I hope this turns out to be an informed debate. We have all watched this slow incursion. It is obviously in full swing in repressive socvieties such as China and Burma. But it seems that Government legislatos are also tempted the curb certain things. In Australia it is material that could be condidered "sedition" such as Islamist (as opposed to islamic) sites calling for an Australian Jihad. But always, underneath, we detect the temptation moving further into banning activist websites as "sedition".
Unfortunately, many of these conferences get hijacked by the shrill calls of alarmists, who have more believe than knowledge, and emotion over thought.
Y'know, that reminds me of a childhood experiment of my own. You see, I really liked orange juice and I really liked milk. Imagine, I said to myself, if you combined them. Well, I didn't say that it was a successful experiment, and, well, I know I'm off topic, but...
What it would prove is that the big bang was not a singular event and that material from other big bangs has floated into our region. This sort of idea has been put forward by various string theorists and often in connection with p-branes.
The current age of the star is reasonably expected to be its age at the time the photons left the star + the distance the star is from us. So it could well be more than 13.2 billion years old.
Stars actually can last this long, but it depends on their spectral class: A type stars only last 100 million years or so, F type stars last for about 4 billion years or so, our own G type is expected to last 10 billion years or so, K types more like 30 billion and M types over 100 billion.
Since there's very little of this detail mentioned in TFA, we can only speculate.
You know that Mercury is in tidal lock with the sun? so it only rotates (I think) once every 87 days or so. This slow rotation rate may explain the weakness of the field. Perhaps its high orbital eccentricity (0.2) and proximity to the sun, and the resultant tidal wrenching would explain the liquid mantle?
But the cars are the wind generators, not the turbines.
If a turbine generated any significant wind itself, then it wouldn't be a very effective generator, would it?
I'm not a physicist either, but I really doubt any drag would be caused to the cars.
The main reason is that the wind from the cars is not mechanically attached to the cars.
So if energy is removed from the wind, there would be no transference to the cars themselves.
It is not a perpetual motion machine, because you always have to have the cars generating the wind in the first place. At least now, the wind is being used.
The myth of clear-cutting as a lumbering practice is also crazy
It's no myth in Tasmania. I was there about 10 years ago and saw with my own eyes vast areas of forest totally cleared. The only forest that remained was the 30 metres or so on either side of roads, so that the average motorist doesn't see it.
In Tasmania, it appears to be very much cheaper to clear-fell old growth hardwoods (and everything else) than maintain plantations. Although now they are planting on the newly available land.
The thing I've found about development is that you can't just throw more at a product. This is Microsoft's problem. They have hundreds and hundreds of developers. Every 5 developers needs a team leader, every couple of team leaders need analysts and project managers, project managers need to have meetings to discuss release schedules, then there's compatability concerns and merging issues. The whole thing becomes an incredibly hard-to-steer buraucracy, where five or six dedicated developers would have sufficed.
Companies can only really focus on a few products, regardless of size, you just can't be everything to everybody, because the friction of beuracracy will just slow to standstill.
I think Apple are right to stagger development like this, it shows patience, understanding and maturity.
Well, I didn't deduce that the orbit is elliptical
I beg your pardon, I did say that, didn't I? I guess I was thinking that this might be a mechanism for getting some of those gases moving. I apologise for the leap of faith, and my bad memory.
Is it normal for there to be a gas giant that close to a star? Is there something about Sol's "rocky balls close in/smaller rocky lumps/big gas balls further out/and what about Pluto?" arrangement that's special? I assume it's the different densities in the original disk that cause it - but if so why didn't that happen in HD 209458's case?
I'm no planetary scientist, but I read somewhere that the Jovian planets form earlier than the terrestrials and begin to entrain a large amount of the protoplanetary disc materials into them, accounting for their generally large size. Apparently, there is, in a sense, to much of this material to gobble up, and in the process of becoming large, the friction from the un-entrained material causes a fall in orbit. This continues until there is no more gasses and dust to gobble up. In the case of one of these hot jupiters, this didn't happen until the planet was almost upon the star itself. In the case of jupiter it happened quite quickly, so its orbit didn't fall very far at all. Agin, I'm just reporting what I read, and probably not very well at that.
How can you deduce that it's elliptical orbit would make any difference
Well, I didn't deduce that the orbit is elliptical, but if it were elliptical then we would find a situation where the gravitational forces at one end of the orbit (the perihelion) are greater than at other ends (say, the apheion). This means that not only are there large forces, but that the forces are changing, by squeezing and molding the sphere. I believe this is the cause for all the vulcanism on Io. Yes, partly its proximity to Jupiter, but crucially its elliptical orbit.
Note also that both Venus and Mercury are tidally locked to the sun. This means that the large gravitational forces on these planets would be unchanging. Presumably for our hot jupiter this would also be the case. Therefore an elliptical orbit would be the only thing creating any change in the forces on the planet (I think).
From TFA, it seemed to be that the proximity to the star produced tidal forces that were partly responsible for stripping the gases. We can deduce that (a) the orbit must be significantly elliptical, and (b) there must be significant deformation of the gas envelope, considering that there is also probably a very stong magnetic field (if its anything like Jupiter) for the stars solar corpulscular radiation to overcome.
On earth, the magnetic field actually works to prevent the erosion of the atmosphere. The arorae are evidence of the magnetic field battling the solar corpulscular radiation during times of coronal mass ejections. The same must normally occur on a hot Jupiter, unless there is such a deformation of the atmosphere that it rises beyond the protection of the field?
Will the star it's orbiting eventually eat it?
Probably not, unless there is a reason for the orbit to be decaying (such as encountering significant nebular material along its orbital path. If it did decay it would probably reach the planet's Roche limit and be pulled apart. It might form a nice ring system around the star, before the radiation blew it away.
I have wondered for a long time whether silicate-based life could have evolved. I imagined that it would occur on planets of very high surface temperature, such as those like mercury, but were large enough, or under enough gravitational wrenching to maintain a largely molten surface. Your post has suggested that this may not need to be so. I was wondering if you could speculate on a possible evolutionary path (my own chemistry is woefully inadequate for the task)?
It's to teach 'em that life is suffering: tell those little kids to behave themselves and stay in bed, and for those lazy-arse, good-for-nothing teenagers to get out of bed, why when I was a teenager...grumble...grumble...I fought in six world wars...grumble...grumble...died in two of 'em...grumble...grumble
I'd just like to reply to all the detractors of Kyoto and to doing anything constructive about this problem.
It is true that there are doubts about what the effects are going to be, but why in God's name are you advocating taking the risk!??
If the sea level rises by even 1 metre 100 million people will be homeless!!!
Now you've seen the way the stock markets react when oil goes up by a dollar US a barrel, well that's peanuts to what this is going to do. The last thing we need with a ballooning world population is less land.
Get it into your heads, global warming mightn't end the world but it can certainly end Western Civillization.
Back whatever plan of action you can, for you own sake. and for God's sake, wake up...soon.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope this turns out to be an informed debate. We have all watched this slow incursion. It is obviously in full swing in repressive socvieties such as China and Burma. But it seems that Government legislatos are also tempted the curb certain things. In Australia it is material that could be condidered "sedition" such as Islamist (as opposed to islamic) sites calling for an Australian Jihad. But always, underneath, we detect the temptation moving further into banning activist websites as "sedition".
Unfortunately, many of these conferences get hijacked by the shrill calls of alarmists, who have more believe than knowledge, and emotion over thought.
he actually threatened to re-enable the Express support if Microsoft didn't clarify where his software violated the license agreement.
Hey! your talking about my only form of sex
Y'know, that reminds me of a childhood experiment of my own. You see, I really liked orange juice and I really liked milk. Imagine, I said to myself, if you combined them. Well, I didn't say that it was a successful experiment, and, well, I know I'm off topic, but...
In short: it would be bad mmm-kay?
r y/
What it would prove is that the big bang was not a singular event and that material from other big bangs has floated into our region. This sort of idea has been put forward by various string theorists and often in connection with p-branes.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Universe_Theo
oops, I meant to reply to the other reply made here, something went wrong there, sorry about that
Actually, not quite true.
The current age of the star is reasonably expected to be its age at the time the photons left the star + the distance the star is from us. So it could well be more than 13.2 billion years old.
Stars actually can last this long, but it depends on their spectral class: A type stars only last 100 million years or so, F type stars last for about 4 billion years or so, our own G type is expected to last 10 billion years or so, K types more like 30 billion and M types over 100 billion.
Since there's very little of this detail mentioned in TFA, we can only speculate.
Noooo-ooooo-oooo!!!!
You know that Mercury is in tidal lock with the sun? so it only rotates (I think) once every 87 days or so. This slow rotation rate may explain the weakness of the field. Perhaps its high orbital eccentricity (0.2) and proximity to the sun, and the resultant tidal wrenching would explain the liquid mantle?
They came awfully close with Bondi blue
But the cars are the wind generators, not the turbines. If a turbine generated any significant wind itself, then it wouldn't be a very effective generator, would it?
I'm not a physicist either, but I really doubt any drag would be caused to the cars. The main reason is that the wind from the cars is not mechanically attached to the cars. So if energy is removed from the wind, there would be no transference to the cars themselves. It is not a perpetual motion machine, because you always have to have the cars generating the wind in the first place. At least now, the wind is being used.
Your argument has a whiff of atheism about it. Thus you attach no significance to the body as an assemblage and his vessal in life.
Since you haven't established Doohan's atheism, nor that of his family and friends, I fail to see how your argument applies.
The myth of clear-cutting as a lumbering practice is also crazy
It's no myth in Tasmania. I was there about 10 years ago and saw with my own eyes vast areas of forest totally cleared. The only forest that remained was the 30 metres or so on either side of roads, so that the average motorist doesn't see it.
In Tasmania, it appears to be very much cheaper to clear-fell old growth hardwoods (and everything else) than maintain plantations. Although now they are planting on the newly available land.
Again, no myth: it's actually the norm.
while having trouble understanding how these two new "time related" dimensions manage to fit into my Grey Matter
The thing I've found about development is that you can't just throw more at a product. This is Microsoft's problem. They have hundreds and hundreds of developers. Every 5 developers needs a team leader, every couple of team leaders need analysts and project managers, project managers need to have meetings to discuss release schedules, then there's compatability concerns and merging issues. The whole thing becomes an incredibly hard-to-steer buraucracy, where five or six dedicated developers would have sufficed.
Companies can only really focus on a few products, regardless of size, you just can't be everything to everybody, because the friction of beuracracy will just slow to standstill.
I think Apple are right to stagger development like this, it shows patience, understanding and maturity.
Well, I didn't deduce that the orbit is elliptical
I beg your pardon, I did say that, didn't I? I guess I was thinking that this might be a mechanism for getting some of those gases moving. I apologise for the leap of faith, and my bad memory.
Is it normal for there to be a gas giant that close to a star? Is there something about Sol's "rocky balls close in/smaller rocky lumps/big gas balls further out/and what about Pluto?" arrangement that's special? I assume it's the different densities in the original disk that cause it - but if so why didn't that happen in HD 209458's case?
I'm no planetary scientist, but I read somewhere that the Jovian planets form earlier than the terrestrials and begin to entrain a large amount of the protoplanetary disc materials into them, accounting for their generally large size. Apparently, there is, in a sense, to much of this material to gobble up, and in the process of becoming large, the friction from the un-entrained material causes a fall in orbit. This continues until there is no more gasses and dust to gobble up. In the case of one of these hot jupiters, this didn't happen until the planet was almost upon the star itself. In the case of jupiter it happened quite quickly, so its orbit didn't fall very far at all. Agin, I'm just reporting what I read, and probably not very well at that.
How can you deduce that it's elliptical orbit would make any difference
Well, I didn't deduce that the orbit is elliptical, but if it were elliptical then we would find a situation where the gravitational forces at one end of the orbit (the perihelion) are greater than at other ends (say, the apheion). This means that not only are there large forces, but that the forces are changing, by squeezing and molding the sphere. I believe this is the cause for all the vulcanism on Io. Yes, partly its proximity to Jupiter, but crucially its elliptical orbit.
Note also that both Venus and Mercury are tidally locked to the sun. This means that the large gravitational forces on these planets would be unchanging. Presumably for our hot jupiter this would also be the case. Therefore an elliptical orbit would be the only thing creating any change in the forces on the planet (I think).
From TFA, it seemed to be that the proximity to the star produced tidal forces that were partly responsible for stripping the gases. We can deduce that (a) the orbit must be significantly elliptical, and (b) there must be significant deformation of the gas envelope, considering that there is also probably a very stong magnetic field (if its anything like Jupiter) for the stars solar corpulscular radiation to overcome.
On earth, the magnetic field actually works to prevent the erosion of the atmosphere. The arorae are evidence of the magnetic field battling the solar corpulscular radiation during times of coronal mass ejections. The same must normally occur on a hot Jupiter, unless there is such a deformation of the atmosphere that it rises beyond the protection of the field?
Will the star it's orbiting eventually eat it?
Probably not, unless there is a reason for the orbit to be decaying (such as encountering significant nebular material along its orbital path. If it did decay it would probably reach the planet's Roche limit and be pulled apart. It might form a nice ring system around the star, before the radiation blew it away.
I have wondered for a long time whether silicate-based life could have evolved. I imagined that it would occur on planets of very high surface temperature, such as those like mercury, but were large enough, or under enough gravitational wrenching to maintain a largely molten surface. Your post has suggested that this may not need to be so. I was wondering if you could speculate on a possible evolutionary path (my own chemistry is woefully inadequate for the task)?
It's to teach 'em that life is suffering: tell those little kids to behave themselves and stay in bed, and for those lazy-arse, good-for-nothing teenagers to get out of bed, why when I was a teenager...grumble...grumble...I fought in six world wars...grumble...grumble...died in two of 'em...grumble...grumble
it didn't save the Easter Islanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book)/)
Noooooooo!!!
I'd just like to reply to all the detractors of Kyoto and to doing anything constructive about this problem.
It is true that there are doubts about what the effects are going to be, but why in God's name are you advocating taking the risk!??
If the sea level rises by even 1 metre 100 million people will be homeless!!!
Now you've seen the way the stock markets react when oil goes up by a dollar US a barrel, well that's peanuts to what this is going to do. The last thing we need with a ballooning world population is less land.
Get it into your heads, global warming mightn't end the world but it can certainly end Western Civillization.
Back whatever plan of action you can, for you own sake. and for God's sake, wake up...soon.