1 1
brenthutch

The world goes Green

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

But you agree that the star is approximately the SIZE of that black circle, correct?

Or does it fall out of the circle? By how much? 

Maybe it's diameter is twice that black circle?

The size of the black dot has nothing to do with the size of the star.

In earlier days, film was used to image planetary nebulas.  If you exposed the star itself, it would be so bright that the light would reflect off the film, reflect around the inside of the instrument (even if it's painted flat black to avoid this effect) and fog the rest of the film.  So they would artificially occlude the central star with a black plate to reduce this effect.

You can see this effect yourself when there's a total solar eclipse.  Our sun has a corona extending out millions of miles.  Normally you cannot see the corona because the sun itself is way too bright and washes everything else out.  But when the sun is eclipsed, its light is reduced, and you can easily see the corona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billvon said:

The size of the black dot has nothing to do with the size of the star.

There's only one star whose angular size is actually measurable from earth - Betelgeuse.

The size of the bright spots on any astronomical image only gives you an indication of the brightness of the object, not the size.

You can even try this yourself. A tiny but bright laser pointer will look like the sun when captured by a camera from a distance, but a larger but dimmer light will look like a point of light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zoe Phin said:

And then later on you used an example of the moon covering the sun. 

Is the sun not approximately the same size as the black dot (the moon) from our POV?...

If the moon were twice as big you'd see exactly the same effect.  

When you get an annular eclipse (exactly the same size moon, just a bit further away so some sun "leaks" around it) you do NOT get that effect.

Again, pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

And then later on you used an example of the moon covering the sun. 

Is the sun not approximately the same size as the black dot (the moon) from our POV?

...

But they're near enough that diffraction error is not significant.

Again, the astronomers in THAT PAPER did not use the size of the blob to calculate the radius of the protoplanet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

olof, you always focus and explain irrelevant points.

Irrelevant? You're still thinking they used the photo of the blob to measure the size of the planet? They actually describe their method:

Quote

The spectral energy distribution (SED) of PDS 70 b is well described by blackbody emission, for which we constrain the photospheric temperature and photospheric radius

They're the SOURCE of the numbers you're saying. They didn't "count pixels on the image". They actually calculated it, from, surprise surprise, the blackbody equation that you keep using inappropriately for lasers:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.04483

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, olofscience said:

Distraction? You're the one who brought it up!

I'm not going to answer your question until you post some proof of your gravitational capture theory. Deal? I've only been asking in the past dozen posts, why are you avoiding it?

Oh, it's because you have no answer.

Don't bet on any answer.

Ever.

I've done a bit of searching.

There is more information about the Lizard Aliens than there is about any Venus capture. 

I'd put the Lizard Aliens higher on the 'likely to be correct' list too.

Gotta love how there are repeated claims that "NASA is suppressing the truth", yet no support for that 'truth'. None at all.

At least Rhys would try to show how the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon, or that it was 'nanothermite' that brought down the WTC towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

olof still can't admit that the "operating temperature" is not the laser beam's heating temperature. Would rather think that lasers violate 2nd law of thermodynamics and transfer heat from cold to hot. lol

lol, what?

Abandoning the protoplanets now?

This is starting to get boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

olof still can't admit that the "operating temperature" is not the laser beam's heating temperature.

Aha!  You now admit that you can transfer energy from a cooler object to a warmer object!  Progress!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

I moved on to random non-sequiturs. It made no discernable impact on the conversation quality.

But to think, I was about to be demolished with ZP's clever trap about protoplanets!

Disappointingly, she has now moved to random topics as it wasn't very clever at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billvon said:

You now admit that you can transfer energy from a cooler object to a warmer object!  Progress!  

What are you smoking?

The machine is powered by electricity. The small beam is hot, but the big body doesn't get that hot. That's not cold warming hot. That's hot warming cold, moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, olofscience said:

wasn't very clever at all.

You mean a triple star system were objects are within 4x size range.

And a star with "proto-planets" where all objects are within 6x size range.

That little difference of 6x vs. 4x somehow classifies it as a different thing. Yeah OK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

What are you smoking?

The machine is powered by electricity. The small beam is hot, but the big body doesn't get that hot. That's not cold warming hot. That's hot warming cold, moron.

The cooler machine is creating a beam of photons.  Those photons then impart energy to the plate, allowing it to vaporize material on the workpiece.

Transfer of energy from cool to warm!  You now understand this can happen!  That's progress; you are learning.

Another great example - induction cooking.  A (cooler) coil of wire induces eddy currents in a (warmer) metal surface, and heats it up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

billvon, 

The laser beam is not cool. And its operation is warming the machine.

What you're suggesting is that a campfire viewed from space is proof that the cold earth is transfering heat to a satellite much hotter than the normal ~-18C Earth as viewed from space.

See? ~-18C can send out something that looks like 300C !

It's a lame trick and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1