Strange Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I thank you, and I do not do God personally, but was curious about the why's the name come about . The author wanted to call his book "The Goddamn Particle" to reflect how difficult it was to detect it. The publisher thought that might offend people and changed it. I will rephrase my question, what happens to all matter that gets drawn into the Sun by gravity? I don't suppose there is much, because of the solar wind. But it would be vaporised and then probably turned into plasma by the heat. Why do solar flares from the Sun resemble a Lava burst? They don't really. The fact they are both hot and both fluids would account for any superficial similarities. In motion of A, is there any affect on direction of movement, of electrons?. In another words , if I am accelerating, does the heavier matter, <Protons>, accelerate faster than the lighter electrons? I doubt these forces have any significant affect on the atoms. Until the forces are strong enough to break molecules apart. Returning space craft to the Earth, the nose cone burns up because there is an electrical F at the front? Nothing electrical, just pressure and friction - mainly pressure I think - for example, get a bicycle pump, put your thumb over the end end press the pump: the air inside will get hot (and possibly burn your thumb). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) The author wanted to call his book "The Goddamn Particle" to reflect how difficult it was to detect it. The publisher thought that might offend people and changed it. I don't suppose there is much, because of the solar wind. But it would be vaporised and then probably turned into plasma by the heat. They don't really. The fact they are both hot and both fluids would account for any superficial similarities. I doubt these forces have any significant affect on the atoms. Until the forces are strong enough to break molecules apart. Nothing electrical, just pressure and friction - mainly pressure I think - for example, get a bicycle pump, put your thumb over the end end press the pump: the air inside will get hot (and possibly burn your thumb). Thank you Strange, ''I doubt these forces have any significant affect on the atoms. Until the forces are strong enough to break molecules apart'' I always considered this to be the reason for vibration on a moving object, stress of direction trying to rip the molecules apart. ''They don't really. The fact they are both hot and both fluids would account for any superficial similarities.'' The Sun is a fluid? If i rotated this image at a constant rotation, in a near vacuum, in a sphere shape, to me this resembles the Sun. Maybe my comparisons are a bit over the top, but I can not help seen some sort of connection. The Suns North and South poles have an inlet at the North and an outlet at the South? doughnut type shape with the hole in the middle? The beams of light that are unexplained from Universal systems are inlet and outlets from rotation causing a centripetal and centrifugal flow? You call it solar winds, I call it centrifugal flow!. Edited August 20, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) The Sun is a fluid? Yes. It is plasma and gas. Therefore a fluid. The Suns North and South poles have an inlet at the North and an outlet at the South? doughnut type shape with the hole in the middle? No. but I can not help seen some sort of connection. This is normal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia What is not normal, is taking these thoughts seriously. This sort of delusional thinking can be a sign of mental illness. The beams of light that are unexplained from Universal systems are inlet and outlets from rotation causing a centripetal and centrifugal flow? What unexplained beams of light? You call it solar winds, I call it centrifugal flow!. You can call it what you want, you are still wrong. Edited August 20, 2014 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 And if you took away the attraction of the Earth on the cement dust, the attraction of the cement dust to the ball would be greater? Greater than what? If you're asking if it would change, no. Newtonian gravity only depends on the masses of the two bodies involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Yes. It is plasma and gas. Therefore a fluid. No. This is normal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia What is not normal, is taking these thoughts seriously. This sort of delusional thinking can be a sign of mental illness. What unexplained beams of light? You can call it what you want, you are still wrong. I never said I was correct, I am just imaging the Physics involved and asking about the Physics involved. You are willing in science to except that Einstein's space time curvature , a dent in space exists, although you can not see this in a Physical presence. Except you can see this..... Greater than what? If you're asking if it would change, no. Newtonian gravity only depends on the masses of the two bodies involved. The football sized Sun has greater mass than a single particle of cement dust, so I presume the Sun to be the greater of the attractors? In a near vacuum the dust would move towards the Sun? Edited August 20, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 You call it solar winds, I call it centrifugal flow!. This is part of a larger problem. If you want to discuss anything, you have to use the standard terminology. You can't call it one thing and have everyone else call it another if you want to be included in the discussion. Using non-standard terminology makes it that much easier to justify ignoring you. The football sized Sun has greater mass than a single particle of cement dust, so I presume the Sun to be the greater of the attractors? In a near vacuum the dust would move towards the Sun? The force of attraction is equal. The one with the larger mass will feel a smaller acceleration, because F=ma and gravitational and inertial mass are the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 This is part of a larger problem. If you want to discuss anything, you have to use the standard terminology. You can't call it one thing and have everyone else call it another if you want to be included in the discussion. Using non-standard terminology makes it that much easier to justify ignoring you. I see your point completely, and will rephrase, The solar winds are caused by rotation? Solar winds always travel outwards from source? Centrifugal direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I see your point completely, and will rephrase, The solar winds are caused by rotation? Directly? Not so far as I know. My understanding is that it's a combination of thermal and magnetic effects. Rotation of the sun may indirectly provide the conditions for the thermal and magnetic forces, but this is not an issue of particles being flung off by rotation. it can't be, because the solar wind is relatively weak — why hasn't the sun flung off much more mass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 ''is the apparent force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation. It is caused by the inertia of the body as the body's path is continually redirected.'' Directly? Not so far as I know. My understanding is that it's a combination of thermal and magnetic effects. Rotation of the sun may indirectly provide the conditions for the thermal and magnetic forces, but this is not an issue of particles being flung off by rotation. it can't be, because the solar wind is relatively weak — why hasn't the sun flung off much more mass? Centripetal force and gravity? The Sun has belts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) The solar winds are caused by rotation? No. By the heat of the outer layer of gas/plasma. The Sun does not spin fast enough to cause stuff to fly away at 900km/s. At the equator, the Sun's rotational velocity is about 2km/s. Edited August 20, 2014 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) No. By the heat of the outer layer of gas/plasma. The Sun does not spin fast enough to cause stuff to fly away at 900km/s. You say fly away, is this flying away in linear momentum? or is it spiralled? I bet spiralled... ''In fluid dynamics, a vortex is a region within a fluid where the flow is mostly oriented around some axis, straight or curved. Such a pattern of motion is called a vortical flow'' Edited August 20, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 You say fly away, is this flying away in linear momentum? I assume you are asking what direction it goes? From http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SolarWind.shtml it is always directed away from the Sun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 I assume you are asking what direction it goes? From http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SolarWind.shtml And all directions been because of the different gravity belts on the Sun? and how do you work out the speed of the Suns rotation with no points to monitor the rotation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 And all directions been because of the different gravity belts on the Sun? All directions because the Sun is a sphere. (As someone mentioned earlier, this might be affected by the Sun's magnetic field.) I don't know what a "gravity belt" is. I don't know if the Sun has "different gravity belts". And I don't know why this would have any effect on the solar winds. and how do you work out the speed of the Suns rotation with no points to monitor the rotation? You can observe the "surface" (outer layers) of the Sun. For example, you can see the rotation as sunspots move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 ''is the apparent force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation. It is caused by the inertia of the body as the body's path is continually redirected.'' Centripetal force and gravity? The Sun has belts? It would serve you well to learn some basic physics, rather than rely on wikipedia to pick and choose some terminology as you are apparently doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 It would serve you well to learn some basic physics, rather than rely on wikipedia to pick and choose some terminology as you are apparently doing. I was just trying to show some context to what I was trying to get at and question about. And I thank you for your answers. ''gravity belt'' , I have forgot what you call it so can not type it in google to find the correct term. The Sun has bands that move in different directions on the Sun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 The Sun has bands that move in different directions on the Sun? I don't know about "bands" but the speed of rotation of the outer layers varies in different places - because it is a fluid and there is complex convection and other flows going on. I think the deeper layers rotate at a more constant rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 I don't know about "bands" but the speed of rotation of the outer layers varies in different places - because it is a fluid and there is complex convection and other flows going on. I think the deeper layers rotate at a more constant rate. Yes that, so is the solar wind variance because of the layer variance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Yes that, so is the solar wind variance because of the layer variance? I am not aware of any such connection. And I am not sure why there would be a connection. The Sun's magnetic field is far more likely to be a significant factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 I am not aware of any such connection. And I am not sure why there would be a connection. The Sun's magnetic field is far more likely to be a significant factor. Hmmm, yes I can see that, the magnetic field varying where the flow varies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Hmmm, yes I can see that, the magnetic field varying where the flow varies? Not as far as I know. It looks like you are trying to find something to fit some preconceived idea. That is not a very scientific or open minded (or sane) approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Hmmm, yes I can see that, the magnetic field varying where the flow varies? The sun's field is basically that of a dipole. here's more information on the solar wind and where it originates. http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/science/mission_primary.html This shows the rotation rate of different latitudes of the sun http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sunrotation.gif 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 Not as far as I know. It looks like you are trying to find something to fit some preconceived idea. That is not a very scientific or open minded (or sane) approach. I am not trying to find something, I just want to know everything and cover all aspects without leaving out anything. In learning I like to be thorough , and then when I come upon other people with ideas, I can then tell them their faults with their ideas from what I have learnt. The sun's field is basically that of a dipole. here's more information on the solar wind and where it originates. http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/science/mission_primary.html This shows the rotation rate of different latitudes of the sun http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sunrotation.gif Thank you for the provided links, I shall re read all your answers again, in this thread, before I have new questions. Hello , sorry for this , but is this a credible source and accurate information, before I watch the other 4 hrs worth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr-jOJnhGyE Within the first 20 minutes of the video it mentions planets were thought to orbit backwards and forward, is this true? Do planets have their own circular orbit has well has orbiting the Sun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Hello , sorry for this , but is this a credible source and accurate information, before I watch the other 4 hrs worth? It looks reasonable. Within the first 20 minutes of the video it mentions planets were thought to orbit backwards and forward, is this true? Yes, it is true that the planets move backwards and forwards across the sky (relative to the stars). If you try and understand this in terms of the planets orbiting the Earth (which is what the Greeks believed) then you end up having to invent complicated orbits with extra cycles on top (epicycles). http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html Do planets have their own circular orbit has well has orbiting the Sun? No. Because when you realise that the planets orbit the Sun, the problem disappears. Their simple elliptical orbits around the Sun fully explain their motion across the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) It looks reasonable. Yes, it is true that the planets move backwards and forwards across the sky (relative to the stars). If you try and understand this in terms of the planets orbiting the Earth (which is what the Greeks believed) then you end up having to invent complicated orbits with extra cycles on top (epicycles). http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html No. Because when you realise that the planets orbit the Sun, the problem disappears. Their simple elliptical orbits around the Sun fully explain their motion across the sky. Thank you I understand we travel an elliptical orbit, and would never consider the earth to be the central matter. Interesting though that the epicycles of the planets, would not logically fit the gravity explanation of current? Also I have read about the stars in space, and that astronauts can not see any , or with a camera, but only with a telescope such has the Hubble space telescope that orbits the earth? If the stars are truly 1000's of light years away, then we should not be able see them at all, so why can we see them at night from Earth? Doe's our atmosphere, magnify the perspective view? In the video, there is Newton's simple theory of the cannon ball, so how doe's that work with satellites, where does's the momentum come from? Geostationary satellites maintain a fixed position to Earth co-ordinates, so how do those maintain a fixed position? Edited August 21, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts