Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus
From: Brad Guth (bradguth_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/23/05
- Next message: Peter Stickney: "Re: Cooperation - a natural instinct more powerful than competition"
- Previous message: Peter Stickney: "Re: Technical and Spiritual Development"
- In reply to: Eric Chomko: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Next in thread: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Reply: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:22:03 +0000 (UTC)
"Albedo shift from a core sample?
Not really. I believe I can relocate the research accomplished that was
based upon what moonlight and earthshine had been accomplishing as of a
thousand years ago, or something like that.
"Sirius isn't the closest star system, Alpha Centauri is. Based upon
your logic we must be in orbit with AC as well.
I don't think so, however Alpha Centauri could certainly lay a
gravitational role in forming and/or influencing the elliptical orbit
we're taking in relationship to the massive Sirius star system.
"Sirius is a fairly large star that is close to us. THAT makes it the
brightest star in the sky. Surely, you are aware of Rigel in the
constellation Orion and how much bigger and brighter it is than Sirius?
Thanks for that feedback. However our motion with respect to other such
other or bigger stars isn't playing along with the perceived 105,000
year timeline. Rigel bing a bluish-white supergiant is certainly a
worthy contender, however being 900 light years away and 55,000 times
the luminosity of our sun is more than 100 fold that of the Sirius
gravity influence. Gravity goes by the square of the distance, thus
being less than 1.1e-4 the gravity isn't exactly taking the point on
this trek.
Rigel being so much brighter than Sirius represents that coming to
within 0.1 light year would certain have manage to illuminate the
environments of those diatoms. Thus size and brightness are not nearly
as important as being as close as Sirius has been, like perhaps closer
than 0.01 light year sort of make the case for Sirius.
Where's the insurmountable evidence that entirely eliminates Sirius?
Why are you objecting to Sirius?
"Sirius is 26 times as bright as our sun, according to Pat
Moore'sastronomy guide.
I believe "26 times" represents the human visual brightness and not the
actual shifted spectrum energy that's offset by roughly 150 nm towards
the UV spectrum, that which we hardly perceive squat in terms of
lumens/watt or whatever visual basis, but diatoms absolutely thrive upon
such near-UV energy, and nocturnals see just fine and dandy by such
starlight illumination. Thus essentially the sun never goes down.
"Look I'm no Bush fan, but I fail to see how politics fits into the
discussion.
Our country has self inflicted the entire world with at least several
trillion dollars/euros worth of this 9/11 fiasco, of systematically
dog-wagging, spinning and hyping the hype, of pushing so much
disinformation-R-us, and of that which isn't over until our fat lady
sings. You do realise he's planning upon gong nuclear over this global
energy domination fiasco.
You simply can't blow off those sorts of dollars/euros and of whatever
humanity that gets in the way at the same time without impacting the
needs of science and physics research.
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
-- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
- Next message: Peter Stickney: "Re: Cooperation - a natural instinct more powerful than competition"
- Previous message: Peter Stickney: "Re: Technical and Spiritual Development"
- In reply to: Eric Chomko: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Next in thread: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Reply: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|