Re: Spectrum!


"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dgn1qo$nop$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:dgls6j$f7u$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message
| > | > news:dgkcph$re3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
| > | > message
| > | > | > news:dgjp8e$k4e$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
| > | > | > | > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
| > | > | > | > | > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > | > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
| > | > | > | > | > | > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > So YOU have a red tenuous star in orbit
about
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > a B8 at a separation
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > 2.56 times the diameter of the red star
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > that hasn't become a ring as the
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > outer limb orbits less frequently and has
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > further to go than the inner limb.
| > | > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | > | Funny! :-)
| > | > | > | > | > | > | I too can tell jokes:
| > | > | > | > | > | > | We have a Moon that hasn't become a ring as
the
| > | > | > | > | > | > | outer limb orbits less frequently and has
further
| > to
| > | > | > | > | > | > | go than the inner limb.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > It keeps the same face toward the Earth. How
funny
| > is
| > | > that?
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | Its isn't funny at all.
| > | > | > | > | > | What's hilarious is that you said the outer limb
| > | > | > | > | > | orbits less frequently than the inner limb.
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > It can't, of course, because the Moon is near as
dammit
| > | > solid;
| > | > | > | > | > If it were a fluid it would break apart like
droplets of
| > | > mercury.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | An interesting claim. :-)
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > So you have no answer to anything I said previously.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | That is because what you said previously is very well
| > | > | > | summed up in your statement above.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > So you agree then. Good, but you have to say you agree
| > | > | > before I go on.
| > | > | > Androcles
| > | > |
| > | > | Yes, I agree that Androcles' claims about
| > | > | the consequences of tidal forces on binaries
| > | > | are very well summed up in his statement:
| > | > | "If it [the Moon] were a fluid it would break apart
| > | > | like droplets of mercury."
| > | > |
| > | > | I am looking forward to see Androcles going on. :-)
| > | > | Or maybe he will find another excuse to flee the issue?
| > | > |
| > | > | > | I showed you what Roche had to say about your binary
| > | > | > | with equal sized components, but you claimed over and
| > | > | > | over that everything Roche said was wrong, because
| > | > | > | an orbiting fluid body must come apart because the outer
| > | > | > | rim orbits less frequently than the inner limb.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | So you can consider the following as an answer to
| > | > | > | what you said previously as well:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | You really have no clue whatsoever, do you? :-)
| > | > | > | > | Now you made a bigger fool of yourself than ever.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | Androcles, if you placed a bowl of water on the Moon,
| > | > | > | > | what do you think would happen? Would the water fly
| > | > | > | > | out of the bowl to form a ring around the Earth?
| > | > | > | > | Of course not.
| > | > | > | > | And what do you think would happen if the the Moon
| > | > | > | > | was covered by an ocean? Would the water fly off
| > | > | > | > | the Moon? Of course it wouldn't.
| > | > | > | > | And what happens to the dirt, sand and stones
| > | > | > | > | on the surface of the Moon? Does it fly off
| > | > | > | > | the surface to form a ring around the Earth?
| > | > | > | > | Of course it doesn't.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | What an extraordinary stupid idea!
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | You would have to bring the Moon very close to
| > | > | > | > | the Earth before anything like that would happen.
| > | > | > | > | The critical distance is the Roche limit.
| > | > | > | > | The Roche limit for a liquid Moon is 2.86 Earth radii.
| > | > | > | > | The orbital radius is 21 times bigger than that.
| > | > | > | > | A liquid Moon would do just fine.
| > | > | > | > | And its shape would be the same.
| > | > | > | > | (A sphere slightly distorted by the tidal forces.)
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Was this too embarrassing to comment, Androcles? :-)
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Your claim that the Moon would break up if it was liquid
| > | > | > | because the outer limb would orbit less frequently than
| > | > | > | the inner limb, is such a convincing demonstration of
| > | > | > | your ignorance that we can consider the following
| > | > | > | proven beyond doubt:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Androcles is ignorant of tidal forces, Roche limits
| > | > | > | and Roche lobes.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | In the very improbable case that it is beginning to
| > | > | > | dawn to you that a liquid Moon would do just fine,
| > | > | > | and that Roche understood tidal forces and their
consequences
| > | > | > | for close binaries much better than you do, you can read
| > | > | > | the following again:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Two stars the of same size, with surface to surface
separation
| > | > | > | 2.56 stellar diameters would according to Roche NOT come
| > apart.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The situation will be something like this:
| > | > | > | (Fixed width fonts!)
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | **
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | ---------------
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | **
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The stars are orbiting around the axis in the middle.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The gaseous stars are held together by gravity only,
| > | > | > | so their shapes are distorted by the tidal forces.
| > | > | > | The outer parts that are orbiting "too fast" are
| > | > | > | pulled away from the barycentre, and the inner parts
| > | > | > | that are orbiting "too slowly" are pulled towards
| > | > | > | the barycentre.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | If you bring the stars closer together, the situation
| > | > | > | will be something like this:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | ----- * -----
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | *
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | This is when both stars just fill their
| > | > | > | Roche lobes. They will still not come apart.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | You can even have a situation like this:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | * *
| > | > | > | *
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Both stars overflow their Roche lobes,
| > | > | > | or rather, they have a common Roche lobe.
| > | > | > | This is a contact binary.
| > | > | > | They really exists in the real world.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311081.pdf
| > | > | > | see fig 25.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Now you can roll farting on the floor and repeat that
| > | > | > | binaries cannot exist because the outer rim will orbit
less
| > | > | > | frequently than the inner limb.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | That make you look SO intelligent, and it will make
| > | > | > | me look like a fool.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Paul
| > | > |
| > | > | Why did you fail to comment this posting, Androcles?
| > | > | Realized your blunder? :-)
| > | > I got tired of your phuckwittery, tusselad.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | I see.
| > | You have indeed realized your gigantic blunder:
| > | "If the Moon were a fluid it would break apart
| > | like droplets of mercury."
| > |
| > | Run and hide like a coward, Androcles.
| > |
| > | But we won't forget your incredible naive claim
| > | that binaries cannot exist because the outer limb
| > | would orbit less frequently than the inner limb.
| >
| > I'm tired of your stupidity, Andersen. It is blatantly obvious
| > you don't know what causes tides.
| > Androcles
|
| But you do.
| "If the Moon were a fluid it would break apart
| like droplets of mercury."
|
| And the reason is that the outer limb
| would orbit less frequently than the inner limb.
|
| Paul, having a great time

That is correct, tusselad, and the reason for Jupiter and Saturns rings
You didn't know that, huh?

http://www.parade.com/special/science/iframes/answers4.html
Why does Saturn have rings?

"A nineteenth century French mathematician, Edouard Roche proposed that
if a body that was loosely held together to start with passed closer
than a certain distance—called the Roche limit—from a planet, tidal
forces would tear that body apart.
That's how Saturn's rings likely formed, and that is why Comet
Shoemaker-Levy 9 broke apart as it passed Jupiter in 1992, two years
before its collision.

How about that, tusselad?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit
Jupiter's moon Metis and Saturn's moon Pan are examples of natural
satellites which are able to hold together despite being within their
fluid Roche limits. They hold together partly because of their tensile
strength, and partly because they are not actually fluid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4640641.stm

You DO know you've failed undergraduate astronomy this year, tusselad,
and you've failed mathematics-Roche limits?

Androcles, roaring with laughter at the ignorant grinning tusselad who
WAS having a great time.



.

Relevant Pages