Re: Any stargazers out there...?
I stand corrected... although you'd said "angular orbital velocity" as opposed to "orbital angular velocity"
Anyway--my explanation still applies.
That's because comets and meteors create their own little changes as they orbit the sun. Explosions from expanding ice. Collisions with other objects. And yeah--even the not-so-powerful solar winds. These things cause particles to slow down or even stop. So there is a trail of small particles in the exact shape of the comet's orbital path. I think if you could take a closer look at these objects, you'd find that they are all moving as well--not stationary. They're just moving at different speeds.
2 - No, but energy does. Light waves, gamma rays, xrays, etc.,. And once it reaches the earth, it is transformed into heat and other things.
3 - The sun is one big explosion. But it's so massive that it takes time. Besides--what is going on in the sun is not "ignition". If you light hydrogen here on earth, you are oxidizing it. The sun isn't oxidizing. It's not burning anything. You're looking at nuclear fusion... not burning.
4 - I don't know what G.r.a.v.i.t.y is, but if something with mass is orbiting the sun, it is attracted to the sun's gravitational pull. That's what an orbit is.
Again--your questions either have simple explanations, or they aren't valid questions. Like the 'ignition' of hydrogen.
It's not that there's anything wrong with asking, but challenging the accepted science of something, the way you do it, makes it sound as if there's some sort of conspiracy or something. Maybe it's not the way you say it--maybe it's just the way I read it. But see--other people are reading it that way as well. I'm only pointing this out because it makes you come off sounding silly, when really, you're just seeing something that doesn't make sense to you and raising the question.
In science, one thing I've figured out, is that if something doesn't make sense to me, then it is I who is missing (or not understanding) some crucial part of the equation. But in this day and age, it doesn't take a whole lot to get answers. You just have to do some research. Just don't start with the notion that what you don't understand must be a lie... cause it's usually not.
I stand corrected... although you'd said "angular orbital velocity" as opposed to "orbital angular velocity"
Anyway--my explanation still applies.
Analytical Tech:Cyclic yearly meteorite shower means stationary rocks in solar system.
That's because comets and meteors create their own little changes as they orbit the sun. Explosions from expanding ice. Collisions with other objects. And yeah--even the not-so-powerful solar winds. These things cause particles to slow down or even stop. So there is a trail of small particles in the exact shape of the comet's orbital path. I think if you could take a closer look at these objects, you'd find that they are all moving as well--not stationary. They're just moving at different speeds.
2.) Heat does not travel through the vacuum of space.
3.) Igniting a ball of hydrogen gas creates "one" big explosion.
4.) All objects in solar orbit are NOT attracted to the Suns "G.r.a.v.i.t.y".
3.) Igniting a ball of hydrogen gas creates "one" big explosion.
4.) All objects in solar orbit are NOT attracted to the Suns "G.r.a.v.i.t.y".
2 - No, but energy does. Light waves, gamma rays, xrays, etc.,. And once it reaches the earth, it is transformed into heat and other things.
3 - The sun is one big explosion. But it's so massive that it takes time. Besides--what is going on in the sun is not "ignition". If you light hydrogen here on earth, you are oxidizing it. The sun isn't oxidizing. It's not burning anything. You're looking at nuclear fusion... not burning.
4 - I don't know what G.r.a.v.i.t.y is, but if something with mass is orbiting the sun, it is attracted to the sun's gravitational pull. That's what an orbit is.
Again--your questions either have simple explanations, or they aren't valid questions. Like the 'ignition' of hydrogen.
It's not that there's anything wrong with asking, but challenging the accepted science of something, the way you do it, makes it sound as if there's some sort of conspiracy or something. Maybe it's not the way you say it--maybe it's just the way I read it. But see--other people are reading it that way as well. I'm only pointing this out because it makes you come off sounding silly, when really, you're just seeing something that doesn't make sense to you and raising the question.
In science, one thing I've figured out, is that if something doesn't make sense to me, then it is I who is missing (or not understanding) some crucial part of the equation. But in this day and age, it doesn't take a whole lot to get answers. You just have to do some research. Just don't start with the notion that what you don't understand must be a lie... cause it's usually not.
Comment