A Planet Literally Boils Under the Heat of Its Star

Sooo... by Aeros · 2012-01-19 06:37 · Score: 2

Not a good alpha site?

Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 06:57 · Score: 0

Eh, the Stargate should hold. It took on a blackhole.
Plus, who doesn't like a hot person in uniform?
Re:Sooo... by FatdogHaiku · 2012-01-19 09:19 · Score: 1

Not a good alpha site?
Not really.
If however you are looking for a way to lose that unsightly "equatorial bulge"...

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office

Cool by Tsingi · 2012-01-19 06:38 · Score: 1

Seems like a good place to send all those Lawyer wannabe Astronauts.
Hey, it would be a good start.

Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 06:39 · Score: 1

I already purchased a lot there to build a vacation bungalow. How can I sue my space real estate agent?

Re:Uh oh by Merk42 · 2012-01-19 06:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Since there is less and less land, wouldn't that make it more and more valuable?
You could say you bought a hot commodity.
Re:Uh oh by jamvger · 2012-01-19 06:46 · Score: 1

Too late. The bungalow you purchased here has the same fate.

--
The glass is half glass.
Re:Uh oh by alphatel · 2012-01-19 06:50 · Score: 1

Built-in sauna with every tract.

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Re:Uh oh by Synerg1y · 2012-01-19 07:07 · Score: 1

Free garbage disposal.
Re:Uh oh by Kjella · 2012-01-19 07:29 · Score: 1

Free garbage disposal.
For indiscriminate values of garbage.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

100,000 tons by SJHillman · 2012-01-19 06:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

"but losing 100,000 tons of matter every second it'll only be around another few hundred million years."

Is that 100,000 tons at Earth-normal gravity or at this much smaller planet's (although possibly denser?) gravity?

Re:100,000 tons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 06:47 · Score: 0

It's the same. 100,000 tons is a measure of mass.
What you're thinking of is weight, which varies according to local gravitational field.
Re:100,000 tons by AtariEric · 2012-01-19 06:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Hopefully, that's metric tons; and therefore mass, not weight.

--
Don't trust any concentration of power.
Re:100,000 tons by Rhywden · 2012-01-19 06:51 · Score: 4, Informative

A ton is a unit of mass and thus independent of gravity. I also dare say that we're talking about metric tons here, i.e. 1 ton = 10E3 Kg.
Re:100,000 tons by adamchou · 2012-01-19 06:58 · Score: 2

i believe you're confusing mass vs. weight. weight is the force being exerted due to gravity. mass is the amount of matter.
Re:100,000 tons by VortexCortex · 2012-01-19 07:00 · Score: 1

Yes.
Now, with that answered, the question still remains if the "years" are Pan Universal Terran Years, or local orbit cycles. One has to wonder if they even know what our local Universal Timing Coefficient is.
Re:100,000 tons by westlake · 2012-01-19 07:06 · Score: 1

Is that 100,000 tons at Earth-normal gravity or at this much smaller planet's (although possibly denser?) gravity?
Is this anything worth worrying about when no matter how you calculate the loss the planet will still be around for at least another two or three hundred million years?
Re:100,000 tons by ultranova · 2012-01-19 07:11 · Score: 2

A ton is a unit of mass and thus independent of gravity.

Actually, shouldn't an object have a little bit less mass when bound to a gravity well than in deep space since it has lost some of its potential energy (the binding energy of the system)?

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:100,000 tons by fritsd · 2012-01-19 07:27 · Score: 1

i believe you're confusing mass vs. weight. weight is the force being exerted due to gravity. mole is the amount of matter.

FTFY.

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Re:100,000 tons by david.given · 2012-01-19 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd actually written up a long pedanttastic post on how a ton is defined in terms of pounds and is therefore a unit of weight, while a tonne is defined in terms of kilograms and is therefore a unit of mass; but it looks like they've sneakily redefined the pound (in both the UK and the US) to be a unit of mass. The cads!
But as ton can be either 1000kg, 907kg, 1016kg, or even one of about five volumes, depending who you ask, I'd strongly recommend the metric spelling for clarity...
(It is not true I'm a card-carrying member of the Pedant's Society. It's actually made out of plastic.)
Re:100,000 tons by tripleevenfall · 2012-01-19 07:46 · Score: 0

Yes - the inhabitants of that planet need to know how much longer they have to stop manbearpig.
Re:100,000 tons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:50 · Score: 0

That's not exactly true. Ton is both a unit of weight and a unit of measure, depending on which you're using for your application.
When used as a unit of weight, it's 2000 lbs
When used as a unit of volume, it's 60 cubic feet.
So, what is heavier - a ton (weight or long-ton) of feathers, or a ton (volume or short-ton) of feathers? So, a ton isn't just a ton - it depends on how you're using it.
I suspect that you're right about it being a reference to a unit of measure though. As the planet loses mass (and with it, gravity), a ton (weight) would require more matter - while a ton (volume) would remain constant.
Re:100,000 tons by viperidaenz · 2012-01-19 08:02 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I recommend abandoning this imperial crap and sticking to something a little more universal, say SI units. Then noone has to worry about miss spelling a unit giving it a different value, which is only amplified by the two words sounding the same when spoken.
Re:100,000 tons by dougisfunny · 2012-01-19 08:03 · Score: 2

It certainly weighs less. The mass is the same.

--
This is not the funny you're looking for.
Re:100,000 tons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:07 · Score: 0

mole is the amount of matter.
Mole isn't even a proper unit, it's really only a number of atoms, molecules or elephants. It's fuck all use when describing a mixture.
Re:100,000 tons by neonKow · 2012-01-19 08:10 · Score: 1

I don't think you can measure the weight of a planet by its own gravity. Obviously you can't use surface gravity.
Re:100,000 tons by chronoglass · 2012-01-19 08:16 · Score: 1

or global warming...
Re:100,000 tons by fa2k · 2012-01-19 08:20 · Score: 1

1 ton = 1E3 Kg.
FTFY
Re:100,000 tons by adamchou · 2012-01-19 08:21 · Score: 1

Mole is a unit of measurement and can be used to measure the amount of matter. But mass is also the amount of matter...

Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter something contains, while Weight is the measurement of the pull of gravity on an object
http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/weightvmass.html

a fundamental measure of the amount of matter in the object.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html

In scientific contexts, mass refers loosely to the amount of "matter" in an object

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight
Re:100,000 tons by uigrad_2000 · 2012-01-19 08:22 · Score: 1

they've sneakily redefined the pound (in both the UK and the US) to be a unit of mass. The cads!

That just means it's meeting the same fate as the original kilogram.
In the traditional metric system, now referred to as the Gravitational Metric System, kilograms were used to measure force (and the French root for the word even means "weight"). If you wanted to measure mass, then the "hyl" or "metric slug" was used. It was the amount of mass that would accelerate 1 m/s^2 under the force of 1 kilogram!
The CGPM changed things in 1889 when they chose that mass would now be measured by grams and kilograms, and weight would be measured in Kilogram-force and gram-force.
The origin of the Newton (as a measure of force/weight) was is 1948, and officially adopted in 1960 by the new SI system.

--
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Re:100,000 tons by troon · 2012-01-19 09:28 · Score: 5, Funny

(It is not true I'm a card-carrying member of the Pedant's Society. It's actually made out of plastic.)
I think you mean "Pedants' Society", unless you're the sole member.

--
Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
Re:100,000 tons by larry+bagina · 2012-01-19 09:29 · Score: 1

Sure, and posting on slashdot makes you dumber by reducing your potential intelligence.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:100,000 tons by pclminion · 2012-01-19 10:17 · Score: 1

The distinction between a pound of force and a pound of pass is just pedantry. Out in space, which is the only place the distinction even matters, the pound is not even the unit which is used. It's ONLY used by people standing on the surface of the planet. For any useful practical purpose the distinction is irrelevant.
Even when quoting the mass of interstellar objects, the intended meaning of "a pound" is the amount of mass that would produce one pound of force on the surface of the Earth. Otherwise, in order to interpret the number properly, people would need to know the value of the local gravitational field. Nobody is interested in performing such calculations, but Americans DO know intuitively how much "a pound" is and that's why it's quoted in those units.
Re:100,000 tons by Malvineous · 2012-01-19 10:38 · Score: 2

Assuming 1000kg, wouldn't 100,000 tons then be 100 gigagrams? I've often wondered why we so readily apply an SI prefix to bits and bytes but almost never to things like grams and metres, apart from only 'kilo'.
Re:100,000 tons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 10:39 · Score: 0

The distinction between a pound of force and a pound of pass is just pedantry. Out in space, which is the only place the distinction even matters, the pound is not even the unit which is used. It's ONLY used by people standing on the surface of the planet. For any useful practical purpose the distinction is irrelevant.
Even when quoting the mass of interstellar objects, the intended meaning of "a pound" is the amount of mass that would produce one pound of force on the surface of the Earth. Otherwise, in order to interpret the number properly, people would need to know the value of the local gravitational field. Nobody is interested in performing such calculations, but Americans DO know intuitively how much "a pound" is and that's why it's quoted in those units.
Duh, a pound is about two dollars. But that's even worse, since the exchange rate's always changing. Your really bad at this stuff and should check you're grammer.
Re:100,000 tons by Hognoxious · 2012-01-19 11:04 · Score: 1

When used as a unit of weight, it's 2000 lbs
The chuff it is, you great bleb. 2000 is a stupid number because it doesn't divide by 14. A ton is 2240 lbs, i.e. 20 hundredweight of 8 stone each..

When used as a unit of volume, it's 60 cubic feet.
You can't have a substance independent conversion factor between units of different dimensions. I reckon you made that up, or you're assuming that the substance in question is water.

So, what is heavier - a ton (weight or long-ton) of feathers, or a ton (volume or short-ton) of feathers?
Knackers. A short ton is British for a US ton, and long ton is American for a British ton. but they're both units of weight.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:100,000 tons by david.given · 2012-01-19 11:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Even when quoting the mass of interstellar objects, the intended meaning of "a pound" is the amount of mass that would produce one pound of force on the surface of the Earth.
I was born in Perth, Scotland, where g is about 9.82 m/s^2. I now live in Reading, England, where g is about 9.81 --- a small difference, but measurable. If I were to go to Mexico City, it would be 9.78.
There's a wikipedia page with a big table.
Re:100,000 tons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 12:21 · Score: 0

Too subtle?
Re:100,000 tons by Hognoxious · 2012-01-19 22:42 · Score: 1

Is it? Surely it was "invented" at a time before people understood the difference, so it could be either, or both.
Of course, anyone working in a situation where the difference is important would be a fool for not using SI...

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:100,000 tons by JohnnyBGod · 2012-01-19 23:44 · Score: 1

You mean kg, not Kelvin grams.
Re:100,000 tons by CtownNighrider · 2012-01-20 14:16 · Score: 1

Really? A US ton is 2000 pounds. A pound is a measure of weight.

This Doesn't Make Sense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 06:45 · Score: 0

If the mass is boiling away then it has to be in a spiral orbit and will intersect with the star soon. It is not plausible that it will be in orbit until its mass is gone. This entire "justification" (not science) of the observation is not likely as the star *has* to be falling out of orbit if its mass is decreasing...which implies many things left unanswered.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Losing mass does not change the orbit unless the process of losing mass applies a net force on the planet. And it would only cause it to spiral inward if that net force was in the correct direction.
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by v1 · 2012-01-19 07:49 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm no rocket scientist so maybe I'm missing something here, but if a planet loses mass in this way it should not affect its orbit. Take as an example, lets say some supergiant transformer takes out his sword and slices the moon in half. Each half has 50% of the mass of the moon. That doesn't cause both pieces of the moon to plummet toward the sun.
(circular) orbit is the equilibrium reached when the gravitational pull toward an attractor is balanced by the inertial energy of the mass which is trying to move the object away from the attractor. Both have a linear relation to change of mass of the object in orbit, and the two contribute an opposite force, so if you change the mass, the object should remain in the same orbit. (if you lower the mass, you lower the gravitational attraction and lower the inertial energy)
This is the same reason astronauts don't get hurled off into space when they step out of their spacecraft. And the spacecraft also remains in the same orbit when the astronaut leaves it.
If you want to make something fall toward its attractor, you need to slow it down. That lowers its inertial energy without affecting the gravitational attraction. Or let it collide with a mass that does not have the same inertial vector. (increasing the mass attraction, without an equal increase in overall inertial energy)
I suppose another basic way to view an object in orbit is to view all the particles of the object as independently in the same orbit. Group them any way you want, they are still in the same orbit. Even if some of it turns from rock to gas. The gas remains in the same orbit along with the rock.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Hognoxious · 2012-01-19 08:11 · Score: 2

If the mass is boiling away then it has to be in a spiral orbit and will intersect with the star soon.
I can't think of a polite way of saying this, so I'll just say "bollocks".

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by chronoglass · 2012-01-19 08:17 · Score: 2

i prefer to think it's being strip mined
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Hatta · 2012-01-19 09:01 · Score: 1

If the mass is boiling away then it has to be in a spiral orbit and will intersect with the star soon.
Imagine a candy bar in orbit around a star. Now break that candy bar in half. Are the pieces going to fall into the sun suddenly?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:49 · Score: 0

You forgot the energy imparted from the sun, directly away from the sun... think a solar sail, except it's blowing away all the gas instead of a thin sheet of Mylar.
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by migla · 2012-01-19 10:38 · Score: 1

>Imagine a candy bar in orbit around a star. Now break that candy bar in half. Are the pieces going to fall into the sun suddenly?
I take it that is either a rhetorical question or a potato.
And continuing on the meta-train, I should like to bring up the associations taking place in my brain upon reading the headline.
I doubt that many people would have taken "boil" metaphorically if the headline didn't point out it was literally boiling.
I mean, what would it entail for a planet to be boiling figuratively instead of literally?
Wouldn't that imply there was intelligent life on the planet, outraged because of the heat and drought or some other nasty thing their star might have wreaked upon them, presumably?
In that case, I think the news of there being an intelligent civilization out there would be the big news, not that they'd be pissed off about the weather. Or have I missed something?

--
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Hognoxious · 2012-01-20 00:48 · Score: 1

I mean, what would it entail for a planet to be boiling figuratively instead of literally?
Getting demoted to dwarf planet. Pluto is absolutely furious, I tell you.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Hognoxious · 2012-01-20 00:57 · Score: 1

No he didn't, he ignored it because it's irrelevant as it's nothing to do with gravity.
Even assuming it's strong enough to exert enough force to accelerate a planet, how the hell is it going to make it spiral inwards?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by CtownNighrider · 2012-01-20 14:24 · Score: 1

Maybe as the surface area that's being pushed away decreases over time thereby decreasing the total force exerted such that it spirals inward slowly.
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Agripa · 2012-01-21 10:43 · Score: 1

Forward takes you out, out takes you back, back takes you in, and in takes you forward.
Unless you are suggesting that the planet can tack like a sail
Re:This Doesn't Make Sense by Hognoxious · 2012-01-22 07:00 · Score: 1

We've already established that loss of mass doesn't cause gravity to spiral it inwards. A reduction of an outward force (which is tiny anyway) is not the same as a net inwards force.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Holy cow ... by gstoddart · 2012-01-19 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

but losing 100,000 tons of matter every second it'll only be around another few hundred million years

It's numbers like this that really make my head spin.

Yes, I get that planets are big items, and space is big and vast ... but I can't even begin to imagine the sheer amount of material we're talking about in even just a few hours, let alone the next "few hundred million years".

Anybody got a car analogy or something which might put these numbers into a little better perspective for those of us who don't work on scales like this?

I can't even begin to wrap my head around it ... a google search for one of the biggest things I could think of says that a Nimitz class aircraft carrier is about 101,000 tons. I saw one once, and it was utterly huge.

The idea of something that big boiling off every second for a few hundred million years makes my head hurt.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Holy cow ... by omganton · 2012-01-19 06:56 · Score: 3, Funny

This would equate to losing 20 Hummer H3s worth of mass every second. Now, if only that would happen here on Earth we would have a lot less pricks on the road.
Re:Holy cow ... by meekg · 2012-01-19 06:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

well, think about (hypothetically) zooming out from the Nimitz on Google Earth - how much you have to zoom out even after the Nimitz (all 300 m of it) before you see the full Earth.
Each 1 km x 1km area would pack about 30 Nimitzes. Each 1000 km x 1000 km area would pack about 30,000,000 Nimitzes. And that's just the surface... The Earth is (gasp!) as thick as it is wide, and denser at the center... So yeah. BIG.
Re:Holy cow ... by gauntletguy · 2012-01-19 06:59 · Score: 1

ok, think of it this way, if a library of congress weighs 100 tons, the planet loses 1000 of them per second.
Re:Holy cow ... by LordLimecat · 2012-01-19 07:00 · Score: 2

For context, thats about 1 large oil tanker every 5 seconds. Its a lot, but think how puny an oil tanker is compared to the size of the ocean, and then factor in that thats only surface area.
Re:Holy cow ... by gstoddart · 2012-01-19 07:02 · Score: 2

This would equate to losing 20 Hummer H3s worth of mass every second.
I think you're off by a couple of orders of magnitude on that one ... unless an H3 weighs 5000 tons
I'd say it would be closer to 50,000 H3s per second based on a little quick math and assumption of 2 tons each.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:07 · Score: 1

Wikipedia says the displacement of the Nimitz is 100,000 long tons, which is equivalent to 3.5*10^7 cubic feet. The surface area of the earth, by my calculations, is 5.5*10^16 square feet. If the entire earth were made of Nimitz carriers and the material loss of 1 Nimitz carrier was evenly distributed across the entire globe, we would be losing on average (3.5*10^7 / 5.5*10^16 = ) 6.2x10^-10 feet of material off the top of each one of them every second. Over a year the loss is approximately 1/5th of an inch.
Re:Holy cow ... by omganton · 2012-01-19 07:08 · Score: 1

That's what I get for trying to math in the morning...
Re:Holy cow ... by dcollins · 2012-01-19 07:09 · Score: 1

My rough calculation is that it's analogous to about one-millionth of a square millimeter of a flake of paint being blown off your car every second. (About the same scale as the Nimitz compared to the surface of the Earth.) It's going to take some time.
What I'm a little wierded out by is that this difference is noticeable by the transit light-detection.

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Re:Holy cow ... by operagost · 2012-01-19 07:10 · Score: 0

All I know is that Paula Deen might be interested in this weight loss plan. BUTTER!

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Holy cow ... by gstoddart · 2012-01-19 07:10 · Score: 1

For context, thats about 1 large oil tanker every 5 seconds. Its a lot, but think how puny an oil tanker is compared to the size of the ocean, and then factor in that thats only surface area.
Yeah, and I think that's the part where the ability to actually envision this breaks down for me ... intellectually I get what you're telling me. But my brain just sorta wobbles in trying to reconcile that.
I think you need to work with numbers like that a lot before you can internalize it and not get swamped by them ... otherwise it sounds like "eleventy cagillion", it sounds cool, but doesn't really mean anything to me. :-P

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:11 · Score: 1

The Sun converts 4.3 million tons of matter PER SECOND into energy!
Re:Holy cow ... by ApharmdB · 2012-01-19 07:16 · Score: 1

unless an H3 weighs 5000 tons
Ah ha! So that's why they get such bad mileage!
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:17 · Score: 0

so it is losing roughly 10 petabytes per second?
assuming a library of congress is 10 terabytes, from a random google search
Re:Holy cow ... by Wiarumas · 2012-01-19 07:20 · Score: 1

I keep hearing about these wild planets and I can't help but desire to see what it would look like (safely) from the surface. The one panoramic picture I have of Mars is absolutely stunning - but relatively speaking, its a somewhat boring landscape. I would love to see Titan for example.

--
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
Re:Holy cow ... by gstoddart · 2012-01-19 07:22 · Score: 1

What I'm a little wierded out by is that this difference is noticeable by the transit light-detection.
I'm a little weirded out by the fact that you have a starting point to come up with a rough calculation for that. :-P
I think the visibility in the transit light-detection I get a little more ... it's an ever expanding ball of gas, no? So it's going to be blocking a lot more light on every pass. At least, I think.
I find this with astronomy ... I can understand the concept, but when we get down to the numbers I just find myself drooling and unable to really grasp the scale. And, to be honest, I suspect the astronomers are no better at that, they're just more used to it and have worked out their own set of things to relate it to.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:32 · Score: 1

Imagine a sugar cube, 1cm x 1cm x 1cm. Now imagine a line of ten of them. About the length of your hand, maybe. Now imagine ten lines of ten, on a table, next to eachother, forming a square. That's 100. Like a small square plate. Now stack ten of those squares. That's a cube of 1000 sugar cubes. Smaller than your head. Now imagine a line of ten of those larger cubes. If you spread your arms out a little, you can touch both ends, it's just a metre long. Now imagine ten of those larger lines next to eachother on a big table, in a larger square. Now stack ten of those those large squares into a really big cube on a plinth. That's 1000000 - one million - sugar cubes. It's a fair bit smaller than a car. Maybe a bit bigger than a washing machine, though more cubical.
You could still hug the really big cube, sortof, at least touch both sides. It's shorter than you, assuming you're a normal sized adult. That's why it's on a plinth, so you can appreciate it at eye level. And hug it. You could take a single sugar cube from the corner, and eat it. Sweeeet. But the cube clearly now has a piece missing from the corner - each edge of the really big cube is - or was - one hundred cubes long (100x100x100=1000000), and you can easily see the corner is missing. You cube vandal.
(Note: in practice sugar cubes may start to crumble under weight (though they're surprisingly strong when dry), so you may find ut hard to build an actual 1000000-cube.)
Re:Holy cow ... by ultranova · 2012-01-19 07:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

Anybody got a car analogy or something which might put these numbers into a little better perspective for those of us who don't work on scales like this?

The planet loses mass at a somewhat lesser pace than humanity burns through oil (100,000 vs. 133,000 tons per second). Take that, alien sun!

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Holy cow ... by fritsd · 2012-01-19 07:39 · Score: 1

This handy article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/) may help you rephrase these numbers.

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Re:Holy cow ... by archen · 2012-01-19 07:40 · Score: 3, Funny

Anybody got a car analogy or something which might put these numbers into a little better perspective for those of us who don't work on scales like this?
Space is like a car so big that you can't comprehend it.
Re:Holy cow ... by nomorecwrd · 2012-01-19 07:46 · Score: 1

I can imagine it's something like that hot planet from The Chronicles of Riddick.
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:56 · Score: 0

Space is like a car so big that you can't comprehend it.
Ahhh. A Canyonero!
Re:Holy cow ... by viperidaenz · 2012-01-19 08:11 · Score: 1

But how much of that 80Pbps is porn?
Re:Holy cow ... by xaxa · 2012-01-19 08:12 · Score: 1

Anybody got a car analogy or something which might put these numbers into a little better perspective for those of us who don't work on scales like this?
The planet loses mass at a somewhat lesser pace than humanity burns through oil (100,000 vs. 133,000 tons per second). Take that, alien sun!
We use about 4.9 km^3 per year. Oil has a density of about 0.9kg/L, so that gives us 4.41 x 10^12 kg per year.
Or, about 140,000 kg/second.
So you are correct, although I did doubt your figures at first.
(Also, could the USA please stop measuring oil in volume, which changes density depending on composition, pressure and temperature. Also, please stop using archaic units like "bbl".)
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:19 · Score: 0

What about the Costa Concordia cruise-liner, it's about the same 100,000 or so tons.
Re:Holy cow ... by bendilts · 2012-01-19 08:42 · Score: 1

We use about 4.9 km^3 per year. Oil has a density of about 0.9kg/L, so that gives us 4.41 x 10^12 kg per year.
Or, about 140,000 kg/second.
So you are correct, although I did doubt your figures at first.
(Also, could the USA please stop measuring oil in volume, which changes density depending on composition, pressure and temperature. Also, please stop using archaic units like "bbl".)
No, that makes him incorrect. 140,000 kg/sec is not more than 100,000 tonnes/sec.
Re:Holy cow ... by forceman130 · 2012-01-19 08:59 · Score: 1

I think the math on oil (see other poster) works out to 140,000 kilograms per second, not tons.

--
Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:17 · Score: 0

You think your head hurts now, try grasping the US national debt. :(
Re:Holy cow ... by Nimey · 2012-01-19 10:09 · Score: 1

What's that in pinballs or Libraries of Congress?

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 10:24 · Score: 0

18MPG highway is bad, but not horrible, for something w/ those aerodynamics. Actually, I imagine it isn't the mass that sucks up gas, it is the air resistance, so slap a nice airfoil shape around the hummer, and you could probably get awesome highway mileage.
Ok. Stopping and starting is another matter, but regenerative breaking would help there.
And a hummer would have a huge amount of space if someone wanted to load it up on batteries.
Actually, for home made electric vehicles, a truck bed is awesome, 'cause you can put all those batteries in the truck bed to compensate for the horrible energy density.
Re:Holy cow ... by xaxa · 2012-01-19 10:29 · Score: 1

At my school (and most other schools in the UK, I think -- they're pretty standard) we had "hundreds, tens and units" to play with (aged about 5). Mostly we arranged them into squares, cubes etc -- just as you've explained (though we didn't have a million).
The units were 1cm cubes, the tens a stick, the hundreds a square, and thousands a cube. The "thousands" cube was hollow, and (of course) held a litre of water. Place value, decimal system, and the metric system, all at once :-) Here they are.
For a different visualisation, one of the large, cubic containers used for transporting chemicals (in Europe anyway -- these) has a volume of 1m^3, hence a 1,000,000cm^3.
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 10:44 · Score: 0

A long ton is roughly equivalent to a metric ton (aka tonne). Now a tonne of water has a volume of 1 cubic metre (100 x 100 x 100 cm @ 1 g/cm^3 ). There are three and a bit feet to a metre, so there's roughly 30 cubic feet in a cubic metre.
Thus, the displacement of the Nimitz, in cubic feet of water, is 3,000,000. You appear to be off by an order of magnitude.
Re:Holy cow ... by yurtinus · 2012-01-19 11:21 · Score: 1

Am I the only one reading this that really wants a cup of tea right now?

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 15:16 · Score: 0

Try to think of it in terms of the US Federal budget.
Re:Holy cow ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 21:32 · Score: 0

The Earth is (gasp!) as thick as it is wide, and denser at the center
Just like the US of A.
Re:Holy cow ... by Hognoxious · 2012-01-19 22:54 · Score: 1

When I heard that on the news I didn't believe it at first. That's 2 Bismarcks. I'm surprised the med was deep enough to float it at all.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Holy cow ... by Neil+Boekend · 2012-01-19 23:01 · Score: 1

According to some detailed research: about 90%

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Holy cow ... by CtownNighrider · 2012-01-20 14:28 · Score: 1

This is what makes me what to become an aerospace engineer. There is so much to explore humanity needs to get off this planet and go. If for no reason other than the joy of exploration and learning.

Nomenclature? by Snirt · 2012-01-19 06:46 · Score: 1

How do they come up with star names? Are they named after some Microsoft OS update.

Re:Nomenclature? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:07 · Score: 0

KIC refers to the "Kepler Input Catalog", and then the number of this star system in that list. The 'b' at the end of the planet name means that it's the first planet discovered in this system. (Subsequent planets would be 'c', 'd', etc. Not sure why they don't start with 'a'.) If it's a multiple star system, they append the capital letters A, B, etc to the number to refer to each star of the system. It's not very fun to pronounce, but it's easier than coming up with a milllion unique proper nouns.

Unintelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 06:51 · Score: 0

The universe seems too incredibly wasteful to be designed by a God.

Re:Unintelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:32 · Score: 0

Really? What would YOU have done with the Universe? Serious question.
Re:Unintelligent Design by FranktehReaver · 2012-01-19 07:44 · Score: 1

I would put all the planets in a egg carton like container and have a heating lamp on them at just the right temperature. I would have to remember to rotate them every 12 hours so people can get some sleep :3
Re:Unintelligent Design by Rhacman · 2012-01-19 09:17 · Score: 1

I'd have left it as a Zen rock garden. Sentient beings seem like an amusing hobby till you realize how boring and superfluous they are given that perfect omniscience means that you'd already know every action they would ever perform. Granted I suppose the rocks in the garden are no less predictable but hey, that's just me. I'm sure there are other gods that would get off on other kinks.

--
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
Re:Unintelligent Design by Neil+Boekend · 2012-01-19 23:11 · Score: 1

Rocks + infinity can be awsome to

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

How'd it get there in the first place? by AtariEric · 2012-01-19 06:53 · Score: 2

If it was that close to begin with, how'd it coalesce into a planet in the first place? Either this planet has been spiraling in for eons, it's a victim of a collision, or the star has been getting warmer since planet formation.

--
Don't trust any concentration of power.

Re:How'd it get there in the first place? by el3mentary · 2012-01-19 07:01 · Score: 1

Could have fallen into a lower orbit? Or maybe it was originally n orphan planet which got captured by the newly formed star's gravitational pull.

--
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Re:How'd it get there in the first place? by sourcerror · 2012-01-19 07:11 · Score: 1

Well, similar fate waits for Earth (Sun will turn into a red giant), so my bet is the star is getting hotter. When stars run out of hydrogen and helium, and start fusing heavier elements, they get hotter. When the fusion stops, it becomes a dwarf. Of course the lifecycle of a star heavily depends on the initial size, so this only applies to Sun type stars.

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by ILongForDarkness · 2012-01-19 07:00 · Score: 1

Where the hell did this come from? I agree a lot of baseless accusations flying around but what does this have to do with the parent post or the comment by Aeros? Even if Aeros was one of the many accounts you mention I don't see how it is relevant to the post about. I'm confused.

Riddick by SebaSOFT · 2012-01-19 07:04 · Score: 3

Anyone else got the planet Crematoria in it's mind?

Title.. by Kadagan+AU · 2012-01-19 07:04 · Score: 1

The title of this article currently is "A Planet Literally Boils Under the Heat of Its Star".. It should probably say "A Planet that Literally Boils Under the Heat of Its Star".. To clarify that not every planet boils under the heat of it's star..

--
This space for rent, inquire within.

Re:Title.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:11 · Score: 0

Pretty sure we understand that all planets do not boil as we would not be here, however I get your point.
Re:Title.. by geekoid · 2012-01-19 07:29 · Score: 1

I was waas pleased the used literally correctly. I mean, my brain literally exploded out of my head with pleasure~

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Title.. by Matheus · 2012-01-19 10:07 · Score: 1

Actually... you may have a false assumption there. Boiling, as described in at least one dictionary, is: "a phase transition from the liquid state to the gas state, usually occurring when a liquid is heated to its boiling point." The kicker is the "usually" part. Many substances make this transition in very undramatic ways and so, in a manner, it could be said that every planet is being boiled to a certain extent just not to the point that significant matter is lost from the neighborhood.
Add to all that the fact that planets are not homogeneous structures and different parts of the planet will "boil" as their specific chemistry allows and it would probably be hard to find a planet that isn't boiling in some respect.
One thing the article fails to comment on is what part of the planet is boiling. It's entirely possible that some non-solid substance is being boiled off of this planet and at some point (sooner than later in the next couple hundred million years) this loss of mass will slow or stop as that more boil able substance is eliminated.
Re:Title.. by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-19 10:42 · Score: 1

"A planet" is singular. There is one planet, not all planets.
If the headline said "Planets Literally Boil Under the Heat of Their Stars," then you might have something.
Re:Title.. by Chris+Burke · 2012-01-19 12:21 · Score: 1

Yes, but that singular noun could be used as a hypothetical instance to describe all such objects. For example: "A doctor makes a good living," or "A policeman is like a vampire: You don't invite him into your home."
Not that I agree with the OP that the headline is wrong or misleading! Because that's not necessarily what the headline means. My point is that it could mean that, or other things too, pretty much like 99% of all sentences in English. Seems like it's pretty easy to figure out which was meant in this context, too.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Solar power by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:05 · Score: 0

It's a good place to place solar panels.

All Planets Must Go! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:05 · Score: 0

> but losing 100,000 tons of matter every second it'll only be around another few hundred million years."

Better get it while it's hot!

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:09 · Score: 1

It didn't get first post so it was posted in the next best place, the first reply to first post. More easily seen than the second top-level post.

Quick... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:09 · Score: 0

Get it while it's hot.

As Douglas Adams put it by Moraelin · 2012-01-19 07:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." -- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

And really, it applies not just to distances, but masses, speeds, etc. As a rule of thumb, if it even deserves being mentioned in astronomy, it's frikken mind-bogglingly big.

The Earth, for example, is 6x10^24 kg, so basically 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Or about 600,000,000,000,000,000 Nimitzes.

Or more to the point of the planet being discussed here, they say it's a little bigger than Mercury, which in turn is 3.3x10^23 kg. I.e., 330,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons.

Yeah, that's the kind of numbers that astronomy is about. Well, not really. These are small planets. Now stars and black holes and galaxies, that's the real bread and butter. And you can pretty much stick the zero key down and go brew some coffee, if you want to write the weights for that.

And then come the distances, yes. Douglas Adams was certainly up to something there.

You know where in Men In Black, agent K says, "You want to stay away from that guy. He's, uh, he's grouchy. A three hour delay in customs after a trip for 17 trillion miles is gonna make anybody cranky." You'd think 17 trillion miles is half-way across the galaxy, right? Actually the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 25 trillion miles away. So that alien would have had to make a stop at some cosmic gas station in between, if he only had a 17 trillion miles trip.

It's things like these that... well, let's just say they seriously put the kibosh on most nerds "we should totally do some SF thing right now" scenarios. E.g., since we talk mass, there are all the "oh, let's terraform [insert planet]" stupidities. Yeah, I don't think any of those actually calculated how many trillions of tons of ice comets they'd have to divert into Mars to make oceans and whatever their fantasy scenario involves. (There are 1.4x10^18 tons of water on Earth for example.) Nor where they'd come from, nor what the energy budget for that would be.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.

Re:As Douglas Adams put it by Scutter · 2012-01-19 07:51 · Score: 2

"Yeah, I don't think any of those actually calculated how many trillions of tons of ice comets they'd have to divert into Mars to make oceans and whatever their fantasy scenario involves. (There are 1.4x10^18 tons of water on Earth for example.) Nor where they'd come from, nor what the energy budget for that would be.
Just change the gravitational constant of the universe. Duh.

--

"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Re:As Douglas Adams put it by painandgreed · 2012-01-19 08:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yeah, I don't think any of those actually calculated how many trillions of tons of ice comets they'd have to divert into Mars to make oceans and whatever their fantasy scenario involves.
I did that once on an RPG forum. I think I was just giving Mars an Earth-like atmospheric pressure from local carbon dioxide and comets assumed to be about the size of Haley's (assumed to all be made of frozen gasses) from someplace in the Kuniper Belt. Anyway, just to get those comets to Mars in ten years would require the total energy output of the sun for three days. Then I started figuring out how big the solar panels would have to be at a really good efficiency and how long they would have to be there to gather that energy. Then there was the question of the mass of those solar panels and where it all came from the the energy needed to construct them. Ya, mindboggling stuff that isn't getting done in our greatgrandchild's time even if we all worked on getting it done from now on. It sort of blew the OPs idea of a near current terraformed Mars right out of the water.
Re:As Douglas Adams put it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 10:52 · Score: 0

And then come the distances, yes.
Yep. Once you have a feeling about how fricking huge the stars are, then imagine the size of the vacuum between them. As far as I recall the average density of matter in the universe is in the order of 1 elementary particle per cubic meter. With the number of elementary particles there are in a start that means a lot of cubic meters of absolutely nothing in between them.
Re:As Douglas Adams put it by yurtinus · 2012-01-19 11:30 · Score: 1

Buzzkill.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:As Douglas Adams put it by painandgreed · 2012-01-19 12:16 · Score: 1

Well, he was asking what it would take to terraform Mars. I'm not one to be messing with somebodies assumed setting for a game they want to run, but if you ask such a question to a physics geek, don't be surprised when they give you an answer.
Re:As Douglas Adams put it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 13:53 · Score: 0

you know.....as i read that post i remembered something...... most of us on this site don't have what others would call a life.
If parent posted those quotes off the top of his propeller cap that would mean that most of us here spend our "free time" in SF. Scary
Re:As Douglas Adams put it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 15:04 · Score: 0

I think it's more interesting to think about what's happening to the vapor leaving the planet - is it possible the cosmic wind will push it out and could it coalesce to something at a "cooler" range? Or, would it get too much speed and leave the system? Would this leave a cold radioactive stream of particles spirally out into cold, empty, space?

beta version by Shakrai · 2012-01-19 07:18 · Score: 2

This universe is the beta version; God had to rush it out because the PHB promised the customer a bunch of features that weren't in the original design. He'll work these bugs out when he has time, right after he finishes commenting all the code for the benefit of the next guy who works on the universe.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

Excellent article! by Hazelfield · 2012-01-19 07:19 · Score: 1

I strongly recommend reading the abstract, it's very descriptive and easy to understand I wish more abstracts were like that.

By the way, what's the deal with describing them simply as "astronomers"? Better than the all-too-often-used "scientists" I suppose, but wouldn't it be even nicer to write "a team of astronomers led by Saul Rappaport from M.I.T."? Scientists are people with names, and the more we use them the more we raise the status of pursuing a scientific career. Science needs more superstars!

Re:Excellent article! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:32 · Score: 0

Science needs more superstars!
To boil more superplanets?
Re:Excellent article! by Scutter · 2012-01-19 07:54 · Score: 1

By the way, what's the deal with describing them simply as "astronomers"? Better than the all-too-often-used "scientists" I suppose, but wouldn't it be even nicer to write "a team of astronomers led by Saul Rappaport from M.I.T."? Scientists are people with names, and the more we use them the more we raise the status of pursuing a scientific career. Science needs more superstars!
I prefer to call them "scienticians". As in: "Ascuse me, Mr. Scientician, but I ordered this latte with no cinnamon. Can you please re-make it? Thanks."

--

"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"

This must be it! by thexile · 2012-01-19 07:26 · Score: 0

This is what happening to Earth! Global warming is FUD!

Car analogy by Chemisor · 2012-01-19 07:47 · Score: 1

If this planet were a hot car driving down the highway, the boiling mass would be about a 100 bacteria falling off it every second. And each and every one of them is of the very finest British manufacture.

Re:Car analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 13:26 · Score: 0

British Bacteria?!
Scary.

Re:OR by jdkramar · 2012-01-19 07:51 · Score: 1

That is my favorite part about astronomy. "We think there is a planet there because the star is somewhat blocked regularly" Maybe its just an alien in a space ship somewhere in-between Earth and that star, and every so often he sorta blocks out that star and giggles to himself about how crazy the Earthlings must be going thinking that there is a planet there.

--
"One can not truly appreciate Shakespeare until you have heard it in it's original Klingon" -Star Trek

Joke by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:52 · Score: 0

Since there is less and less land, wouldn't that make it more and more valuable?
You could say you bought a hot commodity.

Scientists got lucky by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-01-19 08:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Using telescopes to peer at super-hot stars stripping their companions usually gets you arrested.

Re:Scientists got lucky by Tastecicles · 2012-01-19 08:26 · Score: 1

Relating from experience?
Release the hounds. >:]

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Re:Scientists got lucky by shish · 2012-01-19 15:48 · Score: 1

Hounds? I'd rather he released the photos!

--
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-19 08:04 · Score: 1

Think of it like Huffman coding, except with spam.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

Orbits chance? by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-01-19 08:19 · Score: 1

You are aware that once our planet spun far faster and that far away moon practically skimmed the tree tops? Things change, the world we know as earth would have been unregonizable a few hundred million years ago, which for astronomy is yesterday.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

AC got his science from Star Trek by HornWumpus · 2012-01-19 08:24 · Score: 0

Anything going wrong will cause the ship to 'spiral in'.

I say GTF out AC. Don't you have a farmville crop to wank over?

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:AC got his science from Star Trek by Neil+Boekend · 2012-01-19 22:56 · Score: 1

Is that a good fertiliser?

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

H3s are lame little pieces of shit. Get a Unimog! by HornWumpus · 2012-01-19 08:27 · Score: 1

I also hate 'mall utility vehicle' drivers. They are almost as lame as hybrid drivers.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Gone in 10.5 million years by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:28 · Score: 0

If this object is the mass of Mercury, then it's mass is 3.3 x 10^23 Kg.

= 3.3 x 10^20 metric tonnes

If it's vaporizing at 100,000 metric tonnes of matter per second, then it will exist for

3.3 x 10^14 seconds
or
~= 10,457,068 years (assuming a year is 365.25 days long)

FWTW...

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by Aeros · 2012-01-19 08:35 · Score: 0

idiot

Re:H3s are lame little pieces of shit. Get a Unimo by BlackSnake112 · 2012-01-19 08:44 · Score: 1

The H2 is a chevy blazer with a different body, tires, and suspension. Like the H2 is a suburban. They share the same frame.

Re:OR by neonKow · 2012-01-19 08:46 · Score: 1

I know you're joking, but I can't help but think, "Wait. That wouldn't work. Unless his spaceship is absolutely tiny, he'd be too far away to realize that we've started looking for planets in this manner in the time it takes to for the light from our planet to reach him. At least for most of the stars involved."

Perspective by DarthVain · 2012-01-19 09:48 · Score: 1

A large quarry might extract 5 or 10 million tonnes annually. Lets say 10 million tonnes for ease of use.
That is about 10/52, meh call it 200,000 tonnes a week.
200,000/7 about 30,000 a day.
30,000/24 about 1200 an hour
1200/60 about 20 a minute
20/60 about 1/3 a second.

0.33 x 100,000 tonnes/sec = 33,000...

Sooooooo its like about 33,000 very large quarries digging up the planet.

No idea how many we have currently operating on Earth. Of course we aren't vaporizing it and ejecting into space either.

Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 11:13 · Score: 0

A math pedant would point out that the final equation should be:
100,000 tonnes/sec / 0.33 tonnes/sec = 300,000 quarries

Unacceptable by scarboni888 · 2012-01-19 09:56 · Score: 1

You know I just want to say that I'm really disappointed in just how close to their stars a lot of these exo-planets that have been found so far are. And it just seems to keep on getting worse. I mean - now they're boiling away for Pete's sake!! Isn't there something that astronomers can do to halt that kind of nonsense? I mean at this rate we'll never find another suitable planet to move to and then what happens to us?

Most planets don't constantly lose atmosphere by postglock · 2012-01-19 10:47 · Score: 1

From TFA, the reason why the gas was leaving the planet was because of it's small size. Presumably, the (similary gaseous) atmosphere of Earth doesn't float off into space because the gravity here is much higher.

Re:H3s are lame little pieces of shit. Get a Unimo by HornWumpus · 2012-01-19 13:15 · Score: 1

Duh. The also cost about $15K more and still have _lame_ front axles. Never seen one on a trail, only in mall parking lots.

Unimogs are awesome though. Kind of pricy. Best thought of as Mercedes-Benz four wheel street legal tractors.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by TheCouchPotatoFamine · 2012-01-19 14:18 · Score: 1

don't believe this guy. i've seen the evidence and its strong. this is damage control - the only way these asses know how.

--
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!

Libraries of Congress by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 23:48 · Score: 0

Well, Wikipedia tells me that the Library of Congress holds 22,194,696 books, 109,029,796 items in nonclassified (special) collections, and roughly 15,868,905 other items including "incunabula (books printed before 1500), monographs and serials, music, bound newspapers, pamphlets, technical reports, and other printed material".

Assume the average book weighs about 1 pound (call it 500 grams to make the arithmetic easy).

Assume that the bulk of the 'special' items are letters & other similar items on single sheets of paper. One sheet of letter-sized paper weighs about 5 grams, give or take.

Further assume that all the other stuff averages out to the weight of a book per item.

So that's 109,029,796 x 5 grams + ( 22,194,696 + 15,868,905 ) x 500 grams, or about 19,577 tonnes of material per Library of Congress.

The mass lost by this planet is thus 5.1 Libraries of Congress per second.

If you include the buildings the Library of Congress is housed in, I have no idea what they weigh. I'm going to assume all of them together weigh about the same as the Empire State Building, or about 330,000 metric tons.

So including the buildings, the answer is thus 0.286 Libraries of Congress per second.

Hope that clears things up for you.

If it is constantly losing mass by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 01:33 · Score: 0

how did it form in the first place?

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 02:46 · Score: 0

It didn't get first post so it was posted in the next best place, the first reply to first post. More easily seen than the second top-level post.

I always have to expand to see this copy/paste post (usualy to see what people are complaining about). It is, without fail, always at -1 whenever I open a discussion. I doubt many people are seeing it, and of those that do, I doubt they care about it.

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:46 · Score: 0

Bonch AKA TechGuys AKA Overly Critical Guy AKA SuperKendall AKA jo_ham AKA typical Apple faggot is a shill for Apple Corporation. The little bitch is constantly posting false information about Apple, Google and Microsoft in order to promote Apple and slander Google and Microsoft.

Obligatory XKCD by CtownNighrider · 2012-01-20 14:21 · Score: 1

http://xkcd.com/852/

Re:OR by jdkramar · 2012-01-24 06:34 · Score: 1

Oh, I found a comic about this theory (more or less). http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/368.html

--
"One can not truly appreciate Shakespeare until you have heard it in it's original Klingon" -Star Trek

Slashdot Mirror

A Planet Literally Boils Under the Heat of Its Star

163 comments