The world goes Green

[Zoe Phin 0]

2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The optically thick accretion disk radius is 3.0±0.2 R_J, significantly larger than the planet itself.

The planet is listed as 1.75 Rj, so say half accreation size. And the host star ...

[billvon 3,080]

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.

[olofscience 489]

2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

The planet is listed as 1.75 Rj, so say half accreation size. And the host star ...

You do know that they didn't use the size of the blob in the photo to calculate the radius right? That would be subject to a lot of diffraction error.

[olofscience 489]

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.

[Zoe Phin 0]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

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

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?

...

[billvon 3,080]

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.

[olofscience 489]

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.

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof, you always focus and explain irrelevant points. I don't care if the radius is x or 2x. That's peanuts.

What is the ratio of proto-planet radius to its host star radius?

Edited March 2, 2021 by Zoe Phin

[olofscience 489]

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

[JoeWeber 2,840]

On 2/27/2021 at 2:12 PM, wmw999 said:

You don't. Remember that saying about wrestling with pigs.

Wendy P.

Is there a limit to how many posters I can block?

[billvon 3,080]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

Is there a limit to how many posters I can block?

I already increased your limits, knowing you!

(just kidding, there's no limit)

[kallend 2,112]

2 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

I'm asking a sincere question. In that photo where is the star and where is the planet?

Nothing you do is sincere.  You are just trolling.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

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.

[Zoe Phin 0]

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

Edited March 2, 2021 by Zoe Phin

[mistercwood 287]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

This is getting real old, real quick. 

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

[olofscience 489]

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.

[Zoe Phin 0]

Says the guy who ran away from lasers as fast as he could.

Interpretation of protoplanets? Yeah, I see you're lacking in common sense.

[billvon 3,080]

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!  

[olofscience 489]

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.

[olofscience 489]

4 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Says the guy who ran away from lasers as fast as he could.

Interpretation of protoplanets? Yeah, I see you're lacking in common sense.

I did no such thing.

You're the one who keeps jumping topics!

[Zoe Phin 0]

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.

[gowlerk 2,253]

7 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

That's hot warming cold, moron.

Are you familiar with the forum rules? Or perhaps you have had enough humiliation and want to be suspended?

[Zoe Phin 0]

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!

[billvon 3,080]

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.

 

[Zoe Phin 0]

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.