Sciences on Moon

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by QuantumJo

Global mass extinction is inevitable; it has happened before and will most certainly happen again. The question is, can we get our shit together before it is too late for us?

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

[Roger -Dot- Lee(Admin)]

Originally Posted by VAXman

Methem,...

Speaking of TECO...

Next time you are on a VMS machine do the following:

Alpha:
$ MAKE :== $TECO32_TV MAKE

VAX:
$ MAKE :== $TECO32 MAKE


Then type $ MAKE LOVE

You can do
Anything you want...

With Teco and DDT!

Methem: you mention you're on deathrow. I'm rlee there. Drop me a mail sometime.

Roger -Dot- Lee, regretting he missed a good deal of this debate

[QuantumJo]

To be a planet or not to be a palnet, that is the question...


This is a copy and paste of a fun little interview with the Pluto. Enjoy the read.


A couple of years ago, we caught up with the planet Pluto for a quick word on the occasion of its passing Neptune to once again become the farthest planet from the sun in the solar system. As Pluto is once again in the news, we are able to reach the celestial body for another chat.

Brunching Shuttlecocks: Hello there, Pluto, nice to see you again.

Pluto: Yeah yeah, hurry up. Time is money.

BS: Well, we're all abuzz here on earth with the discovery of 2001 KX76, do you have any thoughts on this historic occasion?

P: What discovery? You act like it hasn't been sitting here all along. I mean if you guys ever bothered to aim your damn telescopes out my way, you'd discover all kinds of floating junk out here. I've known 2001 KX76 for decades. Cocky bastard, never sends a Christmas card. What's the big deal?

BS: Well the big deal is that 2001 KX76 is being heralded as the largest minor planet in the solar system.

P: Really? From the way you guys treat me, I could have sworn I was a minor planet.

BS: No, no. You're a full-fledged planet. For now. But 2001 KX76 is the largest of the so-called 'Kuiper Belt Objects', which orbit the sun out past your neighborhood.

P: Yeah, there are a bunch of KBOs out there. Not the nicest things in space, let me tell you. Just as soon crash in to you as give you the time of day.

BS: There are some on Earth who think you ought to be classified as a Kuiper Belt Object.

P: Me, a damn KBO? Blow me! Your Mom's a KBO!

BS: Well, you would go from being the smallest planet to the largest KBO. Any joy in the big fish / small pond theory?

P: I'm a planet. Read me lips. Pla-net. You got a problem with that?

BS: I was just making a point.

P: I've got a point to make. Bite me.

BS: So you're content being known as the smallest planet in the solar system?

P: As a planet, I get my props. When was the last time a bunch of 3rd graders stood in a line and recited the names of the 10,000+ KBOs?

BS: So this is about ego, not scientific truth.

P: Who has time for truth? I'm a solid ball of frozen rock that circles the sun every 248 friggin' years. Lot of good it does me. Don't get much use for sun tan lotion out my way, know what I mean?

BS: OK, let's get back to the KBOs.

P: Oh! Sure! By all means! Much more interesting than a real, damn planet, huh? You're probably already planning on sending a probe out there. Meanwhile, my crystalline gardens and abundance of silicon-based ice creatures twiddle their thumbs, waiting for you to pay attention to us.

BS: You have life?

P: Sure. Life. Plants. Strip malls. Whatever. Like you care. Prove me wrong.

BS: Yes, well. Anyway. KBOs are thought to be pristine relics of the formation of the solar system. Any thoughts?

P: They're about as pristine as your uncle's left tit after a good hog slaughtering. Know what they do with all their spare time? Plot against you. They hate Earth, they're planning on taking you down.

BS: They're just rocks.

P: Fine. Don't say I didn't warn you.

BS: Pluto, we have time for one more question before we go. Now that 2001 KX76 has made history, astronomers will likely give it a name similar to other named objects in the Kuiper Belt. The tendency has been to assign mythological names associated with creation, such as Varuna, a large object named for the Vedic god of oceans and water. Any suggestions?

P: Phallus.

[rauchen]

Does this include construction on the Moon????????? I'm ready to build, Where do I sign up ??????????

[jtmckinley]

Actually I was flipping through the TV news channels and saw something about NASA's plans to build a base on the moon. It was on FOX though, so it may well have been complete BS.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by jtmckinley

Actually I was flipping through the TV news channels and saw something about NASA's plans to build a base on the moon. It was on FOX though, so it may well have been complete BS.

NASA and reality are strange bedfellows.

They have lots of plans to do alot of things. What they don't have is the money and the management to get them there. Don't get me wrong, NASA has plenty of management... and that is it's biggest detriment.

[jtmckinley]

Originally Posted by VAXman

NASA and reality are strange bedfellows.

They have lots of plans to do alot of things. What they don't have is the money and the management to get them there. Don't get me wrong, NASA has plenty of management... and that is it's biggest detriment.

Yeah, not to mention that we have huge debts and deficit spending right now. Even though our fearless leader talked about going to Mars and such, my guess is we'll need to get our house in order before we do anything like that. So, maybe we can revisit this thread in 10 years or so? Oh well, I figured it was too good to be true...

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by jtmckinley

Yeah, not to mention that we have huge debts and deficit spending right now. Even though our fearless leader talked about going to Mars and such, my guess is we'll need to get our house in order before we do anything like that. So, maybe we can revisit this thread in 10 years or so? Oh well, I figured it was too good to be true...

Another fearless leader talked about sending men to the moon all the while running up huge deficits of money and blood (60K+ souls). We went to the moon despite his, and his successor's, best efforts.

[QuantumJo]

NASA does a tremendous amount of science with the relative puny budget of $16-$17 billion a year http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf. If anything I think that they should receive more money. Sadly enough, Americans have better things to spend their money on like $14.7 billion a year on holiday decorations, $18.8 billion a year on cosmetics & perfume and a staggering $110 billion a year on fast food.

[QuantumJo]

Pimp my Mac...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

[Methem]

Originally Posted by VAXman

Suppose they dredged up Weenoze source code!!! Those computers would be pondering how they ever survived.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...dy-061207.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...c9f23336ee22ef

---

Dot, will try to reach you on the Deathrow system whenever I'm online there -- not very often these days.


-Methem

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Methem

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...dy-061207.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...c9f23336ee22ef

---

Dot, will try to reach you on the Deathrow system whenever I'm online there -- not very often these days.


-Methem

Thanks Methem... I haven't read alt.folklore.computers in eons... maybe I should rekindle the subscription.

FYI, DEATHrow is back on-line. A major system drive failure. The SYSUAF file was restored from a backup months prior so you need to use password from then. Here a podcast with more info... http://www.openvms.org/podcast/OWAU-2006-12-7_1.mp3

[QuantumJo]

Originally Posted by Kleber Vanila

Hi moon fellows!

The aim in posting this thread is to approaching the moon-scientists, (or simple students like me) , to share their points of view and knowledgement. I know there´s a lot here, and I miss the old constructives chatting in "white room"... so, I know, time is a problem for us, so we can discuss it as we can.

Thanks for all, anyway, if someone agree. ´Cause there´s few things better for me than listening a good sound as we get here, and talk about sciences or SLT.

Strong brasilian hugs to everyone!

Originally Posted by Avian

I'd love to do that! Maybe we can set up a time to use teh chat room to do that. We have a host of engineers, astronomers, particle physicists, just to mention a few - here at the Moon- it would maje for a great discussion

Originally Posted by progdirjim

Rules?

No particle physicists - I don't think they're as good as other scientists.

I am of course, kidding. I think the only "rules" we should follow would be the laws of physics. And no preposterous theories like the Earth isn't flat

Is there any chance of following this train of thought or has this thread been spun out of the solar system by the massive pull of Jupiter’s gravity?

A little bit about my self.
I am not an engineer, astronomer, particle physicists or chemist. I was pushed through high school, perhaps out of pity or the unwillingness of my teachers to give me a proper education, and did not graduate until I was 20 years old. I did not pursue any further education although with hind site being 20/20 I wish that I had. Most of my education has been gained through reading magazines, books and watching educational television programs. I have subscriptions to Popular Science and Scientific American and I enjoy watching programs on Discovery HD and PBS.

[QuantumJo]

Why do they spin?
A star is formed when gas and dust compress due to gravitational forces and collapses under its own weight. What I wonder about is why does the new star start to spin. What force is responsible for this? I have done some research on angular momentum but I am still not clear on what starts the rotation.

[jtmckinley]

Originally Posted by QuantumJo

Why do they spin?
A star is formed when gas and dust compress due to gravitational forces and collapses under its own weight. What I wonder about is why does the new star start to spin. What force is responsible for this? I have done some research on angular momentum but I am still not clear on what starts the rotation.

http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/experts/week1b.html

The guy in the link above says tidal forces between the various objects in the cloud, which is probably correct.

If I had to guess off the top of my head, it might have something to do with the curvature of space around massive objects, but I'm just guessing here, I didn't look it up or do any calculations. If a particle has an initial velocity and enters a gravity well of another object, unless it was initially heading directly at the center of mass, the trajectory would curve toward the center of mass so if it was captured I think it would spiral into the gravity well. Think of a marble being flung into the top of a horn shaped tube but not right down into the hole, a bit off to the side, it spirals around as it goes down to the bottom. I'm guessing that as a bunch of them come together, the angular momentum of the resulting collapsed cloud would be non-zero and the resulting object would be spinning no? The rate of spin would then maybe be proportional to the non-uniformity of the original cloud? I'm not an astrophysicist though, so I might be full of it .

[QuantumJo]

Thanks for your reply jtmckinley.

All day I was looking for an answer and this is what I came up with.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...my/q0247.shtml said
Astronomers estimate that the nebular cloud from which our solar system formed contained about two to three times the mass of the Sun and was about 100 astronomical units (AU) across. An astronomical unit is defined as the average distance between the Sun and Earth, or about 93 million miles (150 million km). This massive loosely-bound cloud of dust, ice particles, and gases (primarily hydrogen and helium) had some small rate of rotation due to the method in which it was formed. Over time, this nebular cloud began to collapse inward. The collapse may have itself been triggered by a supernova that sent shockwaves through the cloud causing it to compress. As the cloud compressed on itself, the gravitational attraction of the matter within increased and pulled the material in even further. The nebula continued to contract under the influence of gravity causing it to spin faster. The more the cloud contracted, the faster it rotated due to the conservation of angular momentum. The rate of contraction was greatest near the center of the cloud where a dense central core began to form. As the rate of rotation of the nebula continued to increase, centrifugal effects caused the spinning cloud to flatten into a disk with a bulge at its center.

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html said
Conservation of angular momentum says that any spinning of the dust cloud that formed the solar system will remain, and since most of the matter in the solar system is in the Sun, the Sun will be spinning. It will even be spinning faster than the original dust cloud for the same reason that a skater spins faster by bringing in his/her arms. The lower the "moment of inertia", the faster the spin rate.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...8532.As.r.html said
The direction of rotation for a star is set by the cloud of gas from which it formed. These clouds of gas are large objects, thousands of times larger than our solar system, but they are just barely rotating when they start to collapse to form a star. Only a small change is necessary during the initial collapse for the cloud to rotate one direction or the other.

And finaly an answer to my question

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/c...solarsys.shtml said
When any great number of objects (be them molecules or stars) self-gravitate to make a new body in the Universe (be it a protoplanetary disk of a protogalaxy, they have leftover angular momentum. An analogy would be to imagine all the skaters in Rockefeller Center suddenly clasping hands of others around them. (Imagine them starting from a random pattern of skating.) The linked crowd would have some excess angular momentum and the whole mass would find itself in a slow group spin. If they all tugged closer, the spin would increase. (You know this from watching figure skaters bring in their arms.) This is what happens to the central protoplanetary dust disk.

An alternative analogy is a flight of birds suddenly being tied together with strings. They will start spinning as a group. The Sun carries the lion's share of the angular momentum in the SS. The proto-planets, moons, etc. may get some spin kick back from the Sun by the magnetic fields it drags through space. When the planets formed, again chunks of gas from a larger chunk, the parcels spun with the original spin join together to replicate this spin. The outer parts clumped with the inner parts. Although orbiting slower, the outer parts carry more angular momentum and spin the cloudlets in the same group convention so the SSW spin is maintained. This is a somewhat random process, not necessarily strictly followed, and an exception may be Venus.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by QuantumJo

Why do they spin?
A star is formed when gas and dust compress due to gravitational forces and collapses under its own weight. What I wonder about is why does the new star start to spin. What force is responsible for this? I have done some research on angular momentum but I am still not clear on what starts the rotation.

It's time for some tensor calculus! How's your grasp of the curvature tensor?


Seriously, I doubt you'd be ready to grasp that. The spinning is easily explained when you understand the conservation of angular momentum. L = r X p where r is the radius from where the particle is in space relative to an origin and p is its linear momentum. Then a particle turns the angular momentum (L)is a pseudovectorial component perpendicular to the plane of the radial component r and the tangential momentum vector (dp/dt). This can easily be demonstrated in a gyroscope. As a mass acrues, it will create a gravitational "well" and a particle flying by will be caused to curve by it. In the beginning this will be a rather random event but as the mass acrues more "participating particles", the sum effects of one group particles will outweigh the others; eventually, there will be a concensus rotation in one direction. Also, since the momentum must be conserved, as the mass grows and pulls in more mass, that mass will spin faster and faster. It's like having a weight on a string you are spinning about your head. To maintain it spinning in a plane above your head at a distance, it will move slower. As you pull the string in making it shorter, the mass will move faster and faster. A pirouetting ice skater is another great example.

[QuantumJo]

Did you learn all this in school Vax? I did not know that you are so well versed in physics. I look forward to having more conversation like this with anyone on the Moon that wants to chime in. It is so hard for me to find people to talk with about science.

I am familiar with angular momentum, Planck’s constant, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, wave function, quantum entanglement, entropy and several other theories and laws. What I was wondering is what started the protostar rotating in the first place. The analogy with the skaters in Rockefeller Center is what put it together for me. I have this picture in my mind of all the molecules gathered together and moving independent from each other, then an event causes them to start rotating. From what your saying Vax is that it’s the “gravitational well” that gets the ball rolling. What is it, in the analogy of the skaters, that causes them to “suddenly clasp hands” and start the slow spin?

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by QuantumJo

Did you learn all this in school Vax? I did not know that you are so well versed in physics. I look forward to having more conversation like this with anyone on the Moon that wants to chime in. It is so hard for me to find people to talk with about science.

Well, since you asked.

I had an Uncle that taught mathemetics at Lehigh University. He was teaching me how to solve systems of linear equations with determinants/matrices before I got to my Jr. High School.

I took my degrees (BS and MS) in Electronic Engineering. I took my SATs in the 11th grade and scored high enough to get into just about any school I wanted to at the time so, I took the ACTs in the senior year. I scored high enough to get my college language requirement waived and I was placed in the equivalent of an advanced placement group for my math. 5 credit Calculus courses my first 4 semesters (sounds impressive but it wasn't fun getting up at 8am 5 days a week). My text for calc was one being reviewed for publication. I still have them... 2 volumes on 8.5"x11" 2 sided paper and bound in volumes 2" thick each.

The Electronic Engineering discipline covered alot of "modern physics" which a typical Electrical Engineering degree would not.

When I was working on my MSEE, the professor I had for "Tensor Calculus" taught as an adjunct in the evening. I used to work in the school's Physics Lab setting up for the undergrads. I befriended one of the physics profs who helped me with the tensor field theory (math) and its meaning. Also,
as a grad student, I had to teach a semester of a class. I taught a semester of his of Applied Calculus (things like Bessels, lagrange, and sundry other mathematical curios in addition ot calculus) class. In turn, I taught him computer programming.

I actually focused on Communication and Information Theory in my graduate studies. I hated the actual "hands-on" hardware side of EE. There was much more interesting mathematics in the Communication/Information Theory side. I also found the hands-on study of anatomy much more stimulating than the "hands-on" EE.

[jtmckinley]

I think what VAX wrote echoes what I wrote and is what I was alluding to, at least regarding conservation of angular momentum, though I didn't mention that explicitly. Essentially, I think, feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong, is that any system of particles has a fundamental angular momentum due to the fact that they're all moving relative to each other, unless they are all heading toward a fixed point of course. Consequently, conservation of angular momentum inevitably results in spinning objects formed from a cloud of individual particles due to the non-uniformity of motion of the particles in the cloud. The point is that if you add gravity into that system, the particles attract one another, and there is an angular momentum of that system that is conserved when they coalesce. Therefore, if angular momentum is conserved (which it is, as far as I know, at least in the case of dust particles and other macroscopic entities) , it is inevitable that condensed clouds of gas or dust will exhibit rotation. VAX rightly points out that the idea of curved space isn't necessary to explain this behaviour, Newtonian mechanics will suffice. I only mentioned curved space because that was easy to make the "marble" model with.