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

Förster vom Silberwald wrote:
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

JRS: In article , dated Sun, 26 Feb
2006 14:18:24 remote, seen in news:sci.astro.amateur, Andrew Robert
Breen posted :
In article ,
Laury wrote:
"Dr John Stockton" wrote in message
...
|
| 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.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, 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.

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!
--
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 *
**********************************************

where is the charter?

granite stone wrote:
where is the charter?



From David's earlier msg:

The sci.astro.amateur charter -----------------------------


The original version was written by Ken Kirksey :


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.

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.

granite stone wrote:
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

NO more is more.!!
'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / |_| |_|
The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | _ _ _
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)

..-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,

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

Schneewittchen (Förster vom Silberwald) wrote:
What I often do not understand: why this quick and strong objection to
such individuals like the original poster in this thread.

Because they are OFF TOPIC, Snow White.

--
Noah