Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Painius · Guest

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote...
in message news:If5ik.46203$m62.35235@newsfe27.ams2...
[quote]Painius <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote in message
S14ik.261220$SV4.117141@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
wrote...
in message news:dm3ik.15082$GI1.13048@newsfe05.ams2...
Painius <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote in message
_O2ik.133157$102.19226@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
"Hugh Clary" <badinage@netzero.ZAPTHISnet> wrote...
in message news:4885a2e8.6123500@news.individual.net...

I am looking for an understandable definition
of angular momentum. Definitions abound on
the internet, but they are all incomprehensible,
at least to me:

http://tinyurl.com/5tfaxf

Beyond that, apparently the planets Jupiter and
Saturn possess some 90% of our solar system>s
angular momentum, all by themselves.

Can anyone explain these concepts to me, hopefully
in terms that my admittedly poor comprehensive
abilities can follow?

Appreciate it!

Hugh

In the simplest terms, Hugh, think of "momentum" and
"inertia" as meaning the same thing. These are words
that describe the *movement* of an object.

The term "angular", when applied to "momentum" just
means that the object is not moving on a straight-line
path, but instead it>s moving on a curved path, and the
object may be also be spinning.

Come on.
It may just as well be moving on a simple, ordinary straight
line.

Put yourself at some point in space and measure the angle
the object makes between your line of sight and some fixed
direction - In other words, work with polar or spherical
coordates. Use the angle, together with the distance to
the object and the "linear momentum of the object", to calculate the
"angular momentum of the object".
There is an interesting theorem about the value you will
find under certain circumstances - and there is no taboo
for straight line paths.

I always wonder why so many people always automatically
think "ROTATION!" or "CURVED PATH!" when they
want to explain angular momentum.

Dirk Vdm

Maybe it>s because "ROTATION" and "CURVED PATH"
are good places to begin an understanding of angular
momentum, Dirk.

Does one begin to build a house by first finishing the
roof?

Nice strawman.

I always wonder at the frequent inability of learned
scientists to explain things like angular momentum to
a student!

Well, at least I would avoid a downright fumble like
"... means that the object is not moving on a straight-line path"
Good grief :-)

Dirk Vdm
[/quote]
Strawman? <g> Here>s another, just for U...

He who is afraid to fumble seldom scores.

Why would you want to spend most of your life on the
bench?!

Dirk, you appear to have a good handle on angular
momentum. Yet you don>t seem to have a clue about
how to impart your knowledge to others. No blame, of
course. You>re in very good company. Even one of the
greatest writer/teachers of all time, Isaac Asimov, who
possessed the uncanny ability to clarify many science
subjects to non-scientists, was almost completely and
sadly unintelligible when he wrote within his discipline
of chemistry.

Something to think about when one goes up against
one>s next crop of astronomer wannabees.

It helps to get back to your roots, Dirk--breathe in,
breeathe out, deeeply, softly, silently a few times.

You>ll do fine.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

G=EMC^2 Glazier · Guest

Cactus saul I know the Suns equatorial bulge is small I just wanted to
know how small. Just as easily if you said not measurable. Why be so
uptight? bend a little. Best Saul you keep in mind if the image of the
Earth was only 33 inches across it also would look perfectly round but
we know its not You are hard to figure at times. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier · Guest

Brad that is true the left hand angle while driving causes 1,000 times
more major accidents than the right hand angle. Not hard to figure
Bert

Timberwoof · Guest

In article <5509-488A0743-429@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net>,
herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

[quote]Cactus saul I know the Suns equatorial bulge is small I just wanted to
know how small. Just as easily if you said not measurable. Why be so
uptight? bend a little.
[/quote]
How far? Much of what you and some others have said here is somewhere
between lunacy, unsubstantiated speculation, and uninformed fantasy.
When the real answers can be found and understood by any dedicated
amateur, there>s no reason to entertain silly notions that have no basis
in reality.

[quote]Best Saul you keep in mind if the image of the
Earth was only 33 inches across it also would look perfectly round but
we know its not You are hard to figure at times. Bert
[/quote]
It>s not all that hard to look up. Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge
"The Earth has an equatorial bulge of 42.72 km (26.5 miles) due to its
rotation"

The "flattening ratio" is about 1:300.

Saturn and Jupiter, which spin faster than the Earth does and which are
mostly gas, have much larger flattening ratios: 1:14 and 1:10.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what¹s accepted by
the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.

Saul Levy · Guest

I don>t agree with that, Paine. Asimov>s chemistry was just as good
as the rest of his topics.

I still remember some of what I learned only from Isaac.

Maybe you should have taken more chemistry? I took a lot more than I
really wanted to. Semi-micro analysis was a true pain in the ass!
The chemicals were contaminated giving incorrect results.

Saul Levy

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:06:05 GMT, "Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com>
wrote:

[quote]Dirk, you appear to have a good handle on angular
momentum. Yet you don>t seem to have a clue about
how to impart your knowledge to others. No blame, of
course. You>re in very good company. Even one of the
greatest writer/teachers of all time, Isaac Asimov, who
possessed the uncanny ability to clarify many science
subjects to non-scientists, was almost completely and
sadly unintelligible when he wrote within his discipline
of chemistry.[/quote]

Saul Levy · Guest

Read my reply again you old fart! lmao!

I told you it IS measurable by special equipment on a telescope. I
also implied that it was NOT visible even in a 33-inch image of the
Sun. That is a PRIME FOCUS image which is the largest available in
any telescope.

Jupiter is very oblate even in a small telescope in comparison as
woofie mentioned here.

Saul Levy

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:02:59 -0400, herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

[quote]Cactus saul I know the Suns equatorial bulge is small I just wanted to
know how small. Just as easily if you said not measurable. Why be so
uptight? bend a little. Best Saul you keep in mind if the image of the
Earth was only 33 inches across it also would look perfectly round but
we know its not You are hard to figure at times. Bert[/quote]

oldcoot · Guest

On Jul 26, 6:48 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
[quote]"oldcoot" <oldcoot7...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message...

This would be because the rapidly spinning proto-Sun accreted *not*
via its equator as is commonly supposed, but via its poles. The inflow
from the accretion disc would naturally favor the poles, as has been
discussed here many times in relation to BHs of high spin rate. And as
observed frequently throughout the cosmos, there are bipolar jets
associated with accreting protostars. These jets are an unmistakable
signature of *bipolar accretion* as outlined above.
In such a scenario, the infall from the accretion
disc separates into twin flows, riding 'up and over' the final hump
before plunging in through the poles. Thereupon, the flows collide
head-on, 'squashing out' into a disc, the collision energy going into
superheating of the sun-to-be. The collision energy, instead of going
into angular momentum as commonly supposed, is helping stoke the fires
of the nascent Sun, toward the day of Ignition. Upon Ignition, the
disc swells, balancing against gravity, to the self-luminous orb of
slow rotation. Our Sun is born.

Are you saying that this disk is what spreads out
to form the planets and planetesimals?

No, the proto-planets/planetesimals were accreting in situ at this[/quote]
stage, separate from the central disc of the proto-Sun.
[quote]
Soo.. By the time the protoSun ignited, many of the orbs
in the disk would have (accreted) enough of
the surrounding material so as not to be blown off
and away by the initial blast of solar wind that took
place when the Sun ignited.

Yupp.

So the disk would have had to have been in place
long before the compressed hydrogen sphere at the
center of the disk fused to become a true star.

Yup.

Bipolar accretion is a basic tenet of the CBB
model, a fundamental pillar in fact. The naturally high spin rate of
accreting objects makes them *gravitic dipoles* and dictates the
natural accretion pathway is via the poles. The higher the spin rate,
the more acutely the infalls *must* align to the polar axis. This is
the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect carried to the extreme,
as with accreting BHs. With accreting protostars the effect would be
not as extreme, but the infalls would still be predominantly via the
poles. The end result of this star-forming process would be a star of
slow rotation, answering the question of "why such low angular
momentum?"

So the swelling of the disk would have had to take
place while the bipolar accreting process you talk
about was taking place. At this point, the hydrogen
cloud must have been compressed into a tight, fast-
spinning sphere (not into an already fully formed
disk with a bulge at the center, as the mainstream
model describes).

So the disk swells/expands outward from the sphere
and takes almost all of the angular momentum with
it.
Yes. But note that the central entity you term a "sphere" was itself[/quote]
highly compacted and oblate due to its high spin rate. Then *upon
Ignition at its core*, it commenced expanding by many, many orders of
magnitude, dissipating the angular momentum of the *pre-Ignition* core
mass. The expansion ultimately balanced out against gravity, the
stasis point forming the sphere of the newborn, slow-rotating Sun.
[quote]
The ensuing powerful blast of energy blew all the
smaller accretions and dust out beyond Neptune,
while the larger accretions held their own and
continued to orbit the new star.

Some accretions and collisions continued to take
place in the (protoplanetary) disk, eventually forming the awesome
Solar System pretty much as we see it today.

By jove you>ve 'got it' old chap. :-)[/quote]

But note one major difference between an accreting BH and an accreting
proto-star. A BH exists in a compacted, degenerate state and thus
cannot expand, shedding its angular momentum.

oldcoot · Guest

This is a bit off-topic to the thread subject, but it>s one dude>s
delightful diatribe against the Primacy of Math in contemporary
physics. He>s spot-on in describing the institutional mandate which
denies the mechanics (mechanisms of causation) of what The Math is
describing.

http://milesmathis.com/death.html

One utterly poignant excerpt from the text is this :

"If time and distance are not behaving in normal ways, the equations
have no way of correcting for it, since they don>t have any way to
express it."

Does this fit the Pioneer anomaly to a tee or what?!

The author is a radical political Left-winger but i guess that can be
forgiven in light of his scientific insight. :-)

Painius · Guest

"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message...
news:1brk841qolccogsri3qejflrpujb5a2jf5@4ax.com...
[quote]On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:06:05 GMT, "Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com
wrote:

Dirk, you appear to have a good handle on angular
momentum. Yet you don>t seem to have a clue about
how to impart your knowledge to others. No blame, of
course. You>re in very good company. Even one of the
greatest writer/teachers of all time, Isaac Asimov, who
possessed the uncanny ability to clarify many science
subjects to non-scientists, was almost completely and
sadly unintelligible when he wrote within his discipline
of chemistry.

I don>t agree with that, Paine. Asimov>s chemistry was just as good
as the rest of his topics.

I still remember some of what I learned only from Isaac.

Maybe you should have taken more chemistry? I took a lot more than I
really wanted to. Semi-micro analysis was a true pain in the ass!
The chemicals were contaminated giving incorrect results.

Saul Levy
[/quote]
I didn>t say his chemistry wasn>t as good. I just meant
that when one writes or teaches within one>s discipline,
one tends to be so detailed, and to speak from such a
high natural level, that it>s much easier to go over the
head of the listener/reader without actually knowing
one has done so.

I had a pretty fair base in chemistry when i read Isaac>s
phenomenal book on photosynthesis. Yet he was so
detailed and high-level that it took me about five reads
or so before i began to understand what he was saying.

Didn>t have that problem with his math, physics, the
many astronomy/cosmology books he wrote, just with
the chem. subjects. He loved to talk chemistry, hell,
he loved to talk any science subject. And yet when he
talked chemistry he tended to ramble and lose me.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

Painius · Guest

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote...
in message
news:timberwoof.spam-AC978A.18304724072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
[quote]In article <k19i84dpl1pfjvqup0ggjsn4v5dk1ch30o@4ax.com>,
Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:45:01 GMT, "Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com
wrote:
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message...
news:l5ih8410vntvu30b8p8n079jrca9d4uhua@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:17:46 GMT, "Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com
wrote:

Why does the Sun, which possesses the vast majority
of the mass in the Solar System, possess such a very
small ration of the angular momentum?

Because, compared to the rest of the solar system, its radius is very
small. The planets are far away and move along at a pretty good clip:
much more angular momentum in that.
[/quote]
Well, sure, TW. Yet it still doesn>t explain how the
angular momentum was imparted to all the far away
planets. I want to know the mechanism by which the
the Sun ended up with relatively little AM while the
rest of the Solar System enjoys the vast majority of
the AM.

And i feel that the presently accepted model for Solar
System construction is very wanting in this respect.

[quote]There are stars which rotate much faster than the Sun, Paine.

Some rotate so fast they are right on the edge of tearing themselves
apart.

We should be very glad the Sun is a slow rotator!

Saul Levy

IAWTP, Saul. I just haven>t been able to reconcile
the mainstream explanation, which is essentially no
explanation at all, for this phenomenon.

There are many papers in the literature about stellar rotation.

Search for some and let me know if you still don>t understand them.

Saul Levy
[/quote]
The one>s i>ve read say that the original hydrogen
cloud compressed into a disk rather than a sphere.
And the disk was somehow imbued with the vast
amount of AM, while the center of the disk, the
huge bulge that became our Sun, was somehow
left lacking in AM. No mainstream explanation as
to how this actually took place has been the least
bit satisfactory to me, Saul.

[quote]Here>s reconciliation for you: Any cloud of gas has some inherent
angular momentum. As it collapses, that makes the rotation speed up. I>m
sure you>ve seen the classic example of an ice skater doing a spin. When
she pulls in her arms, she speeds up. (Indeed the work she does in
pulling her arms in is the same as the work needed to speed up her
spinning. Nice tidy little coincidence, that!)

The stars you>re talking about are neutron stars. They>ve collapsed so
much that the electrons have combined with the protons and there>s
nothing left but this gigantic "atom" of neutrons bound by gravity.
There>s a little layer of ordinary matter on the outer surface, but it>s
not a pleasant place to live. Indeed, the collapse is one of those
exciting stellar events best viewed from far away. Anyway, imagine a
star the size of our sun spinning as fast as it does (every ~25 days).
When that collapses to a much smaller size, it must speed up to conserve
angular momentum.

Have you ever wrenched on a car? Ever had to loosen a stuck bolt? You
can increase the torque you can apply to the bolt by sticking a pipe
over the wrench and pushing again from farther away. You push the same
amount but from a greater distance, and that increases the torque. Gears
do the same thing. Basically, you multiply the distance from the center
by the force applied. Shorter radius means more force is needed to get
the same torque.

Angular momentum works the same way: radius multiplied by speed
multiplied by mass gives you the momentum. If you want to shorten the
radius, you have to increase the speed by the same factor to make up for
it.

Does that work for you, Painius?
[/quote]
Well, yes, of course it does, TW. What doesn>t work
for me is that what you>ve described above does not
jive with the presently accepted model of Solar System
construction.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

Painius · Guest

"oldcoot" <oldcoot7074@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message...
news:5ab2949d-a30b-45ba-a174-93b7475ff4c5@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 24, 10:17 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:

So Jupiter and Saturn possess about 90% of all the
angular momentum in the Solar System. And the vast
majority of the rest of the angular momentum is had
by all the other major planets and minor planets that
go around the Sun. This has presented science with a
very interesting puzzle...

Why does the Sun, which possesses the vast majority
of the mass in the Solar System, possess such a very
small ration of the angular momentum?

Yo Paine
If you recomember, in the earlier discussion on
this subject, it was suggested that perhaps the fully-formed Sun did
not "lose" angular momentum but didn>t have it in the first place.
[/quote]
I don>t see how, oc. If it was spinning fast enough
to be accreting through the top and bottom, then
there had to have been a large amount of angular
momentum for this to happen...

[quote]This would be because the rapidly spinning proto-Sun accreted *not*
via its equator as is commonly supposed, but via its poles. The inflow
from the accretion disc would naturally favor the poles, as has been
discussed here many times in relation to BHs of high spin rate. And as
observed frequently throughout the cosmos, there are bipolar jets
associated with accreting protostars. These jets are an unmistakable
signature of *bipolar accretion* as outlined above.
In such a scenario, the infall from the accretion
disc separates into twin flows, riding 'up and over' the final hump
before plunging in through the poles. Thereupon, the flows collide
head-on, 'squashing out' into a disc, the collision energy going into
superheating of the sun-to-be. The collision energy, instead of going
into angular momentum as commonly supposed, is helping stoke the fires
of the nascent Sun, toward the day of Ignition. Upon Ignition, the
disc swells, balancing against gravity, to the self-luminous orb of
slow rotation. Our Sun is born.
[/quote]
Are you saying that this disk is what spreads out
to form the planets and planetesimals? In several
ways, that would make sense. However, the disk
would have had to swell and expand long before
the protoSun became a fusor, a true star.

By the time the protoSun ignited, many of the orbs
in the disk would have had to accrete enough of
the surrounding material so as not to be blown off
and away by the initial blast of solar wind that took
place when the Sun ignited.

So the disk would have had to have been in place
long before the compressed hydrogen sphere at the
center of the disk fused to become a true star.

[quote]Bipolar accretion is a basic tenet of the CBB
model, a fundamental pillar in fact. The naturally high spin rate of
accreting objects makes them *gravitic dipoles* and dictates the
natural accretion pathway is via the poles. The higher the spin rate,
the more acutely the infalls *must* align to the polar axis. This is
the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect carried to the extreme,
as with accreting BHs. With accreting protostars the effect would be
not as extreme, but the infalls would still be predominantly via the
poles. The end result of this star-forming process would be a star of
slow rotation, answering the question of "why such low angular
momentum?"
[/quote]
So the swelling of the disk would have had to take
place while the bipolar accreting process you talk
about was taking place. At this point, the hydrogen
cloud must have been compressed into a tight, fast-
spinning sphere (not into an already fully formed
disk with a bulge at the center, as the mainstream
model describes).

So the disk swells/expands outward from the sphere
and takes almost all of the angular momentum with
it. Millions and millions of small accretions of solids
begin to form in the disk that are spinning like crazy!
These keep bumping into each other and clumping
together to form larger and larger masses.

The process of planet accretion probably took only a
million (or a few million) years. During this time the
Sun, almost totally lacking angular momentum, did
spin slowly and continued to compress. When the
pressure at the core reached a critical level, fusion
of hydrogen into helium began and P O W ! our
big, bright Sun was born.

The ensuing powerful blast of energy blew all the
smaller accretions and dust out beyond Neptune,
while the larger accretions held their own and
continued to orbit the new star.

Some accretions and collisions continued to take
place in the disk, eventually forming the awesome
Solar System pretty much as we see it today.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

G=EMC^2 Glazier · Guest

Cactus saul Glad you mentioned Old Fart so I would know your post was
for me. Sun image 33 inches is big enough. However I only asked since
the Sun is gas and spinning how much is it out of round. Forgive me for
asking you difficult questions I should know better. I would look it up
in Google but I can not do that Bert

Timberwoof · Guest

In article <xlFik.135569$102.38705@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote:

[quote]"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote...
in message
news:timberwoof.spam-AC978A.18304724072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
In article <k19i84dpl1pfjvqup0ggjsn4v5dk1ch30o@4ax.com>,
Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:45:01 GMT, "Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com
wrote:
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message...
news:l5ih8410vntvu30b8p8n079jrca9d4uhua@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:17:46 GMT, "Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com
wrote:

Why does the Sun, which possesses the vast majority
of the mass in the Solar System, possess such a very
small ration of the angular momentum?

Because, compared to the rest of the solar system, its radius is very
small. The planets are far away and move along at a pretty good clip:
much more angular momentum in that.

Well, sure, TW. Yet it still doesn>t explain how the
angular momentum was imparted to all the far away
planets. I want to know the mechanism by which the
the Sun ended up with relatively little AM while the
rest of the Solar System enjoys the vast majority of
the AM.

And i feel that the presently accepted model for Solar
System construction is very wanting in this respect.
[/quote]
That>s an interesting question, and now that you put it that way, I
investigated. A casual Google on angular momentum solar system formation
yielded, amon other things, this link:
http://www.astronomy.org/astronomy-survival/solform.html

3. Transfer of angular momentum
1. Duration: Perhaps as short as a few thousand years
2. Magnetohydrodynamic effect transfers the sun>s spin away from the
inner to the outer solar system (Alfven-1954).
1. Early contracting sun had a strong magnetic field.
2. Area immediately surrounding the sun was composed of ionized
particles. Charged particles interacted with the magnetic field so that
they spiraled outward along the magnetic lines of force. These magnetic
lines returned to the sun, trapping the ions.
3. The sun was rotating faster than the ions in its vicinity.
4. The magnetic field lines of the sun, sweeping through the ions
tended to accelerate the cloud, increasing its rotational velocity at
the expense of the sun>s spin. Angular momentum was transferred away
from the sun.
5. The drag effect of the cloud against the sun also tended to
decrease the rotational velocity of the sun.
6. Differences in composition between the inner and outer planets can
be accounted for.
1. The magnetic field of the sun tended to cause more positively
charged ions (especially the volatiles) to orbit around the forming
star, thus helping to segregate the volatiles from the more refractory
materials which condensed first in the cooling nebula. The condensed
refractories such as iron, nickel, and silicate grains would no longer
have been affected by the solar magnetic field, because they would have
been neutral. This matter would have collected into the more refractory
terrestrial planets, i.e., the inner solar system.
2. The volatiles would have remained charged and thus they would have
been affected by the sun>s magnetic field. These materials would have
spiraled away from the sun along the sun>s magnetic field lines and
condensed much farther away in the cooler regions where the Jovian
planets orbit the sun today.
7. The basic problem of the Magnetohydrodynamic Effect lies with the
assumption that the sun>s magnetic field strength would have had to have
been 150,000 times stronger than it is today. Presently the field
strength of the sun is approximately two gauss, four to six times that
of the earth>s field strength.

(The copy-paste screwed with the outline headings. Go to the original
page to see them properly if that>s important.)

The explanation makes sense to me.

[quote]There are stars which rotate much faster than the Sun, Paine.

Some rotate so fast they are right on the edge of tearing themselves
apart.

We should be very glad the Sun is a slow rotator!

Saul Levy

IAWTP, Saul. I just haven>t been able to reconcile
the mainstream explanation, which is essentially no
explanation at all, for this phenomenon.

There are many papers in the literature about stellar rotation.

Search for some and let me know if you still don>t understand them.

Saul Levy

The one>s i>ve read say that the original hydrogen
cloud compressed into a disk rather than a sphere.
And the disk was somehow imbued with the vast
amount of AM, while the center of the disk, the
huge bulge that became our Sun, was somehow
left lacking in AM. No mainstream explanation as
to how this actually took place has been the least
bit satisfactory to me, Saul.
[/quote]
Hm. Which ones have you read?

[quote]Here>s reconciliation for you: Any cloud of gas has some inherent
angular momentum. As it collapses, that makes the rotation speed up. I>m
sure you>ve seen the classic example of an ice skater doing a spin. When
she pulls in her arms, she speeds up. (Indeed the work she does in
pulling her arms in is the same as the work needed to speed up her
spinning. Nice tidy little coincidence, that!)

The stars you>re talking about are neutron stars. They>ve collapsed so
much that the electrons have combined with the protons and there>s
nothing left but this gigantic "atom" of neutrons bound by gravity.
There>s a little layer of ordinary matter on the outer surface, but it>s
not a pleasant place to live. Indeed, the collapse is one of those
exciting stellar events best viewed from far away. Anyway, imagine a
star the size of our sun spinning as fast as it does (every ~25 days).
When that collapses to a much smaller size, it must speed up to conserve
angular momentum.

Have you ever wrenched on a car? Ever had to loosen a stuck bolt? You
can increase the torque you can apply to the bolt by sticking a pipe
over the wrench and pushing again from farther away. You push the same
amount but from a greater distance, and that increases the torque. Gears
do the same thing. Basically, you multiply the distance from the center
by the force applied. Shorter radius means more force is needed to get
the same torque.

Angular momentum works the same way: radius multiplied by speed
multiplied by mass gives you the momentum. If you want to shorten the
radius, you have to increase the speed by the same factor to make up for
it.

Does that work for you, Painius?

Well, yes, of course it does, TW. What doesn>t work
for me is that what you>ve described above does not
jive with the presently accepted model of Solar System
construction.
[/quote]
Which one>s that? I found one that explains it.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Saul Levy · Guest

Get a REAL computer, BEERTbrain! lmao!

Then you can spend all your time on Google instead of in here.

Saul Levy

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:02:46 -0400, herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

[quote]Cactus saul Glad you mentioned Old Fart so I would know your post was
for me. Sun image 33 inches is big enough. However I only asked since
the Sun is gas and spinning how much is it out of round. Forgive me for
asking you difficult questions I should know better. I would look it up
in Google but I can not do that Bert[/quote]

Painius · Guest

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote...
in message
news:timberwoof.spam-10E32E.11174226072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
[quote]In article <xlFik.135569$102.38705@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote:
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote...
in message
news:timberwoof.spam-AC978A.18304724072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
In article <k19i84dpl1pfjvqup0ggjsn4v5dk1ch30o@4ax.com>,
Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:45:01 GMT, "Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com
wrote:
"Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote in message...
news:l5ih8410vntvu30b8p8n079jrca9d4uhua@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:17:46 GMT, "Painius"
starswirlernosp@maol.com
wrote:

Why does the Sun, which possesses the vast majority
of the mass in the Solar System, possess such a very
small ration of the angular momentum?

Because, compared to the rest of the solar system, its radius is very
small. The planets are far away and move along at a pretty good clip:
much more angular momentum in that.

Well, sure, TW. Yet it still doesn>t explain how the
angular momentum was imparted to all the far away
planets. I want to know the mechanism by which the
the Sun ended up with relatively little AM while the
rest of the Solar System enjoys the vast majority of
the AM.

And i feel that the presently accepted model for Solar
System construction is very wanting in this respect.

That>s an interesting question, and now that you put it that way, I
investigated. A casual Google on angular momentum solar system formation
yielded, amon other things, this link:
http://www.astronomy.org/astronomy-survival/solform.html

3. Transfer of angular momentum
1. Duration: Perhaps as short as a few thousand years
2. Magnetohydrodynamic effect transfers the sun>s spin away from the
inner to the outer solar system (Alfven-1954).
1. Early contracting sun had a strong magnetic field.
2. Area immediately surrounding the sun was composed of ionized
particles. Charged particles interacted with the magnetic field so that
they spiraled outward along the magnetic lines of force. These magnetic
lines returned to the sun, trapping the ions.
3. The sun was rotating faster than the ions in its vicinity.
4. The magnetic field lines of the sun, sweeping through the ions
tended to accelerate the cloud, increasing its rotational velocity at
the expense of the sun>s spin. Angular momentum was transferred away
from the sun.
5. The drag effect of the cloud against the sun also tended to
decrease the rotational velocity of the sun.
6. Differences in composition between the inner and outer planets can
be accounted for.
1. The magnetic field of the sun tended to cause more positively
charged ions (especially the volatiles) to orbit around the forming
star, thus helping to segregate the volatiles from the more refractory
materials which condensed first in the cooling nebula. The condensed
refractories such as iron, nickel, and silicate grains would no longer
have been affected by the solar magnetic field, because they would have
been neutral. This matter would have collected into the more refractory
terrestrial planets, i.e., the inner solar system.
2. The volatiles would have remained charged and thus they would have
been affected by the sun>s magnetic field. These materials would have
spiraled away from the sun along the sun>s magnetic field lines and
condensed much farther away in the cooler regions where the Jovian
planets orbit the sun today.
7. The basic problem of the Magnetohydrodynamic Effect lies with the
assumption that the sun>s magnetic field strength would have had to have
been 150,000 times stronger than it is today. Presently the field
strength of the sun is approximately two gauss, four to six times that
of the earth>s field strength.
[/quote]
And that>s a big problem, that last one. Even if we ignore
that problem and assume the Sun had a tremendously much
more powerful magnetic field than today (remember, today>s
magnetic field reaches out beyond the orbit of Pluto!), then
we still have to deal with the fact that the MHE could account
for *some* transfer of angular momentum, but not nearly all
of it that we see today.

It>s a stab in the dark by astronomers that doesn>t fill the bill,
not even close! You like to do Googles, so Google the MHE.

[quote](The copy-paste screwed with the outline headings. Go to the original
page to see them properly if that>s important.)
[/quote]
You might try saving your unfinished responses from time to
time as drafts. This does at least two things for you. If you
experience a power outage, part of your response will still be
saved on your hard drive, so you won>t have to start over from
scratch. And when you pull up the draft copy it pretty much
looks like it will after it>s posted.

[quote]The explanation makes sense to me.
[/quote]
It>s actually very wanting, which you will see when you take a
closer look at it.

[quote]There are stars which rotate much faster than the Sun, Paine.

Some rotate so fast they are right on the edge of tearing
themselves
apart.

We should be very glad the Sun is a slow rotator!

Saul Levy

IAWTP, Saul. I just haven>t been able to reconcile
the mainstream explanation, which is essentially no
explanation at all, for this phenomenon.

There are many papers in the literature about stellar rotation.

Search for some and let me know if you still don>t understand them.

Saul Levy

The one>s i>ve read say that the original hydrogen
cloud compressed into a disk rather than a sphere.
And the disk was somehow imbued with the vast
amount of AM, while the center of the disk, the
huge bulge that became our Sun, was somehow
left lacking in AM. No mainstream explanation as
to how this actually took place has been the least
bit satisfactory to me, Saul.

Hm. Which ones have you read?
[/quote]
Here>s one, for example, that boldly suggests that AM
is constantly being lost by the Sun due to tidal effects
(more BS)...

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=204

The main reason the Sun presently loses mass and
therefore angular momentum begins with its fusion
process, where mass is converted into energy...

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=563

....and as you will see, even this is an effect that>s
hardly mentionable.

Google for any paper that touches upon the formation
of our Solar System. I>ve read most of them.

[quote]Here>s reconciliation for you: Any cloud of gas has some inherent
angular momentum. As it collapses, that makes the rotation speed up.
I>m
sure you>ve seen the classic example of an ice skater doing a spin.
When
she pulls in her arms, she speeds up. (Indeed the work she does in
pulling her arms in is the same as the work needed to speed up her
spinning. Nice tidy little coincidence, that!)

The stars you>re talking about are neutron stars. They>ve collapsed so
much that the electrons have combined with the protons and there>s
nothing left but this gigantic "atom" of neutrons bound by gravity.
There>s a little layer of ordinary matter on the outer surface, but
it>s
not a pleasant place to live. Indeed, the collapse is one of those
exciting stellar events best viewed from far away. Anyway, imagine a
star the size of our sun spinning as fast as it does (every ~25 days).
When that collapses to a much smaller size, it must speed up to
conserve
angular momentum.

Have you ever wrenched on a car? Ever had to loosen a stuck bolt? You
can increase the torque you can apply to the bolt by sticking a pipe
over the wrench and pushing again from farther away. You push the same
amount but from a greater distance, and that increases the torque.
Gears
do the same thing. Basically, you multiply the distance from the center
by the force applied. Shorter radius means more force is needed to get
the same torque.

Angular momentum works the same way: radius multiplied by speed
multiplied by mass gives you the momentum. If you want to shorten the
radius, you have to increase the speed by the same factor to make up
for
it.

Does that work for you, Painius?

Well, yes, of course it does, TW. What doesn>t work
for me is that what you>ve described above does not
jive with the presently accepted model of Solar System
construction.

Which one>s that? I found one that explains it.
[/quote]
And if you keep digging, you>ll find several interesting
explanations, none of which have been able to tickle my
fancies.

It>s a controversial issue. Even oc and i have not come
to a complete agreement as to how AM was received by
the planets.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Astrology - Amateur Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5