A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Relative to Sun Earth,and Solar System



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 5th 05, 12:13 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relative to Sun Earth,and Solar System

Best way for us to visualize size,and speed of motion. Here is a good
illustration. It takes 11 Earth's to equal the size of Jupiter.Jupiter
has a period of rotation of 10 "Earth hours". Rather than say the Sun is
93 million miles away we should say you can fit 97 Suns between it and
Earth. The moon is 30 Earth's away. I like quasars being the size of
our solar system. It is very hard to think we can tell 10 LY from 20 LY
in our minds eye. I like knowing a photon can circle the Earth 7 times
in one second. I like seeing I can stop a ray of light an inch and a
half from its source. To say a gamma explosion took place 7.3 billion
LY from us only means to me it happened "once upon a time" and very far
away. Bert

  #2  
Old June 5th 05, 08:48 PM
Double-A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Best way for us to visualize size,and speed of motion. Here is a good
illustration. It takes 11 Earth's to equal the size of Jupiter.Jupiter
has a period of rotation of 10 "Earth hours". Rather than say the Sun is
93 million miles away we should say you can fit 97 Suns between it and
Earth. The moon is 30 Earth's away. I like quasars being the size of
our solar system. It is very hard to think we can tell 10 LY from 20 LY
in our minds eye. I like knowing a photon can circle the Earth 7 times
in one second. I like seeing I can stop a ray of light an inch and a
half from its source. To say a gamma explosion took place 7.3 billion
LY from us only means to me it happened "once upon a time" and very far
away. Bert



Hi Bert,

Also a neutron star is about the size of an average city. A tablespoon
of its material weighs as much as a mountain on earth. And a mountain
range on a neutron star would rise no more than a few centimeters, yet
poke above its atmosphere.

A typical white dwarf star is about the size of the Earth, but has a
mass equivalent to the sun.

And a Schwarzschild black hole singularity, well you could put it in
your pocket! But I wouldn't advise it!

Double-A

  #3  
Old June 6th 05, 12:49 AM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Double-A you sited lots of good Earth reference sample. When
astronomers all sound like Carl Sagan an say Billion,and billions of LY
years they are referring to space and time with nothing to relate it
with. Knowing that there is a very big difference between the density
of interstellar space that which separates the stars,and that of the
extragalactic space that separate galaxies. I have never read how this
cubic space difference is shown in a way that gives me a picture or
something that shows their difference Bert

  #4  
Old June 6th 05, 02:00 AM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From Bert:

the Sun is 93 million miles away we
should say you can fit 97 Suns between
it and Earth. =A0 The moon is 30 Earth's
away.


Another rather breathtaking factoid is that the entire Earth-moon system
would fit comfortably inside the Sun with room to spare (diameter of
moon's orbit=3D approx. 480,000 miles, Sun's diameter=3D 865,000 miles.
Light takes 4.65 seconds to cross the face of the sun.
If your car makes it to 200,000 miles, it hasn't even
reached the moon, and has crossed only a fraction of the sun's disc.
Dat's one big Mamoo. But a mediocre little star as stars go. oc


  #5  
Old June 6th 05, 02:12 AM
Double-A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Double-A you sited lots of good Earth reference sample. When
astronomers all sound like Carl Sagan an say Billion,and billions of LY
years they are referring to space and time with nothing to relate it
with. Knowing that there is a very big difference between the density
of interstellar space that which separates the stars,and that of the
extragalactic space that separate galaxies. I have never read how this
cubic space difference is shown in a way that gives me a picture or
something that shows their difference Bert




According to what I found, air at sea level has 10 trillion atoms per
cubic meter. In the gas of interstellar space there are about 1
million atoms per cubic meter. In the gas of intergalactic space,
there are only about 10 atoms per cubic meter.

Double-A

  #6  
Old June 8th 05, 02:09 AM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Double-A & oc Here is a relative big reference frame to show how
tiny tiny is. It goes like this. "If an atom was magnified to the known
size of the universe at this time a planck length would measure 100
feet." Size of universe at this time ?? Size of atom ?? Size of
Planck length 10-43 of a meter?? Well I do know what 100 feet looks
like. I planted two palm trees 100 feet apart,So you see the Earth's
surface is our best relative way of comparing distances,sizes,and
events. Bert

  #7  
Old June 8th 05, 12:45 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Watching on TV the Indianapolis race is not all that exciting or
interesting. The cars look like ants going around,and very hard to
relate their 225 mph speed on a flat screen. Turn the sound off and with
out that zooming sound its duller still. I*t is no wonder that movies
are shown bigger than life. How scary would Frankenstien monster be if
not for that 16 foot screen Bert

  #8  
Old June 8th 05, 09:02 PM
Double-A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Watching on TV the Indianapolis race is not all that exciting or
interesting. The cars look like ants going around,and very hard to
relate their 225 mph speed on a flat screen. Turn the sound off and with
out that zooming sound its duller still. I*t is no wonder that movies
are shown bigger than life. How scary would Frankenstien monster be if
not for that 16 foot screen Bert



The Indianapolis 500 can be run nowadays in a very reasonable length of
time, because of the high speeds they attain now. When I was a kid, it
took hours longer. I seem to remember even listening to it on radio
(maybe the TV was broken). I'll bet you can remember when it was
really an all day affair!

I used to have a picture of Eddie Rickenbacker driving in the race.
The cars sure looked different in those days. In 1914 it took Eddie
7h03m34.59s to complete the race in his Duesenberg (didn't win).

Double-A

  #9  
Old June 9th 05, 11:39 AM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Double-A Did not watch car racing when young. I watch horse
racing(still do) In 1957 I bought a white Dorge 500 because it was the
lead car used that year at the Indianapolis race. I get speeding
tickets a lot. I have a Fleetwood with a 5.7 engine,and it can go very
fast for a big car. Love speed it gives me a rush. Bert

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How important is GR inorder to calc the precession of Mercury (banned reply) greywolf42 Astronomy Misc 7 November 20th 04 12:23 AM
Beyond Linear Cosmology and Hypnotic Theology Yoda Misc 0 June 30th 04 07:33 PM
ANN: Solar System Game 1.0 released Dave Mikesell Misc 0 June 11th 04 06:00 PM
NASA Wants You to be a Solar System Ambassador Ron Baalke Amateur Astronomy 0 September 12th 03 01:32 AM
Chiral gravity of the Solar system Aleksandr Timofeev Astronomy Misc 0 August 13th 03 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.