This is the heart of the confussion. If you can concentrate a beam of light, it should be brighter than otherwise. This, one would think, would allow us to increase the surface brightness of an extended object. But does it? It does improve point source brightness, but the facts say we can...
Ok, but a dam is the heart of the energy source. The discharge is the energy, so the stream is analogous to the light leaving the solar surface. Admittedly, a device which could duplicate the return of energy as in the water wheel example, seems doubtful, to say the least. But, it serves as...
That is imaginative and imagination is sure helpful.
The problem is it should never hove gotten that big in the first place. If you add lots of gas to Jupiter, it will increase the mass and, therefore, increase the gravity. This will cause the atmosphere to shrink, somewhat. This...
Does this mean there is a constant process of neutron to proton to neutron occurring in a neutron star? If so, would that help explain the magnetic field, too?
The flux from the surface that receives more flux from the mirrors will have to heat-up, right?
I want to say the water wheel was the earliest system that helped get thermo off the ground. Hopefully, this will be analogous. Let's consider one that is 50% efficent and all the power is used...
I only marginally grasp the equation, but I think it may show that the suface brightness can not change regardless of whether you move closer or further. If so, it can be shown in a lucid explanation. If you double the distance between you and the object, the amount of from the object will be...
That would be most appreciated.
Try to look past the grammar and address the issue. At least 40% is correct.
The pre-telescope idea is an illustratitive tool to emphasize improvement to flux density. Improving the flux density onto the retina, or sensor, without change in magnification...
I'd like to know, too. There seems to be different models to explain it.
Some of the redshifting is caused by the Doppler effect, which, as you mentioned, is similar to sound shifting. This component is due to the motion of the stars as the move about their galaxy and, even more so, the...
:cool: I have also heard the neutrons will change to protons and back again, but I have not seen this clairified.
The brightest flash ever observed, ignoring the sun, is from a magnetar, neutron star sgr1806, back in December of 2005. This was not in the visible range, however.
Yes, revolving planets require angular acceleration. I assume this is a GR issue not a simple SR case.
The ancient Greeks demonstrated the sun is larger than the earth. A larger body revolving around a smaller body should be an issue for GR, but I suspect the math still allows any point...
It's not a giant dwarf is it? :smile:
Brown, apparently, did not push for a name per Phil Plait's blog after his phone visit...
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/09/14/on-the-naming-of-eris-and-such/
Hmmmm...probably a pretty peculiar planet. :smile:
Its semimajor axis is 0.055 AU. This proximity to the G0 star will produce ~450,000 watts/m^2 (comparing it to a 1,367 solar constant value).
I think the models limiting planet size to only slightly larger than Jupiter were not intended...
Great if you can, or direct me somewhere.
Hmmmm...the photoelectric effect has popped into my head a time or two about this topic. We can't increase the energy but there is no reason why we can't concentrate the volume. I see no qm issue with this idea, but, admittedly, I know very little of...