It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 2
0
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 01:22 AM

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
OK. If Jesus and Batman got in a fight, who would win? The fight would take place in outerspace(Astronomical part) and Jesus would be armed with a lazer sword. Batman would have his usual gear and the help of Robin. So, who would win?
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention. Batman would also be wearing some sort of Bat-spacesuit. So he can breath and stuff.

No wonder you thought I was on drugs.

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Kano
Heres a fun one.

Barring long-period oscillations, what are 2 reasons the Average distance from the Sun to the Earth is increasing, and how much is the increase per year?

[Edited on 10-3-2004 by Kano]

awesome question Kano, really. you got me stumped.

the only things i could think of that would be that as the sun burns its hydrogen it's losing mass, allowing the earth to move away slightly. the other reason i came up with was that the earth is in an eliptical orbit around the sun, which will also vary the distance. as for how much this distance increases annually, i have no idea. i'm not even sure if my reasoning is correct. i'm going to do some reasearch on this.

i'm guessing you know the answer though, because why else would you ask a question like this?

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 01:07 PM
Bloody well done on getting the loss of Mass one, its obvious but its something I never thought of until I was told about it. The other one is just plain old tidal forces.

For those playing the home game, the loss of Mass one is because the sun is fusing Hydrogen into Helium, and converting a small % of the mass of the original Hydrogen into energy in the process. Thus the Mass of the sun is (very very very slowly) decreasing. Correspondingly the orbits of the planets increase, I think Earths was increasing by about 2cm per year.

Tidal forces are more complicated, basically its the same as the forces at work in the Earth-Moon system that are pushing the Moon further away and slowing the Earths rotation. This was only a tiny amount I think like 0.01cm per year or such from memory.

EDIT: Oh the third possible one is the push of Solar Wind on the Earth, but thats even weaker than the tidal drag.

[Edited on 10-3-2004 by Kano]

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 01:13 PM
oh, tidal forces. i didn't even think of that at all! they also cause the moon to move about 1 inch away from the earth annually.

EDIT: i thought of solar wind drag as well, but i knew that that was pretty weak so i figured that it didn't account for much.

[Edited on 3/10/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Kano
Heres a fun one.

Barring long-period oscillations, what are 2 reasons the Average distance from the Sun to the Earth is increasing, and how much is the increase per year?

[Edited on 10-3-2004 by Kano]

I was so wishing know one new the answer, Me and my other had an argument about it. So I had to do resarch on it to find the truth. Alot of our conversations turn out this way. she is a lawyer. LOL

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I was so wishing know one new the answer, Me and my other had an argument about it. So I had to do resarch on it to find the truth. Alot of our conversations turn out this way. she is a lawyer. LOL

i was so wishing i was getting another question...

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:06 PM
The triangle constellation is actually a part of a lager constellation called Cepheus. The triangle would be the pointy section of it.

So, then, the object(s) I had seen would have been between the king and queen, basicly.

For a while there, I thought I had seen the asteroid British astronomers discovered a couple days later, but who knows?

Hope this extra info helps!

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by soothsayer
The triangle constellation is actually a part of a lager constellation called Cepheus. The triangle would be the pointy section of it.

So, then, the object(s) I had seen would have been between the king and queen, basicly.

For a while there, I thought I had seen the asteroid British astronomers discovered a couple days later, but who knows?

Hope this extra info helps!

i gotcha. the triangle is called an asterism, which is a seperate entity of the constellation. the asterism you're refering to in cepheus is made up of the stars Er Rai, Iota Cephei, and Alfirk. another such example of an asterism is the big dipper, which is just a portion of the constellation ursa major. asterisms also can span through several constealltions, such as the summer triangle. it's made up of the stars Altair (in Aquila), Deneb (in Cygnus), and Vega (in Lyra).

what do you mean the objects you had seen were the kind and queen? those are the mythological aspects of the constellations. cassiopiea is the queen, cephius is the king. the object you had described seemed more like light dispersion due to upper atmosphere effects or a nebula or star cluster.

the m52 star cluster is located pretty much directly between these two constellations though, but being at the 8th magnitude (very dim, lower numbers mean brighter objects) it's basically on the verge of being seen without a telescope.

as for seeing an asteroid, you can't unless you have a telescope. and even though you can't even actually see them. the largest asteroid, 1 ceres, is onlt about 580 miles in diameter. the only way to see it would be to see it pass in front of a star, which is called occultation.

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:38 PM

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by soothsayer
So, then, the object(s) I had seen would have been between the king and queen, basicly.

what do you mean the objects you had seen were the kind and queen?

I had later 'disbelieved' I had seen the asteroid, because of the fact it wasn't moving. I'll check that nebula you mentioned, though... see if it leads to anything.

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by soothsayer

I had later 'disbelieved' I had seen the asteroid, because of the fact it wasn't moving. I'll check that nebula you mentioned, though... see if it leads to anything.

oh, duh... sorry! hope this helps.

nice commander keen drop, by the way!

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 07:09 PM
Geez... haven't played Commander Keen in, what... hell, since at least mid-90's!

Will have to surf the Net, try to find them again... maybe Secret Sam, and Jungle Jan, too!

*EDIT- AHH! Turn the map upside down, and the circled nemula is exactly where I saw my thing... cool! But could it be seen with naked eye? Ehh, guess so...*

[Edited on 10-3-2004 by soothsayer]

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 08:35 PM
Ok, question. Where do solar winds come from? Isnt space just empty space?

BTW cdrmkeenkid, ive noticed that your really good with astronomical things.

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by soothsayer
Geez... haven't played Commander Keen in, what... hell, since at least mid-90's!

Will have to surf the Net, try to find them again... maybe Secret Sam, and Jungle Jan, too!

*EDIT- AHH! Turn the map upside down, and the circled nemula is exactly where I saw my thing... cool! But could it be seen with naked eye? Ehh, guess so...*

[Edited on 10-3-2004 by soothsayer]

yeah, it can eb seen by naked eye. you must have wicked awesome eyes! GIVE THEM TO ME!!! i mean... yay you... heh heh heh...

i'm glad we figured out what you saw. the program i took those screenshots from is Starry Night Astronomy, if you're interested.

www.geocities.com...
www.geocities.com...

there's others. just search geocities.

JustAnIllusion... i'm working on yours following this comment.

EDIT: the puke picture got in there. i must have clicked it on accident... bah

[Edited on 3/10/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
Ok, question. Where do solar winds come from? Isnt space just empty space?

actually, space isn't empty at all. even in interstellar and intergalactic space there are still hydrogen atoms. only about 3 atoms per cubic centimeter. this is how such spacecraft as a bussard ramjet would still be able to function.

solar wind comes from corronal mass ejections. the corrona is the outer, thin "atmosphere" of the sun. in this there are holes, and it's these holes that allow particles from the sun (en masse, i mean. there are always particles coming from the sun) to come forth. solar flares and prominences are also major contributors to solar wind. on average the sun is sending out between 6.5 to 7.5 million tons of particles every second. the particles are mainly protons, which when hitting the earth's atmosphere enter through the poles (directed by the magnetic field), ionize the upper atmosphere, and produce the aurora.

if you go to www.spaceweather.com... they have a graphic saying how many protons per cubic centimeter. it also says the speed of the solar wind.

also, particles that are sent out are neutrinos, x-rays, gamma rays, and various other wavelengths of light.

also also, because of the solar wind you could build a giant sailship in space and fly around the solar system. the acceleration would be horrendously slow though.

BTW cdrmkeenkid, ive noticed that your really good with astronomical things.

thanks!!

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 11:23 PM
c'mon people! keep the questions coming, you know you just have tons of questions about astronomy! deny my boredom!

posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 11:48 PM
What would happen to the Size of Jupiter if you were to add Neptune's mass to it?

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Kano
What would happen to the Size of Jupiter if you were to add Neptune's mass to it?

now, by size you mean mass? i'll go with that...

Jupiter's mass is about 1.9 X 10^27 kg
Neptune's mass is about 1.0 X 10^26 kg
or about 0.1 X 10^27 kg

so, together they'd have a mass of 2 X 10^27 kg.

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 12:32 AM
No sorry, by Size I meant volume

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Kano
No sorry, by Size I meant volume

ah, well in that case...

Jupiter's volume is about 1.5 X 10^15 kg^3
Neptune's volume is about 6.5 X 10^13 kg^3
or about 0.065 X 10^15 kg^3

so Jupitune's (or Nepiter's, if you prefer) volume would become 1.565 X 10^15 kg^3.

also, this new planet's surface area would change. using A = 4(pi)r^2 i'll find that (pi =3.14). i had to find my old geometry book from high school to get that formula. i'm slipping up.

Jupiter's diameter is about 143,000 km
Neptune's diameter is about 50,000 km

so the radii would be 71,500 km and 25,000 km, repsectively.

Jupiter's surface area is about 6.4 X 10^10 km
Neptune's surface area is about 7.9 X 10^9 km

since the neptune would be added to jupiter, jupiter's surface area would increase by neptune's.

so Jupitune's (or Nepiter's) surface area would be about 7.2 X 10^10 km

also also, with a change in mass the size of the planet may not change. just the density could change, while the volume remains the same. i'm doing these problems as if the density remains constant.

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 01:39 AM
Heh sorry, it was another tricky one. The size of Jupiter is right on the boundary at which additional mass can overcome the effects of additional gravity and pressure. The Mass is so great that adding more mass to Jupiter would actually make the volume slightly smaller, as the increase in gravity overcomes the increase in volume from the additional mass.

I don't remember the specifics or calculations for this, I'll have a look around and see if I can find some.

new topics

top topics

0