Astronomy/Physics trivia

[spin0]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I recall it correctly, there was something special regarding Mercury, rotation and sunrises. So, tis Mercury? <br /> Posted by Philotas</DIV><br />Yes, correct!<br /> </p><p>In Mercury Sun stops and moves a little bit *backwards* in the sky during Mercury's solar day. This effect is a combination of Mercury's rotation (59 Earth days), it's orbit around Sun (88 Earth days) and Mercury's speed on it's orbit. When Mercury is closest to Sun, it's orbital speed exceeds it's rotational speed and Sun seems to move backwards.&nbsp;</p><p>Depending on the spot where you are on the planet this can happen any single time during the day. In the&nbsp; morning you can get a double sunrise, in the evening double sunset and anything in between during the day. </p><p>Here's an animation showing how it looks like in the noon: http://btc.montana.edu/MESSENGER/Interactives/ANIMATIONS/Day_On_Mercury/day_on_mercury_full.htm</p><p>The effect is small but it's there </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[3488]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">If I recall it correctly, there was something special regarding Mercury, rotation and sunrises. So, tis Mercury? <br />Posted by Philotas</font></DIV></p><p><strong><font size="2">Philotas is correct it IS Mercury. Not just two sunrises, but also two sunsets & two noons (& by defaut two midnights). It is dependent on your location on Mercury during perihelion.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Andrew Brown.</font></strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[Philotas]

<p>Not bad, not bad. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I recall it is your turn to ask a question now, Andrew. ;-)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Great question Spin0.&nbsp; I would have never though to include the upper stages.&nbsp; <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>Since Andrew hasn't posted a question (we forgive ya), I'll get the ball rolling again with an easy one...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What did Einstein win the Nobel Prize for, and "being really smart" is not the answer.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since Andrew hasn't posted a question (we forgive ya), I'll get the ball rolling again with an easy one...&nbsp;What did Einstein win the Nobel Prize for, and "being really smart" is not the answer.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br />&nbsp;An explanatin of the photoeledtric effect.&nbsp; He recdeived it in 1921 and that explanation was one of the things that initiated the development of quantum mechanics -- the implications of which Einstein never fully accepted.</p><p>Edit:&nbsp; And he should have received one for his description of Brownian motion which was a key step in verifyint the existence of atoms, and another one for special relativity which eliminated the notion of the aether and explained the Michelson Morley experiment, and another one for general relativity which provides our best understanding of gravity.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;An explanatin of the photoeledtric effect.&nbsp; He recdeived it in 1921 and that explanation was one of the things that initiated the development of quantum mechanics -- the implications of which Einstein never fully accepted.Edit:&nbsp; And he should have received one for his description of Brownian motion which was a key step in verifyint the existence of atoms, and another one for special relativity which eliminated the notion of the aether and explained the Michelson Morley experiment, and another one for general relativity which provides our best understanding of gravity. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Here is another easy one while we wait for Andrew.&nbsp; It is a two-part question.</p><p>Who developed the mathematical foundations on which Eintein built general relativity ?</p><p>Who was that person's mentor ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is another easy one while we wait for Andrew.&nbsp; It is a two-part question.Who developed the mathematical foundations on which Eintein built general relativity ?Who was that person's mentor ? <br />Posted by <strong>DrRocket</strong></DIV><br /><br />For the first part two names come to mind, Maxwell and Lorentz.&nbsp; I'm going with Lorentz.&nbsp; I'm not sure who his mentor was. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[spin0]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is another easy one while we wait for Andrew.&nbsp; It is a two-part question.Who developed the mathematical foundations on which Eintein built general relativity ?Who was that person's mentor ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>For special relativity the answer would be Lorenz. But for general relativity I think it's Riemann. And his mentor... hmmm...&nbsp; must be someone famous... a wild guess: Gauss.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[observer7]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is another easy one while we wait for Andrew.&nbsp; It is a two-part question.Who developed the mathematical foundations on which Eintein built general relativity ?Who was that person's mentor ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Riemann, but I have no idea who the mentor is.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>

 

[observer7]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For special relativity the answer would be Lorenz. But for general relativity I think it's Riemann. And his mentor... hmmm...&nbsp; must be someone famous... a wild guess: Gauss.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by spin0</DIV></p><p>I do believe you have guessed correctly. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First to propose existence of atoms was greek philosopher Demokritos (sp?).&nbsp;My turn? &nbsp; <br />Posted by spin0</DIV></p><p>I should have read this thread earlier....</p><p><br />Actually, the concept of an atom first arose in India, a couple hundred years earlier and is discussed in their Hindu&nbsp;philosohpical&nbsp;texts (concept of an atom as the smallest indivisible part).</p><p>Demokritos, was the first European to promote this concept, a couple hundred years after the Indians.&nbsp; I am not sure if the concept was independent, or if he was aware of the Indian philosophical writings.</p><p>The first <em>data</em> to support the concept of an atom was from Lucretius (Roman philosopher/scientist/poet).&nbsp; Lucretius observed Brownian motion in dust motes,&nbsp;and then formulated the concept that invisible particles (which he called 'atoms') were responsible for this motion.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[spin0]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do believe you have guessed correctly. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by observer7</DIV></p><p>Yep. His mentor was Gauss, just checked it from wikipedia. My turn?</p><p>Easy one:</p><p><strong>On which planet there's just one man surrounded by ladies? Who is the lucky guy?</strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spin0]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I should have read this thread earlier....Actually, the concept of an atom first arose in India, a couple hundred years earlier and is discussed in their Hindu&nbsp;philosohpical&nbsp;texts (concept of an atom as the smallest indivisible part).Demokritos, was the first European to promote this concept, a couple hundred years after the Indians.&nbsp; I am not sure if the concept was independent, or if he was aware of the Indian philosophical writings.The first data to support the concept of an atom was from Lucretius (Roman philosopher/scientist/poet).&nbsp; Lucretius observed Brownian motion in dust motes,&nbsp;and then formulated the concept that invisible particles (which he called 'atoms') were responsible for this motion. <br /> Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>Interesting!&nbsp; </p><p>As I'm into history of science I would be very interested to read more about that. Any good links/articles on the subject?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For special relativity the answer would be Lorenz. Posted by <strong>spin0</strong></DIV><br /></p><p>Ooops, next time I've got to read the <em>actual</em> question put forth. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" />&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif" border="0" alt="Foot in mouth" title="Foot in mouth" />&nbsp;&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For special relativity the answer would be Lorenz. But for general relativity I think it's Riemann. And his mentor... hmmm...&nbsp; must be someone famous... a wild guess: Gauss.&nbsp; <br />Posted by spin0</DIV><br />&nbsp;<br />You are correct on both counts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Easy one:On which planet there's just one man surrounded by ladies? Who is the lucky guy?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by spin0</DIV></p><p>My mythology is pretty rusty, but I'll guess Jupiter.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spin0]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My mythology is pretty rusty, but I'll guess Jupiter. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Nope. Hint: <strong>On</strong> the planet. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[eburacum45]

<p>How about- Maxwell Montes on Venus? Just about everything else on that planet is named after goddesses.</p><p>&nbsp;I have no idea why James Clark Maxwell is so honoured- but he does deserve it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>http://orionsarm.com  http://thestarlark.blogspot.com/</p> </div>

 

[spin0]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How about- Maxwell Montes on Venus? Just about everything else on that planet is named after goddesses.&nbsp;I have no idea why James Clark Maxwell is so honoured- but he does deserve it. <br /> Posted by eburacum45</DIV></p><p>Yes, correct!</p><p>James Clerck Maxwell in Venus is the lucky and honored fellow.&nbsp;</p><p>Maxwell Montes is the only geological feature named after a man in Venus, everything else is named after mythical and famous ladies. IIRC Maxwell Montes was named before IAU decided to use ladies-only nomenclature .&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[eburacum45]

<p>Okay; this should be easy, since we've discussed it on Space, com before.</p><p>What is the coldest object yet observed in the Universe (outside of a laboratory, anyway)?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>http://orionsarm.com  http://thestarlark.blogspot.com/</p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Okay; this should be easy, since we've discussed it on Space, com before.What is the coldest object yet observed in the Universe (outside of a laboratory, anyway)? <br />Posted by eburacum45</DIV><br /><br />The bulk temperatue of the universe it self -- aka the cosmic background temperature.&nbsp; Roughly 3K <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[eburacum45]

A little colder than that, apparently. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>http://orionsarm.com  http://thestarlark.blogspot.com/</p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Okay; this should be easy, since we've discussed it on Space, com before.What is the coldest object yet observed in the Universe (outside of a laboratory, anyway)? <br /> Posted by eburacum45</DIV></p><p>I don't recollect the discussion, but I would have to go with either a free neutron with low kenetic energy before it decays or on a larger scale, some type of diffuse nebula. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[eburacum45]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...or on a larger scale, some type of diffuse nebula. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>That's nearly right: It will <em>come back to you...</em></p><p><em>(that's a clue, btw)</em><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>http://orionsarm.com  http://thestarlark.blogspot.com/</p> </div>