|
Posted by Ken S. Tucker on May 30, 2008, 5:05 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On May 30, 2:13 pm, david.willi...@bayman.org (David Williams) wrote:
> On 05/30/2008 12:42 PM, dynam...@vianet.on.ca wrote to All:
>
> -> Hi Ralph, Dave and all.
> ->
> -> > I'm curious on the Venus statements.
> -> > Since Venus is smaller than Earth, and also reported less dense, how
> do you
> -> > get more bombardment, and more energy?
> ->
> -> I guess you're asking me, (good question :-).
> -> The sun is a great gravitational attractor. Debris that infalls
> -> into the sun, that goes through an imaginary surface shell at
> -> r=2 , (surface Area=4*pi*(r=2)^2 = 16*pi) is the same debris
> -> that goes through at r=1, (Surface Area = 4*pi), so the debris
> -> infall "flux" is proportional to some constant / r^2.
> ->
> -> Venus is ~0.7AU to the Sun than Earth (1 AU), so the debris
> -> flux at Venus distance is 2x Earths.
>
> You are considering only stuff that is falling radially into the sun.
That's the standard assumption.
> But
> in reality, a lot of stuff (meteors, small asteroids, etc.) is in orbit
> around the sun,
Correct that's SSSET...duh.
>and each object's orbit has a perihelion. So it is
> possible, for example, for an object whose perihelion is between 0.7 and
> 1.0 AU from the sun to collide with Earth but impossible for it to collide
> with Venus. This completely invalidates your calculation.
> dow
You have -1 one star...(*), your rep is dying.
LOL, Dave, we in the "science BUSINESS" would
prefer to see real calculations as I am able to do.
It's called PUT-UP or SHUT THE UP, your bluff is
called!!!
Regards
Ken
PS: Dave, don't bring a knife to a gun-fight :-).
| 
XML Sitemap