ask me anything astronomical

Originally posted by Kano
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.

hey, don't be sorry for tricky ones. i was hoping for some good challenges.

i actually thought that something like that might occur. that's why i dropped that also also note saying i was doing it as if density were to remain constant. i hope you can find the specifics. i'd like to see 'em.

plus i was figuring i was doing it wrong since it was like 2 in the morning when i started. i need better sleep patterns.

and i'm guessing it would be a fair assumption to say you've studied astronomy, wouldn't it? do you have a degree or anything? or just an enthusiast?

Ya heres a question...why the hell does anyone care about astrology????What can they honestly get out of tracking stars and what not??Telling the future from stars and all that crap I just dont understand...I dont even understand the premise of it...

Originally posted by McGotti
Ya heres a question...why the hell does anyone care about astrology????What can they honestly get out of tracking stars and what not??Telling the future from stars and all that crap I just dont understand...I dont even understand the premise of it...

nor do i, too be honest. the worst is people who confuse astrology with astronomy. modern astrology is loosely based off of chinese and egyptian observations from over 5000 years ago.

in those observations the earth's north pole was pointed at another star, vega. so in the ecliptic plane that they were viewing, there were only twelve constellations. now there are thirteen, with the addition of ophiucus. EDIT: this changing of the earth's north star over time is what has caused this shifting of the ecliptic. this also causes time lapses in dates for an astrologer's zodiac. overall, this effect is caused by earth wobbling as it rotates.

for example, my birthday is september 15th. according to astrologists now, the sun would have been in virgo. while the sun was ACTUALLY in leo. so am i a leo, or a virgo? until i know, i'll just keep reading both horoscopes.

[Edited on 3/11/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]

Heh nah I'm just an enthusiast.

Found out a little more on the Subject of adding mass to Jupiter. It seems there isn't any real consensus on exactly how massive an object has to be before the electron degeneracy begins to take over as the method of support. (ie the object starts to shrink, and make the transition from planet to star).

This article says it occurs with objects around 10 MJupiters:
zeno.as.arizona.edu...
(Go down to the section entitled The Transition from Planet to Star: Brown Dwarfs).

This one says 2 Jupiters:
astron.berkeley.edu...

This one seems to say Jupiter is the benchmark:
curious.astro.cornell.edu...

They all point out however that this shrinkage only continues until the internal temperature reaches a point where it can sustain the fusion of Hydrogen, around 80 MJupiters. At this point regular gas pressure (due to the extreme temperatures) again takes over as a method of support against the Gravity, and the object expands again.

thanks for the links, Kano. they're all really interesting and something i much never thought of. on ATS there was a thread about turning jupiter into a star and i thought it was completely bogus. but IF jupiter is on that threshold as the one link says, then who knows? for now i'll stick by the fact that it's just not massive enough though.

do you own a telescope or anything, by chance? if so, what kind?

any more questions anyone? please?

well, i can do stars. planets? not so much in depth. i'm no geologist.

i could do composition, atmosphere, and some random facts though if you'd like.

Don't you mean astronomer?
geologist works with rocks.

Originally posted by TrueLies

well, i can do stars. planets? not so much in depth. i'm no geologist.

i could do composition, atmosphere, and some random facts though if you'd like.

Don't you mean astronomer?
geologist works with rocks.

no, i meant geologist. i know they work with rocks. a geologist would be one to give you how a planet forms. the extent of my knowledge can tell you that when a star moves from the T-Tauri stage to the Main Sequence it blows off a lot of material. the heavier material stays closer to the star because it's more massive. it then condenses, for lack of a better term, in on itself to form planets. that's why the inner planets are terrestrial.

some of the material is blown further out though, creating the cores of the gas giants.

Interesting stuff,I didn't know that.. my bad.

Originally posted by TrueLies
Interesting stuff,I didn't know that.. my bad.

no one's bad. glad you asked. have any more questions?

Ask anything? Ok, so how long before man probes Unanus?


Juvenile, I know, but I still think that it's funny.

How many times the speed of light would I have to go to get half way across the known universe in 2 hours?

I once read that the fastest known movement was about that fast. But howmany times the speed of light would that be?

Originally posted by Jonna
Ask anything? Ok, so how long before man probes Unanus?


Juvenile, I know, but I still think that it's funny.

haha, it's all good. i love jokes about uranus. and man already has with the voyager II probe.

Originally posted by ET3
How many times the speed of light would I have to go to get half way across the known universe in 2 hours?

I once read that the fastest known movement was about that fast. But how many times the speed of light would that be?

you read that that was the fastest known movement? i'd like to know where you got that from. in my books, light is still the fastest out there.

let's say the universe is about 14 billion years old, so 14 billion light years wide. half way across then would be 7 billion light years.

distance = rate X time
7 X 10^9 = r X 2
divide each side by 2
3.5 X 10^9 = r

so about 3.5 billion times the speed to get half way across the universe in two hours.

Thank you, and the source was the Book of Daniel when he goes into prayer and an angel is dispatched to deliver a message to Daniel. The time laps between that prayer and the evening meal is estimated to be between 20 mins. and 2 hours. The suposition is that the angel came from the throne, possibly logicaly the center of the universe to earth to deliver that message. The messenger is made tired or worn out by the trip it says.

Originally posted by ET3
Thank you, and the source was the Book of Daniel when he goes into prayer and an angel is dispatched to deliver a message to Daniel. The time laps between that prayer and the evening meal is estimated to be between 20 mins. and 2 hours. The suposition is that the angel came from the throne, possibly logicaly the center of the universe to earth to deliver that message. The messenger is made tired or worn out by the trip it says.

interesting. what chapter and verse is that?

[Edited on 3/12/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]

yes, i'm giving my thread a boost? and why? because i want some more questions! deny my boredom and learn something at the same time!

How many suns are there in the universe, and how many planets, and how many of those planets sustain life?

Sorry for my tardy response, Dan. 9:20 give or take a few passages. And so I don�t get knocked another 50 points

I will jabber on for a moment. Thanks again for that response too. I enjoy re-searching the old astronomer�s stuff and comparing it with today�s observations. You may find the shots of Mars from the early 70�s and those of today show some remarkable changes. But that is whole new thread topic.

Originally posted by IAmHeWhoIsMeYes
How many suns are there in the universe, and how many planets, and how many of those planets sustain life?

that question is basically impossible to answer, though not a bad question at all. when you factor in that there are over 50 billion known galaxies in the universe, and galaxies can have anywhere from a few hundred million to over 200 billion stars, you end up with basically an infinite number of chances for anything.

Originally posted by ET3
Sorry for my tardy response, Dan. 9:20 give or take a few passages. And so I don�t get knocked another 50 points

I will jabber on for a moment. Thanks again for that response too. I enjoy re-searching the old astronomer�s stuff and comparing it with today�s observations. You may find the shots of Mars from the early 70�s and those of today show some remarkable changes. But that is whole new thread topic.

no problem for the delayed response, or my answer.

as for comparing old to new photographs, it sure is amazing how far we've come in technology. from the what seem to be simple now probes to the complex craft like cassini and the two rovers.