun then the Sun will strip away the layers of Mercury and little if any reach the Sun core. If the contaminant never gets to the solar core, then it can't interfere with fusion, since the core is where it all happens. Due to Concur. But a direct fall of Mercury into the Sun such as say S-L upon Jupiter a few years back, then in a direct fall, most of Mercury will reach the Sun core and remain there vaporized. random walk dynamics it takes millions of years to transport light radiation from the core to the surface. How much slower would be the deposition of iron atoms? You could drop an entire planet of pure iron on the Sun and nothing important will happen. You can sprinkle absorbing material over the whole Sun to blot out the light, and soon enough it won't make any difference either. Once the absorbtive material reaches thermal equilibrium with the solar radiation, it'll re-radiate at the same temperature. There's just no stopping it. -Mark Martin Funny how humanity has been trying to conquer fusion by a sustained reaction and the questions I want concerning this thread are the exact opposite. I want to know what chemicals are best at slowing fusion fires. I do not know if a solid lead Mercury falling into the Sun would lower Solar radiation more than if a solid salt Mercury. Whether the salt has as good of a chance of reaching the Sun core as a solid lead ball. And whether a salt Mercury once in the Sun's core will remain in the core as long as a lead Mercury vaporized in the core. I am not certain yet, whether salt decreases fusion reactions better and faster than does lead or other metals. I am guessing that salt ions interfer more with the fusion interactions than does lead. Call it a Fusion-poison, or a fusion-stopper. I do not know, is planet Earth the densest concentration of salt of all the planets? Is there a salty asteroid? Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
#25
August 14th 03, 08:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How much of a ball/material to reduce Sun radiation by 20% Mercury swallowed by Sun, loss of solar radiation?
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
13 Aug 2003 17:26:06 -0700 Mark Martin wrote: At any rate, a body of iron falling upon the Sun won't get homogenously distributed through the solar mass. It'll be vaporised in the outermost layers and remain suspended there due to the intense radiative output, coupled with the increasing mass density with depth. I take issue with that scenario. For one thing, the outer layers of the Sun are thin gaseous layers and so when a solid object such as Mercury falling into the Sun, that yes much of Mercury's surface will be vaporized but with the speed of fall and the "coldness of Mercury's inner layers" that much / most of Mercury will end up in the core and be vaporized into the core region of the Sun. I would agree that a comet consisting mostly of ice would never reach the Sun core but with Mercury, I would say that 75% or more will reach the core if it is a direct plunge. But if it is a slow decay fall-in to the Sun then the Sun will strip away the layers of Mercury and little if any reach the Sun core. Sorry, but this is all still guesswork and opinion. Have you actually done any calculations to support this? (That's a rhetorical question BTW since it looks like you're never going to even attempt any.) What started out as a moderately interesting question about whether a large object impacting the Sun would reduce solar output enough to affect life on Earth has become a monotonous (and pointless) repetition of you ideas - without any attempt to prove or disprove them. (snip) I do not know if a solid lead Mercury falling into the Sun would lower Solar radiation more than if a solid salt Mercury. Whether the salt has as good of a chance of reaching the Sun core as a solid lead ball. And whether a salt Mercury once in the Sun's core will remain in the core as long as a lead Mercury vaporized in the core. I am not certain yet, whether salt decreases fusion reactions better and faster than does lead or other metals. I am guessing that salt ions interfer more with the fusion interactions than does lead. Call it a Fusion-poison, or a fusion-stopper. I do not know, is planet Earth the densest concentration of salt of all the planets? Is there a salty asteroid? Note - "I do not know...", "I am not certain yet...", "I do not know...", "Is there...". Why don't you try to find out some of these before continuing this discussion. Science isn't done by continually repeating your ideas in an attempt to brow-beat everyone into submission. It's done by showing the viability of those ideas through experiment, observation and theoretical work - none of which you've done. I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave this debate to others with more patience, since I'm rapidly reaching the limits of mine. DP -- David_Paterson = ¦ ; Senior programmer There are three kinds of people in the world - Visual Science Ltd. those who can count, and those who can't...
|
|
#26
August 14th 03, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How much of a ball/material to reduce Sun radiation by 20% Mercury swallowed by Sun, loss of solar radiation?
|
|
#27
August 14th 03, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How much of a ball/material to reduce Sun radiation by 20% Mercury swallowed by Sun, loss of solar radiation?
wrote: (snip) Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 13 Aug 2003 17:26:06 -0700 Mark Martin wrote: At any rate, a body of iron falling upon the Sun won't get homogenously distributed through the solar mass. It'll be vaporised in the outermost layers and remain suspended there due to the intense radiative output, coupled with the increasing mass density with depth. I take issue with that scenario. For one thing, the outer layers of the Sun are thin gaseous layers and so when a solid object such as Mercury falling into the Sun, that yes much of Mercury's surface will be vaporized but with the speed of fall and the "coldness of Mercury's inner layers" that much / most of Mercury will end up in the core and be vaporized into the core region of the Sun. I would agree that a comet consisting mostly of ice would never reach the Sun core but with Mercury, I would say that 75% or more will reach the core if it is a direct plunge. But if it is a slow decay fall-in to the Sun then the Sun will strip away the layers of Mercury and little if any reach the Sun core. Sorry, but this is all still guesswork and opinion. Have you actually done any calculations to support this? (That's a rhetorical question BTW since it looks like you're never going to even attempt any.) You should be able to compute the distance from the Sun photosphere to the center of the Sun. And compute the km/sec of a Mercury ramming into the Sun directly head-on of its full orbital velocity. How few minutes would Mercury spend in flight from the edge of the photosphere of the Sun until it rammed into the center of the Sun? Would there be enough time for the Sun to vaporize it of its metal interior before it ramms into the center. Mark believes there is plenty of time from photosphere to center of Sun to vaporize entire Mercury. But there is not enough time, and so approx 75% of Mercury will end up in the center of the Sun and be vaporized in the center. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
#28
August 14th 03, 08:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
publishing of poisoned stars that swallow a salty planet
nightbat wrote
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 14 Aug 2003 00:14:25 -0700 someone wrote: Ridiculous! Sodium and Chlorine, being lighter than Iron, would be fuel for the fusion process. No, about the only fuels added to a star's fusion is hydrogen, helium, ..... on up to carbon. Once you add large amounts of fluorine, sodium, chlorine which gumms up the fusion interactions, you poison the star. You add large amounts of iron you also poison the star since iron is stable to both fission and fusion. Did you know that fission was key in the fusion of our Sun? So, at some size of a large ball such as the size of Mercury or Moon of pure 100% fissionable material, you can speed up the "burn-out" of our Sun. So, to make our Sun hotter, you add fuel of the elements of hydrogen or add fissionable elements. To cool the Sun you direct a planet on a collision course with the Sun that is mostly salt and heavy metals and it will poison the fusion process. In the last decade of astronomers finding exoplanets that are huge planets and orbiting their star very closely. I suspect that before the end of this decade that many stars which had swallowed their exoplanet are now so poisoned with heavy metals such as iron onwards, and much salt, that the star radiation was cut in 1/2. In fact, I would not be surprized when astronomy journals begin publishing cases of where exoplanets swallowed by stars and these stars have anomolous radiation. In fact, astronomers probably have recorded the brightness of hundreds of thousands of stars and that a substantial number of these stars have everything else normal about them except for the fact that their brightness was abruptly cut in half and the reason of course is that they had a swallowing of a large salty iron core planet. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies nightbat Archie may be right about that but they say there is a lot of proven sugar cosmic clouds out amongst the stars to. Archie must brilliantly just like salty planets and plasma stars, but it takes a lot to make or break the recipe for failed stellar neutron super nova detonation. Let's see, which planet has a lot of iron in its core and also a lot of absorptive salt content, and can still make its own sugar? I wonder which planet could that be? Is that why all the Earth plants have their color coated leaves hanging out to catch some of that cosmic sub micro wind sugar or salt? How can a black piece of solid carbon turn crystal under intense heat and pressure? Why is sugar mixed water, even iced, clear and salted water clouded? And another thing, why does every living thing need a little of both? Are cosmic rays effected by a clear, translucent, or refective medium? And why are the old called salty, and the very young, little sweet things? Archie may be on to something big no matter how ridiculous it may originally sound. Who doesn't like payday candy with salted nuts for a sudden burst of energy? the nightbat
|
|
#29
August 14th 03, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How much of a ball/material to reduce Sun radiation by 20% Mercury swallowed by Sun, loss of solar radiation?
"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:53:39 +0100 wrote: (snip) Not true. The calculations require the volume of the JET or TFTR tokamaks. The volume of the hot plasma, and how much of a sprinkling of dust matter of iron would it take to cool the plasma temperature by 1/2. Those other posters are totally ignorant of that data information or calculation, as is DP. Sorry, but the interactions of fusion reactor systems with iron dust are only a very vague approximation of the effects of Mercury, or another large object, impacting the Sun. If you think it's a close match then show us how you came to that conclusion instead of just hand-waving. Conditions in a fusion reactor are very different from those in the Sun. I am not privy to the information of JET or TFTR as to how much of a perturbation a BB dropped into the peak performance would occur. why? the data are available. It is an approximation, but it is the best we have other than to actually direct a asteroid into a collision course with the Sun and to measure the lowering of SolarRadiation. Another test is to place a lead drum into a collision course with the Sun and measure for decrease in Solar Radiation. I offered a 1/2 reduction in temperature of JET when a BB is dropped only because I am not privy to any of the data that may deliver the answer. Bull****. You are too lazy to look. There are mountains of data and papers written on topics very close to this. The scientists who work at TFTR or JET would offer more precise data. why not just do the calculation yourself? And the difference between a volume of the Sun equal to the volume of JET is that the Sun is sustained "natural fusion" whereas JET is "artificial environment fusion". What I mean by that is if JET temperature drops by 1/2 with the dropping of a BB into the plasma, the same volume in the Sun will not drop by 1/2 temperature due to a BB introduction. duh. but not for the reason you seem to think. And I am counting on the idea that a BB of iron or copper or lead when dropped into plasma will vaporize and in the vaporization will spread out and thus create more of a temperature drop as it interfers with the fusion reactions. it won't interfere with the fusion reactions directly. Let me ask you this, can you explain a mechanism whereby dropping a BB into a plasma will lower the temperature of said plasma? I do not know what chemical element when introduced into the Sun will drop its temperature by greatest amount. I am guessing it is lead, but maybe a surprize is in store? guessing? do you have a reason for that 'guess'? Why not Iron? It is, afterall, the end of the fusion energy producing chain. Then you find out how much of this iron dust cools a Tokamak plasma by 1/2 temperature. Then you compute how many JET plasma volumes are in the Sun which is a very huge number indeed. And then you multiply that huge number by the amount of iron-dust that cooled the Tokamak by 1/2. And then you see if this number is the mass of Mercury. Albeit, Mercury is not a 100% ball of iron but close enough to it. If you have the data on tokamak plasma volumes relative to the Sun's volume, and the effects of dust on it, then show us the calculations that support your hypothesis. Say the BB is made of iron and vaporizes and evenly distributed into the plasma and that each atom of iron in the BB stops a fusion reaction. why exactly would it do that? explain to me the mechanism. Alternatively, explain how this will cool the plasma. I know the answer, now let's see if you can think it through. Though I doubt very highly that the BB would even penetrate the JET plasma. So it becomes almost a linear relationship of the number of atoms for fusion compared to the number of atoms that would thwart the fusion. Interesting, but no. Say that a BB has 10^21 atoms of iron and say the atoms of hydrogen participating in the fusion process is 10^22; if it were 10^21 then the BB could smother the fusion completely. ......searching through my dissertation..... some data from JET. I don't work at JET, never have, and yet I was able to come up with some numbers, interesting how that works. JET has approximately 5x10^21 atoms. 10^20 atoms of D is ~3.3 mg. Roughly the mass of a small cigarette ash. One can easily calculate that the mass of the JET plasma is ~17 mg. So your guess at the number for JET wasn't too bad. However, a BB is much heavier than that. And, again, a BB would have trouble penetrating the plasma, unless it was moving at very high speed. As far as I can see, the calculations presented so far are perfectly valid, and show that impacting a Mercury sized boy would have an almost unnoticeable effect on the Sun. If you think differently it's up to you to prove it. That is because childish viewpoints of the Sun swallowing are based on preconceptions that the Sun is huge the Sun IS huge. and that Mercury if swallowed would just find a home in the core and live happily ever after. huh? Mercury would be vaporized. We had childish preconceptions that greenhouse gases do not affect Earth by much. So it does not surprize me that most scientists would have childish preconceptions that Sun swallowing seldom if ever affects its solar radiation output. do the calculations. Raz
|
|
#30
August 14th 03, 09:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How much of a ball/material to reduce Sun radiation by 20% Mercury swallowed by Sun, loss of solar radiation?
Raziel wrote: "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... wrote: (snip) Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 13 Aug 2003 17:26:06 -0700 Mark Martin wrote: At any rate, a body of iron falling upon the Sun won't get homogenously distributed through the solar mass. It'll be vaporised in the outermost layers and remain suspended there due to the intense radiative output, coupled with the increasing mass density with depth. I take issue with that scenario. For one thing, the outer layers of the Sun are thin gaseous layers and so when a solid object such as Mercury falling into the Sun, that yes much of Mercury's surface will be vaporized but with the speed of fall and the "coldness of Mercury's inner layers" that much / most of Mercury will end up in the core and be vaporized into the core region of the Sun. I would agree that a comet consisting mostly of ice would never reach the Sun core but with Mercury, I would say that 75% or more will reach the core if it is a direct plunge. But if it is a slow decay fall-in to the Sun then the Sun will strip away the layers of Mercury and little if any reach the Sun core. Sorry, but this is all still guesswork and opinion. Have you actually done any calculations to support this? (That's a rhetorical question BTW since it looks like you're never going to even attempt any.) You should be able to compute the distance from the Sun photosphere to the center of the Sun. why would you need to compute it? look it up. And compute the km/sec of a Mercury ramming into the Sun directly head-on of its full orbital velocity. again, do the math, let me give you a hint. 0.5 *rho*v^2 = P where v is the velocity of Mercury, rho is the density of Mercury, and P is the pressure in the Sun at depth you penetrate. This, of course, assumes Mercury is an incompressible body. How few minutes would Mercury spend in flight from the edge of the photosphere of the Sun until it rammed into the center of the Sun? do the above calculation, and tell us if Mercury would even reach the center of the Sun, and at what velocity this would happen. Would there be enough time for the Sun to vaporize it of its metal interior before it ramms into the center. Mark believes there is plenty of time from photosphere to center of Sun to vaporize entire Mercury. But there is not enough time, ahh, so you have done the calculations? good, share them with us. and so approx 75% of Mercury will end up in the center of the Sun and be vaporized in the center. approx? is it 74%, 77%? or are you, as always, just guessing? Raz It is 79%, after taking the idea that the shuttle returning to Earth as it enters the atmosphere simulates the entry of Mercury head-on collision with Sun. And using the measurements of the Tile as a deflection shield, so also is the surface of Mercury silicates and metals a deflection shield. The shuttle survives almost 100% in tact upon reentry. Mercury with the Sun would not be so fortunate but 79% or thereabouts will find its way to the Center of the Sun and be vaporized in the center. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Moon hoax as American as apple pie | Jay Windley | History | 43 | February 14th 05 09:37 PM |
| Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 2 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
| Scientists Report First-Ever 3D Observations of Solar Storms Using Ulysses Spacecraft | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 17th 03 03:28 AM |
| Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
| proof Permian mass-extinction caused by SolarFlares Earth's AirConditioner | Archimedes Plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 2 | August 11th 03 07:37 AM |
Linear Mode
