• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

Astronomy/Cosmology/Astrophysics thread - Even though there are no gods I still pray

sry for makin you cry, jules. wont be mean again, now i know it upsets you so much you snide imaginary persecution
bye!



vurtual
lol youre desperate to put me in a box arent ya?
you seem comfy enough in fusion model to activate astrosmugness



so youll have no probs providing illumination on some basic q's my clouded & inferior, poor misguided mind cant resolve;



Edit: Use quotes please, thank you xx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BHM, we've been on good terms until now. Don't go pissing me off! I know what you're doing and you're making me feel like a parent pulling snarky siblings apart ( sorry Jules for that analogy )

Long story short, Don't piss me off, you're already on thin ice. You don't want a newbie mod on your ass.
 
i need your expertise
cant even figure out how the fusion model explains a corona millions of degrees&surface mere 6000?
 
& it escapes me, obv not you.. why the sun lacks any centrifugal bulge at the equator, whatsoever

newton'll know, right

& while we're on equators.. youll know im sure, why the poles take a full eleven days longer to revolve vs the equator

lastly.. i turn to you, mr fusion;

why the sunspot-viewed interior of the generator i darker than the cooler surface..?

apologies sadie, the double post was unintentional. it reposted last instead of what i wrote fresh (addressing vurtual)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlindHelperMonkey said:
& while we're on equators.. youll know im sure, why the poles take a full eleven days longer to revolve vs the equator
Click to expand...
One day for rounding errors, and the other 10 because you forgot to carry a one?

If it's the same object, all points on its surface will take the same amount of time to revolve round the same axis back to where they were before, by definition. Otherwise it would change shape
 
Constant posting is not what's pissing me off. I will gladly merge your posts. You being rude however is not acceptable to me. Play nice. That's all I have to say on the matter. If you don't play nice neither will I.

Understood?

Just be thoughtful of others yes?
 
which, fwiw - has just shown its ignorance in relation to solar rotation to be wonderfully on par with its arrogance
 
BHM, cool down a bit. Yeah. Not everything is a fight. You're a clever guy, don't be rude about it.

Your input into this thread is rather enlightening. xx

Also, can you explain whom or what "it" is. You're being vague there.
 
Bawww hahahaha Where do you find this shit Ceres. I really would love a day in your mind! You really entertain me!
 
It's a physicist's joke: "Let us consider a spherical sun.."



BHM you mean g-mode propagation? I've read about asymmetry being suspected there (found in some numerical model).

Sun's convective layer has some pretty intense acoustics (non-linear and coupled to gravity) with wild turbulence, so who knows what else will turn up. "When I die and go to heaven there are two matters on which I hope for enlightenment. One is quantum electrodynamics, and the other is the turbulent motion of fluids. And about the former I am rather optimistic." (wrote Horace Lamb and got famous for it. I thought english enjoyed this lame sort of "wit" thing so here you have it)
 
Vurtual said:
Kittycat: obviously go with what what lurching said as he knows what he's talking about (rather than talks a good game ;)) - i still haven't found me books anyway (they might have been sold for gunj). (I think i will too - thanks lurching; i could do with refreshing my maths to help with my max stuff)
Click to expand...

np, here's links to PDFs of both books (thin little books, written about 50 years ago, authors deceased etc):

Div, Grad, Curl, And All That

Serge Lang Linear Alg

(this is also a fine Lin Alg book, more modern than Lang, for on the side as a reference)
 
I think you have a phraseology problem.

Two points on the same object must necessarily take the same amount of time to revolve around an axis.

If you mean the duration of a single revolution measured from two different places appears to be different depending where you measured it from, well, that's to be expected. But that's relativity, not quantum physics. And unfortunately, you have to pick one or the other, depending whether you are dealing with individual particles or high speeds. Which is not really acceptable, and hence there is room for a grand unifying theory of everything. Until then, it's a mess; but at least we get the right answers out. Also, when you consider degenerate cases (systems composed of many particles, having volumes much greater than the 90% confidence regions of their component particles, and moving much slower than the speed of light) and apply simplifying approximations, then you end up back with familiar Newtonian equations.
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
& it escapes me, obv not you.. why the sun lacks any centrifugal bulge at the equator, whatsoever

newton'll know, right

& while we're on equators.. youll know im sure, why the poles take a full eleven days longer to revolve vs the equator

lastly.. i turn to you, mr fusion;

why the sunspot-viewed interior of the generator i darker than the cooler surface..?

apologies sadie, the double post was unintentional. it reposted last instead of what i wrote fresh (addressing vurtual)
Click to expand...

I've read a bit about the sun - the poles around the equator go quicker then the field lines all get twisted and eventually the field lines (which can't be cut) pops out of the surface in a loop of which either end is seen as a sunspot. Also about how outward pressure of fusion is finely balanced against gravity (fusion which can only occur in required numbers because of 'quantum tunneling' i might add) and how a photon created in the centre takes thousands of years to reach the surface (in a zig zag path from particle to particle, but slowly drifting outwards) - the detail about why the surface is less hot than the atmosphere is interesting but on it's own doesn't justify a new model (someone better at remembering their astrophysics books can explain it easily i'd guess), but the temperature in the middle is way hotter than both anyway.

I read about this stuff in the context of 'mainstream' astrophysics and it all seemed pretty well accounted for (with the usual amount of mysteries here and there to solve) - i certainly didn't think that it had less explanatory power than some articles in nexus i read about the electric universe model (which seemed to be based on lots of speculation and not much science)
 
Off-topic irrelevance removed.

EDIT: And to give this post a little content, here's a linky to the talk I watched yesterday - Inflationary Cosmology on Trial. One of the clearer explanations of one of the 'Brane World' hypotheses. In this case it is an oscillatory/cyclic model rather reminiscent of the approach I've seen Roger Penrose advocating in recent years.

EDIT2: And for any that maybe haven't bothered to read any of the other posts in this thread so far, no I am not claiming to fully understand this specific topic any more than I claim to understand any of the others mentioned here. Armchair enthusiasm is perfectly legitimate and is what is to be expected of a thread of this nature on a forum of this nature.
 
Last edited:
Time this thread was bumped and I am bumping it with some rather fine edjamakayshunnul vids from PBS. There are lots of these sorts of things around PooToob but these are possibly the best I have yet come across. Each one is short and entertaining enough to grab the interest but most are also densely packed with properly good information (the weightier topics will likely require multiple viewings to catch and absorb all the information provided) as well as copious links to related materials in the description below. Excellent series I would highly recommend to anybody at any level of interest.

A couple of examples to get the idea...



First episode I watched had me hooked. I've watched a gazillion docs and lectures on Black Holes but still learnt a lot from this short vid.



There's a lot more science in there than you may expect from the title. Flatulence really is rocket science dontcha know.

Probably the best thing as far as real education goes is their Relativity Playlist though. Whilst armchair cosmology buffs like myself may have a basic understanding of GR in *ahem* general terms these episodes - as with the BH one above - go into far greater detail than you will ever find in any documentary or public lecture. Good stuff and highly recommended.
 
I really do like those PBS Spacetime as well. Not too dumbed down and not too technical and both hosts do a great job at telling a compelling story.
 
Eric Davis: Interstellar Flight - What's it all about?

Gloss over the fact this talk was given at a UFO conference (he is a "proper" scientist and it's kinda on-topic for such things) and you'll find some really rather interesting stuff about the possibilities for interstellar travels. Mostly stuff I'd heard before but brings it more up to date than I've previously seen in talks on this topic before. Still a helluva long way off but some small progress is being made which is encouraging :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top