Quite surprising how ‘spready’ the LED emission spectra is compared to the low pressure sodium lamp.
Special Rel may predict an increase in quark mass but the source is still mass, whatever you define that to be. Some unified field attempts include electromagnetism as a factor in gravitation and have since the 1950s or so.
Thanks leoman. The mathematical analogy between Maxwell's equations and Einstein's equations is called "gravito-electromagnetism" or GEM for short.
It leads to the prediction of a new force, "gravito-magnetism", which can be caused by the rotation of the Earth (or any large mass).
Just as a spinning electron induces a magnetic field, mathematically the Earth induces a dragging of spacetime - a phenomenon called "frame dragging" which was confirmed by the NASA Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission around 2010.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/introducing-the-amazing-concept-of-gravito-electromagnetism/
Speaking of solving the Riemann Hypothesis, it's not just money you can win, you can also get a free bag of organic seeds:
That offer may plant a seed in someone's mind.
Who knows, the responses could ex-seed expectations! 😀
Astronomers want to redefine what a planet is. I always thought their definition that facilitated the demotion of Pluto was bonkers and arbitrary. Here is my proposed criteria of a planet:-
1. it orbits a star directly (ie it does not orbit a body that is orbiting a star - that is a moon)
2. the centre of gravity (COG) between it and its host star lies within the radius of the host star. If the COG lies outside the host star’s radius, it is a binary system. So, if Jupiter orbited 2 million miles from the centre of the sun , it and the sun would be classed as a binary stellar-planetary system
3. planets could be classed according to mass - type 1, type 2 etc
4. moons can only orbit planets
5. if the COG between a moon and its host planet lies outside the host planets radius, it is a binary planetary system.
Thats it. Simple, quantitative and with no subjective bs.
https://www.livescience.com/space/planets/astronomers-want-to-change-how-we-define-a-planet-again
1. it orbits a star directly (ie it does not orbit a body that is orbiting a star - that is a moon)
2. the centre of gravity (COG) between it and its host star lies within the radius of the host star. If the COG lies outside the host star’s radius, it is a binary system. So, if Jupiter orbited 2 million miles from the centre of the sun , it and the sun would be classed as a binary stellar-planetary system
3. planets could be classed according to mass - type 1, type 2 etc
4. moons can only orbit planets
5. if the COG between a moon and its host planet lies outside the host planets radius, it is a binary planetary system.
Thats it. Simple, quantitative and with no subjective bs.
https://www.livescience.com/space/planets/astronomers-want-to-change-how-we-define-a-planet-again
Look, @Bonsai, if you granted Pluto planet status, next thing you know, the Moon would want it. And it's definitely a moon. Just sayin'. 🙂
Ref Item 2 in your list:
The facts as I checked them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter_(astronomy)
So Jupiter is now a binary system? I really think it should all be left as it is. Smallish Pluto's discoverer Clyde Tombaugh ca.1930 is long gone so shouldn't care. Dwarf Planet or Trans-Neptunian Object works for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet
Sorry if that was all a bit boring, which is unlike me really... 🤔
Tonight's episode of "The SKY Tonight" includes news that the Nova is still in hiding, according to Astronomy expert Doctor system7,
who mentioned that the Portsmouth skies were very murky again.
Also in a World First on "The SKY Tonight", news from Archeology expert Doctor system7 that he has found the origin of the Portsmouth Crest,
with its famous motto "Heaven's Light Our Guide"!
It comes, he says, from the famous "Nebra Sky Disk" buried 3,500 years ago in the Ziegelroda Forest in Germany by Bronze Age people, presumably as an offering to a local deity:
Amazing, eh? And the unrestored disk itself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebra_sky_disc#
This is an early rendering of The Universe allegedly designed to calculate the relation between synodic lunar months of 29.53057 days between new moons, and the siderial year of 365.2422 days against the fixed stars.
Well, that's the theory. IMO, the Big Dipper doesn't look a bit like that! 🙄
I have also proven the Riemann Hypothesis, but the post limit is too small to contain it. 🙂
Ref Item 2 in your list:
The facts as I checked them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter_(astronomy)
So Jupiter is now a binary system? I really think it should all be left as it is. Smallish Pluto's discoverer Clyde Tombaugh ca.1930 is long gone so shouldn't care. Dwarf Planet or Trans-Neptunian Object works for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet
Sorry if that was all a bit boring, which is unlike me really... 🤔
Tonight's episode of "The SKY Tonight" includes news that the Nova is still in hiding, according to Astronomy expert Doctor system7,
who mentioned that the Portsmouth skies were very murky again.
Also in a World First on "The SKY Tonight", news from Archeology expert Doctor system7 that he has found the origin of the Portsmouth Crest,
with its famous motto "Heaven's Light Our Guide"!
It comes, he says, from the famous "Nebra Sky Disk" buried 3,500 years ago in the Ziegelroda Forest in Germany by Bronze Age people, presumably as an offering to a local deity:
Amazing, eh? And the unrestored disk itself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebra_sky_disc#
This is an early rendering of The Universe allegedly designed to calculate the relation between synodic lunar months of 29.53057 days between new moons, and the siderial year of 365.2422 days against the fixed stars.
Well, that's the theory. IMO, the Big Dipper doesn't look a bit like that! 🙄
I have also proven the Riemann Hypothesis, but the post limit is too small to contain it. 🙂
Then let's class the sun<>Jupiter as a binary sun<>planetary system! The moon will always be a moon because it orbits a planet which orbits a star. And leave poor Pluto alone. The fact they want to change the definitions again simply screams they got it wrong last time. 😉
That's OK, I had presumed you were commenting on post #1.
I simply took the opportunity to add more flesh to your second sentence.
To quote from your link: "To ensure that their classification framework would be logical and unbiased, the scientists used a method called unsupervised clustering, an algorithm that groups similar objects. This technique also successfully grouped the eight planets in the solar system."
I decided to investigate "unsupervised clustering" and came up with the following:
"Cluster Analysis is the process to find similar groups of objects in order to form clusters. It is an unsupervised machine learning-based algorithm that acts on unlabelled data. A group of data points would comprise together to form a cluster in which all the objects would belong to the same group."
Read more in the INTRODUCTION of the following link: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/data-mining-cluster-analysis/
It would appear that in relation to the question of what constitutes a planet it will be the computers that will decide!
'unsupervised clustering'? I had better keep my mouth shut or I'll get hammered by the mods for straying into political territory. 😉
Looking deeper, it would appear that the scientists are using "hierarchical clustering" to distinguish the various constituents of the solar system.
The formation and evolution of solar systems, star clusters, galaxies and galaxy clusters are all dominated by gravity, and they have a similar hierarchical structure, which is suitable for graphical presentation.
"Hierarchical clustering" builds a "dendrogram" in which clusters of data are organised as a tree, which ideally ends up as a meaningful classification scheme.
On the left are the clusters of data, while on the right is the dendrogram.
Here's how to read a dendrogram: https://www.displayr.com/what-is-dendrogram/
I think I'll quit now while I'm still ahead! 🤓
The formation and evolution of solar systems, star clusters, galaxies and galaxy clusters are all dominated by gravity, and they have a similar hierarchical structure, which is suitable for graphical presentation.
"Hierarchical clustering" builds a "dendrogram" in which clusters of data are organised as a tree, which ideally ends up as a meaningful classification scheme.
On the left are the clusters of data, while on the right is the dendrogram.
Here's how to read a dendrogram: https://www.displayr.com/what-is-dendrogram/
I think I'll quit now while I'm still ahead! 🤓
My friends, a picture paints a thousand words!
This is the subset known as The Plutinos:
Or you can file some under Dwarf Planets:
Pluto has five moons. Orcus has one too.
Pluto isn't all that big really:
Gratuitous animation of Pluto and Charon thrown in to demonstrate the barycentre of the two:
I am happy to just let them do what they do. It would be more confusing to sort them out into some sort of better filing system.
Only a librarian or dull filing clerk would care, IMO. 🤣
This is the subset known as The Plutinos:
Or you can file some under Dwarf Planets:
Pluto has five moons. Orcus has one too.
Pluto isn't all that big really:
Gratuitous animation of Pluto and Charon thrown in to demonstrate the barycentre of the two:
I am happy to just let them do what they do. It would be more confusing to sort them out into some sort of better filing system.
Only a librarian or dull filing clerk would care, IMO. 🤣
Last edited:
I know from your past posts that you are interested in orbital resonances.
Apparently, there's another subset of Kuiper Belt objects called the twotinos.
Twotinos are so called because of their 1:2 resonance with Neptune, meaning every time a twotino orbits the Sun once, Neptune orbits twice.
This is in contrast with the 3:2 resonance of the plutinos which orbit the Sun twice for every three orbits of Neptune.
Information on twotinos seems to be sparse, other than that over 70 of them have been confirmed to exist.
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210440
Being system7, naturally I wanted to test the alleged 3:2 resonance, which allegedly keeps Neptune from colliding with Pluto, against the facts.
Wiki says this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_and_semi-minor_axes#Orbital_period
Do I NOT like that! A child of ten, if called Euler or Gauss or Lagrange, can see it doesn't work...
More accurate delvings:
Nope, better but not working either!
I checked these siderial periods at Wiki's planet entries.
Pluto: 247.94y or 90,560d
Neptune: 164.79 or 60,195d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune
They are right.
I think this assumes a siderial (against the fixed stars) year is 365.25 days, near enough.
Checked how elliptical orbits of same period work with Kepler Laws, and it's constant semi-major axis:
Aha! The penny drops! The 3:2 resonance must be relative to the perihelion or periapsis of Neptune! The elliptical orbits are precessing!
This is true of the 4:2:1 resonance of the Jovian Moons too. It's relative to the periapsis of Io. Wiki always gets this wrong on their animation.
Quite whether we can get away with Newtonian Mechanics, or need Special Relativity for the precession needs further thought.
You can imagine how much sleep I lost last night worrying about this.
Further sleepless ponderings involve the relation between the rotation of Neptune and the orbit of Pluto in days.
I spot a possible resonance between the 89.666 Neptunian days Neptune takes to go round the sun (Neptune rotates in 0.6713 Earth days), and the 90,560 Earth days Pluto takes around the Sun:
Once we have corrected for all the factors, I wonder if they are related? 😕
Wiki says this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_and_semi-minor_axes#Orbital_period
Do I NOT like that! A child of ten, if called Euler or Gauss or Lagrange, can see it doesn't work...
More accurate delvings:
Nope, better but not working either!
I checked these siderial periods at Wiki's planet entries.
Pluto: 247.94y or 90,560d
Neptune: 164.79 or 60,195d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune
They are right.
I think this assumes a siderial (against the fixed stars) year is 365.25 days, near enough.
Checked how elliptical orbits of same period work with Kepler Laws, and it's constant semi-major axis:
Aha! The penny drops! The 3:2 resonance must be relative to the perihelion or periapsis of Neptune! The elliptical orbits are precessing!
This is true of the 4:2:1 resonance of the Jovian Moons too. It's relative to the periapsis of Io. Wiki always gets this wrong on their animation.
Quite whether we can get away with Newtonian Mechanics, or need Special Relativity for the precession needs further thought.
You can imagine how much sleep I lost last night worrying about this.
Further sleepless ponderings involve the relation between the rotation of Neptune and the orbit of Pluto in days.
I spot a possible resonance between the 89.666 Neptunian days Neptune takes to go round the sun (Neptune rotates in 0.6713 Earth days), and the 90,560 Earth days Pluto takes around the Sun:
Once we have corrected for all the factors, I wonder if they are related? 😕
I want one! 🤣
Interesting question from my astronomy book about a 100 interesting stars: "Why don't you see any green stars?"
It's apparently because our own Sun is a green star in spectral peak, so your eyes are adapted to see its light as white! 😵
Interesting puzzle: Which one is Uranus and which one is Neptune? Not many people know this...
Interesting question from my astronomy book about a 100 interesting stars: "Why don't you see any green stars?"
It's apparently because our own Sun is a green star in spectral peak, so your eyes are adapted to see its light as white! 😵
Interesting puzzle: Which one is Uranus and which one is Neptune? Not many people know this...
Nonsense. Let’s classify planets the way we classify stars. It’s just lazy to call these things moons or dwarf planets.
Get a grip Steve. Apply yourself!
Really, @Bonsai, the matter is settled! It's over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_I_Killed_Pluto_and_Why_It_Had_It_Coming
You are like a dog that won't let go of a bone. 🙄
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_I_Killed_Pluto_and_Why_It_Had_It_Coming
You are like a dog that won't let go of a bone. 🙄