Sunday, June 17, 2012

Shed Your Fears


By R

193 comments:

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Hmmm...is there deep meaning to this or have you been drinking and are just feeling happy?

Btw, who on earth is Omar Vio?

Petes said...

I love the style of the picture.

Among the leaden objects falling earthward are symbols of Christianity (cross), Islam (star and crescent), Judaism (six pointed star and menorah), Daoism (yin and yang), possibly Hinduism (Kali-like figure?), possibly Communism (hammer and sickle?).

"Dump religion and its superstitions and fears, and all will be sweetness and light". Hmmm.

Zeyad said...

Lynnette, I thought the message behind the artwork is very clear and obvious. It's not mine; it's by an Iraqi artist lady friend.

Omar who?

Petes said...

Egyptian military has given itself new powers over civil affairs and the constitution. Doesn't look like power will be getting handed to the people at the end of the month, no matter who wins the election. Frickin' brilliant! :-(

Petes said...

Just looked at the blow-up of the picture. Realised it's in paper or textile. I missed one of the figures -- the top one's a Buddha. I'm not sure I'm right about the hammer and sickle. (And not just because Lee C might whinge about the portrayal of Communism as a religion). I can understand why an Iraqi artist might decry the influence of religion.

Petes said...

Physics question of the day.

Here's a little puzzle that I found quite amusing. (Open to everyone to try except Lee, whose likely to get hisself upset).

The Sun sheds lumps of itself in various mass ejection events. The proportion of mass lost is very small, but it has a small effect on the orbits of the planets which move outward slightly. After all, the sun has lost mass so its gravitational attraction is lower.

Suppose the sun started losing large chunks of itself. What would happen to the orbits of the planets? Could some of them get lost altogether? Which would get lost first? How much of the sun's mass would have to be lost for that to happen?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "…likely to get hisself upset."

Or not.

Marcus said...

I think it's when God made the earth. On the 7'th day she made man. But it was boring as hell to look at so on the 8'th day she created religion and gave it to man. In fact she created a whole bunch of them and just dumped them on earth from the heavens. And ever since it's been quite the spectacle.

(The red lady, that's God, in case you didn't get that. He's a SHE!)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

PeteS,

Thank you. I was reacting to the title more so than the picture and didn't pay close enough attention. As I look closer I see what you have mentioned. Art was never my "strong suit". :) Not, of course, that I really have a strong suit.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Zeyad,

As you can see it sometimes takes a more thoughtful eye than I have to appreciate art. I tend to hurry too much, I think. The artwork itself is quite lovely.

As to Omar, I was somewhat lacking in that I didn't provide the link behind the name. I still have Abbas on my Favorites list and noticed the name change when I clicked on that site. Strange.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Egyptian military has given itself new powers over civil affairs and the constitution.

New powers? Or just old powers revisited?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

(The red lady, that's God, in case you didn't get that. He's a SHE!)

Now, I rather like that interpretation. ;)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Suppose the sun started losing large chunks of itself. What would happen to the orbits of the planets? Could some of them get lost altogether? Which would get lost first? How much of the sun's mass would have to be lost for that to happen?

Interesting. Physics isn't my strong suit either, but I like puzzles.

If the sun's gravitational pull is lessened as pieces of it are lost, as you stated, then logically you would think that the larger planet's orbits would expand faster. Depending on how large those planets are in relation to the sun the smaller planets may start to orbit them as the sun breaks up. That would happen if they eventually become as large as, or larger than the sun, and are still relatively close to the smaller planets at the time. To still be close together the breakup would have to be quick, I should think.

So, do I get a passing grade, or did I miss the mark totally? :)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Physics isn't my strong suit either, but I like
      puzzles.
"

Try physical analogies then.  Think of an ice skater spinning in the center ice spotlight.  Hands as planets circling the center.  Hands extend out, what happens?  Bring hands and arms in tight, what happens?

Petes said...

Nice try Lynnette. But one of the surprising things about orbital motion is that, in general, the size of the planet doesn't make any difference to the behaviour.

This is because of the definition of an orbit. Think of it like swinging an object on the end of a piece of string around your head. The object wants to go flying off into space in a straight line (Newton's first law of motion describing inertia, the tendency for things to keep moving in straight lines). But the string prevents it from doing that, and keeps it moving in a circle. The tension in the string can be thought of like the force of gravity.

The orbit of a planet can be thought of as a balance between the force of gravity pulling it inward, and the inertia which creates a centrifugal force trying to throw it outwards. But here's the cool thing: the size of the gravitational force is in proportion to the mass of the planet. Bigger planets (and stars) attract more strongly). But the size of the centrifugal/inertial force throwing the planet outwards is also in proportion to its mass. So the mass effect cancels out, leaving you with similar orbital mechanics for any planet of any mass.

If you plonked Jupiter where the earth is, even though it's 1,900 times heavier, it's orbital speed would be just exactly the same as the earths. In a similar way, if you reduce the sun's mass, the effect on the planet's behaviours will not be determined by which planet is biggest or smallest.

So the answer is something else :)

Petes said...

Speaking of puzzles, I think I just figured out another element of that picture. The thing I had taken for a hammer and sickle, just above the yin and yang, is the Dhu l-fiqar. It's an important Shiite symbol:

"A prominent symbol is Dhu l-fiqar, the bifurcated sword of Ali, which is worn, for example, on necklaces. It also appears in poetry to symbolize Ali's bravery, in calligraphy in connection with the name Ali or the Arabic letters lam and mim (particularly significant in letter mysticism), or to mark a level in Sufi hierarchies. Several stories circulate that account for its origin. According to one version, the sword was given to Ali by Muhammad and an audible voice said that "there is no brave young except for Ali and there is no sword except for Dhu l-fiqar," a play on the Islamic profession of faith. Another version has it that the sword was brought down from heaven by Gabriel—a parallel to the Quran, which the archangel brought down to Muhammad."

The more I look at that picture, the more beautiful it is (even if I don't agree with the sentiment). Still have to figure out the nine pointed star (assuming it's not just for decoration) and confirm the Kali figure.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Nine pointed star is Bahá'i.

Petes said...

Interesting. Just spotted this:

"The Iranian Revolution of 1979 offers an unusual case of elaborate Shiite symbolism as part of official political culture. In the opposition against Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1919-1980) Shiite symbolism became intertwined with socialist iconography. Thus, Ali Shariati (1933-1977), a sociologist of religion and intellectual revolutionary, compared Husayn and the Argentinean Marxist Che Guevara in his socialist interpretation of Islam. The messianic features of Marxism may have made these ideologies of the left particularly appealing in a Shiite context."

So maybe the passing resemblance between Dhu l-fiqar and the hammer and sickle wasn't accidental? Of course, I could be completely misidentifying them both.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Hands extend out, what happens? Bring hands and arms in tight, what happens?

When extended out the hands act as a drag on the rotation speed of the skater, when they are pulled in the rate of rotation speed increases.

Marcus said...

Pete, I'm gonna take a wild guess:

What would happen to the orbits of the planets?

They'd increase their distace from the sun proportionally compared to their present distances. The distance between planets would increase.

Could some of them get lost altogether? Which would get lost first?

Maybe they'd get so far away fro the sun that they'd get sucked in by gravity to some other star?

How much of the sun's mass would have to be lost for that to happen?

A lot.

Nah, I give up. Over my head this. Just tell us because now I'm curious.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

But here's the cool thing: the size of the gravitational force is in proportion to the mass of the planet. Bigger planets (and stars) attract more strongly).

You're right, that is cool.

After I wrote my answer I got to thinking that maybe the weightlessness of space would cancel out any size factor, but I see that would have been wrong as well. I will re-think. :)

Petes said...

Nine pointed star is Bahá'i.

Egads! Lee C got sumfink right. And I think that explains my "Kali" too, to the right of the nine-pointed star. What I thought was a stylised six arms of Kali is actually a ringstone symbol. It's another Baha'i one. The three horizontal(-ish) strokes represent the worlds of humanity and creation, the world of God, and the connecting world of revelation or "manifestations of God" (the prophets). The vertical stroke is the connection of humanity to God through the manifestations.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "What I thought was a stylised six arms of Kali is
      actually a
ringstone symbol. It's another Baha'i one."

No.

Petes said...

[Lynnette]: "After I wrote my answer I got to thinking that maybe the weightlessness of space would cancel out any size factor"

That's another interesting common misconception. There is no "weightlessness of space". There's a "weightlessness of being in orbit" which is because of the aforementioned balance of gravitational and centrifugal forces so that there is no net force. But if you just poised an object above the earth, say where the space station is now but without its transverse motion, it'd plummet like a stone, just as sure as a stone dropped from the roof of your house. Likewise, if the planets didn't have their transverse motions in their orbits, they'd just plummet straight into the sun. One way of thinking of an orbit is that the object does plummet like a stone toward the parent body, but because its transverse motion keeps carrying it "sideways", it keeps missing the parent.

Petes said...

[Lee C]: "No."

LOL. Didn't think he could last long without gittin' all ornery.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
You want some ornery?  
Your imagined ‘Dhu l-fiqar’ is a Hindi glyph, not Shia Muslim.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

The orbit of a planet can be thought of as a balance between the force of gravity pulling it inward, and the inertia which creates a centrifugal force trying to throw it outwards.

Thinking aloud here..

Then if the gravitational pull is lessened the centrifugal force is increased, pulling the planet outward. Since mass is not a factor, the planets would seemingly be pulled out equally, in different directions. The loss of larger portions of the sun would cause this to happen at a faster rate.

But, thinking back to Lee's hint, if the planets started pulling further and further from the sun wouldn't centrifugal force also be lessened?

Could the planets get lost altogether? Well, I think they would still be out there... somewhere.

Aaargh...okay, I give up!

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

PeteS,

The more I look at that picture, the more beautiful it is (even if I don't agree with the sentiment).

Perhaps your interpretation of the sentiment isn't exactly what she meant. The shedding of religious symbols may not be about shedding the religion itself, but about shedding the fear between people that religious affiliation may cause. Or in other words it doesn't matter if you are a Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. as long as you give others space to be who they are instead of fearing what you think they are. "Shed Your Fears". :)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Likewise, if the planets didn't have their transverse motions in their orbits, they'd just plummet straight into the sun.

Oh sure, throw another factor into the equation! Don't tell me, if the sun lost massive amounts of itself the planets would then collapse into it!

Okay, I gotta get back to work.

*sigh*

Petes said...

"You want some ornery?
Your imagined ‘Dhu l-fiqar’ is a Hindi glyph, not Shia Muslim."


Well, knock me down with a feather. Spank me 'til I glow red.

LOL.

Petes said...

"...it doesn't matter if you are a Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. as long as you give others space to be who they are instead of fearing what you think they are."

Well that's a much nicer interpretation, Lynnette. Probably just me being glass-half-empty again! :)

Petes said...

"Oh sure, throw another factor into the equation! Don't tell me, if the sun lost massive amounts of itself the planets would then collapse into it!"

No, not at all. The transverse motion of the planets is just a way of describing their "instantaneous velocity". Obviously they are travelling in curves, but at any instant, we can imagine what would happen to the planet if the sun's gravity disappeared. The planet would start travelling in a straight line from then on. So the instantaneous (transverse) velocity is always at a tangent to the curve. Because it is moving with this velocity, the planet has kinetic energy (energy of motion). If the sun's gravity reduces, this kinetic energy is conserved. One way of describing the effect is to say that the planet travels in a straighter line (because the sun's gravity isn't curving it so much). A straighter line is a bigger circle, so the planet moves outward, like Marcus said.

But, going back to the original question ... what ultimately happens as the sun loses more mass? Which planets get lost first and after how much solar mass is shed?

Petes said...

"Could the planets get lost altogether? Well, I think they would still be out there... somewhere."

Ahh. Good point. We better define what we mean by "lost". Suppose you throw a ball up in the air. It goes up, slows as it rises, stops at the top, and comes back down, speeding up as it falls. It arrives back at your hand at the same speed at which you threw it.

If you throw harder, the ball rises further and takes longer to come back down. Could you throw it hard enough so that it never came back down? The answer is yes -- if you throw it with the so-called "escape velocity". The escape velocity is to do with the strength of the earth's gravity and is about 25,000 miles per hour at the surface of the earth. That's the approximate speed they had to send the Apollo rockets to get them to the moon. The escape velocity is defined as the minimum speed at which a thrown object never comes back down -- it gets slower and slower but its speed doesn't hit zero until (in principle) an infinite distance away.

Now, back to our planets. The sun has an escape velocity too. Obviously it's higher than the planet's orbital transverse velocity because otherwise they wouldn't be in orbit -- they'd be escaping! :)

But if the sun's mass reduces, so does its escape velocity. Perhaps eventually the planet's transverse orbital velocity is enough to make it escape. Interesting, huh?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
So, ‘lost’ means what, exactly?

(You can thank me later, Lynnette, when the ‘why?’ becomes clear.)

Petes said...

Seems Lee's "lost". I did warn him he'd only upset hisself. :)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

But if the sun's mass reduces, so does its escape velocity. Perhaps eventually the planet's transverse orbital velocity is enough to make it escape. Interesting, huh?

Hmmm...well, interesting, yes, but why do I feel like I've just had my brain turned to mush?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

PeteS,

I just checked, and on this computer I am using IE9. It seems faster than my computer at home when opening Zeyad's web page.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "I did warn him he'd only upset hisself."

And yet, in spite of all the hope you put into that warning, it appears that I've managed to upset you instead.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Tell ya what, Petes…  We can change the subject if you want and you can go back to making random guesses about that one last glyph, the one you've gotten wrong twice now.  How's that?  That'll make ya happier maybe?

Petes said...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
I guess that'd be one of the two ya got wrong twice, seeing as you couldn't figure out the Hindi glyph either.
(Ain't ya glad ya went trollin’ now?)

I do believe my work is done here for now.  Lynnette, or Marcus, ya'll want some help with that planetary orbit thing, you let me know.  Meantime, remember to get a real definition for a ‘lost’ planet.  It's not really a puzzle.  Marcus, I think you almost had it before Petes got back in and tried to lead ya off into the weeds.

Petes said...

[Marcus]: "Just tell us because now I'm curious."

Ok folks, time's up. Without boring you with the mathematical details, it's possible to derive a completely general result which is not specific to any planet, or indeed any star.

Bottom line is that any star that sheds half its mass will lose all its planets at the same time.

Petes said...

LOL. Pity I posted that before noticin' that Lee had promised to help y'all out. Anyway, I'm sure he'll be happy to demonstrate the mathematics of it to y'all, seein' as how he was so successful with that 6 year old kiddie maths a few threads back. ;-)

Petes said...

(Although, if one was cynical, his insistence that Marcus "almost had it" might lead one to suspect that the actual answer is a bit of a surprise to ole' Lee).

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "…his insistence that Marcus "almost had it" might
      lead one to suspect that the actual answer is a bit of a
      surprise to ole' Lee.
"

What I'd suspect instead is that you really, really wish you'd not highlighted the language about the star losing ‘all its planets at the same time".  (Empasis in original.)  I do believe Marcus was almost there.

(‘Bout to give up on that last glyph are ya?)

Petes said...

"What I'd suspect instead is that you really, really wish you'd not highlighted the language about the star losing ‘all its planets at the same time".

Oh no! The Jesuitical parsing has commenced. Somethin' tells me Lee is not about to grace us with a mathematical demonstration. Instead he'd like us all to take an interest in "what he suspects". ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz...

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Why in gawd's name would anybody need to do a ‘mathematical demostration’.  The orbital speed roughly equals the escape velocity.  It kinda follows from there, if ya think it through.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "It kinda follows from there…"

The ‘half the mass’ part, not the ‘all…at the same time’ part.  That's a different insight Marcus was having.

Petes said...

"The orbital speed roughly equals the escape velocity. It kinda follows from there, if ya think it through."

Yep, that's certainly a Lee style of "demostration" [sic]. Says nuthin'. Demostrates nuthin'.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
No, wait, the force decreases by the square of the distance, like with light, so ½ reduction would zero out with the other side at the √2.  So it'd be 1.414 or so.  Anyway, it comes out the same, ‘cause you're still doubling the effect when dropping the mass of the central body--lowering the attraction and lowering the speed necessary to break the attraction.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
And, Petes initially missed my mistake too (√2 not a straight equivalency).  Reckon that means he lost the right to rag ‘bout it.

Petes said...

LOL. Anyone else have any clue wtf Lee is talking about?

Petes said...

{Lee]: "Why in gawd's name would anybody need to do a ‘mathematical demostration’" [sic]

... followed by several posts in which Lee flails around with square roots of 2 et al. Somethin' to do with makin' somethin' "zero out with the other side" ... presumably of some equation Lee ain't tellin' us about in his non-mathematical "demostration". What a chump :-)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
So, you can't actually do the math yourself then?


(Probably means you shoulda stuck with takin’ random guesses at that last glyph.  Doncha reckon?)

Petes said...

What math?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Without boring you with the mathematical details…"
      Petes @ 7:24 PM

You could start with that math I reckon.

Petes said...

I don't remember promisin' you any maths at all. I doremember warnin' you you'd get yerself all upset.

But I was quite enjoyin' yer "non-mathematical demostration" with those square roots of two on one side of a non-existent equation. I'm afraid my maths aren't nearly so entertainin'. Their just boringly correct. Whereas yourn ... they seem quite magical and that's before I even know what it is y'all are tryin' to do. (Not convinced y'all do either).

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
So, ya got no glyphs and no math and now I've got ya reduced to harpin’ on typos.  (Ya typed out ‘demostration’ five times already.)  I don't think it gets much clearer than that you're down to gloating over finding typos.

I believe that counts as round two.  So, you'd already be down two outta three even if I gave you a shot at a third round.

Petes said...

LOL. Lee can't do the maths to solve a problem he didn't understand in the first place, and which I advised him not to try, but which he then claimed could be demostrated without any maths. Apparently that means he's one round two of something. LOL.

Tell ya what Lee, if y'all can even describe qualitatively what it was y'all were tryin' to solve, I'll take that as a sign of understandin', even though y'all can't do the maths. A non-mathematical description will do fine. How about it?

Petes said...

one=won

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "…he then claimed could be demostrated …"

You seem to have suffered an attack of imagination.

(And that makes six.)

Petes said...

[Lee C, 8:33 PM]: "Why in gawd's name would anybody need to do a ‘mathematical demostration’. The orbital speed roughly equals the escape velocity. It kinda follows from there, if ya think it through."

LOL. I told Lee that bit at 3:03 PM. Unfortunately when Lee tried to think it through, it kinda didn't quite follow from there. 'Cos even though he got almost all the maths required by furiously Googlin' "escape velocity" and "orbital speed", he still couldn't work it out. That's 'cos he's missin' a rather crucial concept. And Google ain't his friend when he dudn't know what to Google for.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

   
      "…furiously Googlin' ‘escape velocity’ and ‘orbital
      speed’…
"

So, now you're imagining that I didn't recognize the terms ‘escape velocity’ and ‘orbital speed’, and I had to google those up ‘furiously’?

Petes said...

Oh, I've no doubt y'all recognised them alright. Pretty certain y'all had no clue what to do with them. And ya still don't.

Here, see if this helps y'all.

Feel free to provide that non-mathematical description any time y'all like. (We already know the maths is beyond y'all).

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "What math?"
      Petes @ 9:56 PM

Petes said...

Well, it was inevitable. Lee's decided to go all stupid on us.

"Petes initially missed my mistake too (√2 not a straight equivalency)."

Ooh. There's some math. LOL. Not only did I not miss Lee's mistake, I knew he was fartin' around with those two equations for orbital speed and escape velocity that he had furiously Googled. Reason I didn't comment in it was 'cos it was never gonna get Lee the right answer anyway, 'cos they're the wrong equations.

Unfortunately for Lee, he had pompously decided it "all kinda follows from there" ... before he checked whether it did, actually, all kinda follow from there. And, as it happens, it dudn't.

Oh dear. Now Lee has no option but to play the stupid card. Always happens. Told him he'd get upset.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Okay…. I'd reckon that probably ought to count as three for three then.

So, I'm gonna go off to get some sleep now.  Floor's yours fer awhile now Petes.

Petes said...

About time! Oafus has left the building.

Marcus said...

Half huh?

That all planets would let go at the same time I was guessing. But that it would happen at half the sun's mass I never would have guessed no matter how hard I had tried to think about it.

Bruno said...

Here's an article suggesting that the orbits may in fact decrease with time:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/jan/25/suns-appetite-for-dark-matter-may-affect-earths-orbit

Bruno said...

Here's another article calculating how quickly the earth would fall into the sun if it stopped orbiting:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=674

(Answer: 65 days)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "About time! Oafus has left the building."

I take it from this that you ended it up shootin’ for the somewhat reduced goal of just tryin’ to get in the last word.
Actually, explains quite a bit, it does. 
We'll probably get back to this goal of yours later, and I'll probably even let you have the last word.  Eventually anyway, after I've tormented you for a time, as your punishment for the sin of having gone trolling in the first place.
 
             ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
      "…I was guessing"

Well, it was a good guess.  Whether it was intuitive or just luck.  It's wrong, according to current cosmological theories,, but it's a real good guess nevertheless.  And, it would have been true if things were as Petes described them.  It is where he was going with his so-called ‘puzzle’.

      "But that it would happen at half the sun's mass I never
      would have guessed no matter how hard I had tried to
      think about it.
"

Don't underestimate the importance of what ya already knew.  The ‘escape velocity’ has to be integrally linked to the orbital speed.  They have to be directly related, and the mass of the orbiting body is basically irrelevant, Petes has already told ya that much in his posting at.11:45 AM.  So the only variables left are speed, distance, and the mass of the central object. 
The orbital distance increases as the mass of the central body drops and the ‘orbital speed’ remains the same.  You already guessed that much in your post of 12:19 PM.  So, you were almost there.  About the only thing you were missing is that the escape velocity varies, depending on the heights of the orbiting mass.  There will be different ‘escape velocities’ at different heights.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
And, there's Bruno; I was just thinkin’ of you, Bruno.  Actually, I was thinkin’ that Petes has taken of late to mimicking your habit for when you were stuck in a bad place.  He's taken to makin’ repeated short soliloquies about how great and wonderful he is and how dismal and dejected I must now feel, and like that.

Petes said...

Marcus, I'd advise ignorin' Lee's trolling, since he has now disappeared off into complete rambling fantasy. Lee wouldn't know a cosmological theory if it jumped up and slapped him across the lugholes. As to his assertion that "the orbital distance increases as the mass of the central body drops and the ‘orbital speed’ remains the same" -- it's total poppycock. Lee doesn't have clue one as to how to work out what happens, and he's already painted himself into a corner such that he can't ask for help.

As a brief explanation of why he's talking gibberish, the centrifugal force I mentioned is inversely proportional to the orbital distance, while the force of gravity is inversely proportional to its square. Since the two must always be in balance, increasing the orbital distance while maintaining the orbital speed is a physical impossibility. Lee's clueless. (I did try to help him).

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "(I did try to help him)"

Marcus and/or Lynnette or even Bruno might be fooled, but I am not.  I caught it when you switched ‘orbital speed’ and ‘transverse velocity’.  Lynnette tossed her hands up at that point, you did achieve your goal there.  But, I didn't miss a lick.

Let's be honest, you jumped suddenly back in at 7:24 PM ‘cause you were afraid I'd help Marcus, and he'd maybe get to the answer before you could proclaim your own superiority.  And you didn't want that to happen.  You ain't been tryin’ to help anybody.  You use the jargon you know to confuse and conceal.  That's what you been tryin’ to do.

Petes said...

LOL. I was afraid you'd "help" Marcus, alright. Turns out my fears were justified.

I could still help y'all if y'all weren't so obstinate along with yer pig ignorance. Pretty clear you made the common novice error of looking at an equation that seemed to imply that the central mass, orbital radius and velocity can be varied in simple proportion to each other. That's wrong. There are other equations that must also be balanced to satisfy conservation laws. I sent you a link to them. But you were probably to busy becoming conversant with "current cosmological theories" to bother with the basic stuff. LOL.

Anyhow, enough of this time wastin'. Yer wrong. Anyone with a modicum of sense will ignore your "help". You, yerself, are beyond help.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
So, ya givin’ up even on gettin’ in the last word then?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
An hour now.  I'm gonna take that as an affirmative on him givin’ up on gettin’ in the last word.  Figure it's now four for four.  Been a bad day for Petes just all ‘round.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Oh, only a half hour, time sure does fly when yer havin’ fun.

Petes said...

Classic. Lee's doin' his Black Knight impression again. :-)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Ah, we have roused Petes from his torpor.  So, Petes, ya got anything for us on the mystery glyph or even that ‘math’ that you kept chattering ‘bout ‘til suddenly you quit?  (Last couple of posts suggest you may be sneakin’ back up on that subject.)

Petes said...

Remind me again, troll, which maths was I chatterin' about? So far, you've quoted me sayin' I wouldn't bore the folks with the mathematical details. And you've got me remindin' you I didn't offer you any maths at all. Which of those two counts as "chatterin'" in yer tiny mind?

Only maths we've had is yours, which was somethin' about a square root of two in a non-existent equation.

Didn't promise ya any glyphs either. Anything else y'all imagined I intended to help ya with?

Petes said...

(I suppose we've got some implied maths in yer nonsense erroneous conclusions, but I don't have any interest in them beyond havin' already told ya where ya went wrong).

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Which of those two counts as "chatterin'" in yer tiny
      mind?
"

Both.

      "Only maths we've had is yours, which was somethin'
      about a square root of two in a non-existent equation.
"

A ‘non-existant equation’ is ‘maths’ in your mind?  How does that work?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Okay, this might actually be fun…

      "I suppose we've got some implied maths in yer nonsense
      erroneous conclusions.
"

What particular ‘nonsense erroneous conclusions’ are you thinkin’ you're talkin’ ‘bout there?  Or have you wandered off far ‘nuff that you've even now confused yourself?

Petes said...

[Me]: "So far, you've quoted me sayin' I wouldn't bore the folks with the mathematical details. And you've got me remindin' you I didn't offer you any maths at all. Which of those two counts as "chatterin'" in yer tiny mind?"

[Lee]: "Both"


An' what exactly is it yer asking me to do? Repeat it? If you insist:

1) I won't bore you with the mathematical details

2) I didn't offer you any maths.

That ok?

[Lee]: "A ‘non-existant equation’ is ‘maths’ in your mind? How does that work?"

[Lee from earlier]: "so ½ reduction would zero out with the other side"

See that balancin' you were doin'? That's called an equation. Y'all never said what equation it was. That's called "non-existent". Are we learnin' yet?

[Lee]: "What particular ‘nonsense erroneous conclusions’ are you thinkin’ you're talkin’ ‘bout there?"

Already outlined above. 4:47 PM. Addressed it to Marcus just to warn him off yer nonsense. No point tellin' you. Ya clearly can't understand why yer conclusion is a physical impossibility. And we already established that y'all ain't willin' to learn.

I think that's everything. So unless there's somethin' else I can help y'all with that y'all's prepared to ask politely about, it's time to scroll the troll from here on out.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

Today's diversion re:  American politics:

ABC is reporting that Romney was never looking at Marco Rubio as a potential running mate.  (Or, at least, that Rubio didn't get high enough up on the list that Romney even sent him the opening questionaire.)

Me, I'm guessin’ maybe Paul Ryan or a fairly bland (bland as in not charismatic, not as in ‘not a radical’) mid-western governor.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "An' what exactly is it yer asking me to do?"

Ah, I see.  You started out confused with yourself. 
I wasn't askin’ you to do anything.  (Other than take another shot at guessin’ the glyph; I did suggest you should probably confine yourself to that.)

      "See that balancin' you were doin'? That's called an
      equation.
"

So, if that's what it's called, is it?  And how did it get to be ‘nonexistant’ when you claim to see it before you, right there?

      "No point tellin' you."

Ah, avoidance.  I recognize avoidance. So that's what ya got on that one then, avoidance?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

Bad editing, should read as:

      "So, that's what it's called, is it?"

Petes said...

^ Scroll. (Troll had his last chance to quit bein' stupid).

Marcus said...

I wonder if there's any truth behind this latest rumor about the Syrian situation. A massive joint Chinese/Russian military excersise:

http://debka.com/article/22094/Russia-China-Iran-plan-to-stage-in-Syria-%E2%80%9Cbiggest-Mid-East-maneuver%E2%80%9D-

It seems a bit far fetched.

Marcus said...

^
Correction: A massive joint Chinese/Russian military Russian-Chinese-Iranian no less.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Troll had his last chance…"

Another error on your part.  You seem to think you're in charge of my chances.  That wasn't even a forced error, either.  You reached out and dragged that one to ya for no apparent reason.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "It seems a bit far fetched."

Rather more than just a bit.  China hasn't put soldiers down abroad since the Korean War.

Petes said...

^ Scroll. (Troll fixated on bein' stupid).

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "^ Scroll."

And doing it quite ostentatiously too.  ‘Fraid folks won't notice?

Petes said...

^ Scroll (Even clueless trolls must tire of bein' stupid sometime)

Petes said...

Egypt election observers decrying military hijacking of the constitution.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "^ Scroll"

That's good for more than just the one notice I see.  How many ya think ya can get outta that?  Shall we keep count?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Debka?

Isn't that an Israeli site? Wait I'll go look...

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Hmmm..that site froze up on me, but I think it appears that I am correct in my memory.

I agree with Lee on China sending troops. I think that unlikely.

Marcus said...

It's an Israeli site Lynnette, one with supposedly good intel on Israeli security matters. But it initially came from Fars, the semi-official Iranian news agency. Now CNBC is running with it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jWhrse7Z-mg

I still maintain I think it's far fetched, especially the chinese part of it, just as Lee says.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Well, there have been rumors of Iranian involvement in Syria in the past and Russian troops on the ship being sent to the Russian naval base. So I can see where they got that.

They are saying now that the Russian ship that was carrying helicopters and munitions has turned back.

Yeah, I used to read Debka every once in a while. But like anything else I liked to get a second opinion and then decide how logical the story seemed. :)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "They are saying now that the Russian ship that was
      carrying helicopters and munitions has turned back.
"

Maybe they got spooked by word they's gettin’ ready to run into some Chinese.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

lol!

More like the ship owners thought better of sending their ship in without insurance.

Marcus said...

Apparently the ship with the helicopters idles off the coast of Scotland after the british insurance company withdrew the ship's insurance. Maybe they'll turn back, maybe they'll get a Russian insurance company (if Putin so decides) that'll back the voyage. Could also be that this is a face saving way out for the Russians, the ship was forced to return but it was a private decision not something that the government was forced to.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
It would seem that Julian Assange has had his insurance canceled too.
Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has taken refuge in the Ecuadoran embassy in London and is asking for political asylum, asylum against the Kingdom of Sweden, which country is granting assylum to pretty much everybody else.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

I see that Baghdad has asked Obama to intervene in the Kurdistan/Exxon oil deal. Probably not in the cards. An interesting thing tucked away in the bowels of that article though, is that the Kurds are going to start trading crude for products from Turkey. Apparently no one is happy with Baghdad and they are going to by-pass them if possible.

Petes said...

I see Mubarak is never coming back.

Petes said...

Marcus - I see Sweden redeemed themselves against France.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
More re:  American politics:

In what's becoming a sort of slow-mo, mini-crisis that almost nobody else cares about, the normally reticent Mitt Romney has been obliged to come out and personally deny an earlier report that Marco Rubio wasn't in the running, indeed wasn't even being looked at, for the Repubican veep position.  That is, he found himself obliged to personally, affirmatively assert that Rubio was indeed being ‘vetted’.

They're really twitchy over there in the new Repubican Party.  And all this fuss probably doesn't mean much of anything ‘cept they're bein’ really twitchy.

Zeyad said...

Lynnette, the Iranian connection in Syria is through the Mahdi Army (the guys who who were drilling holes in us Sunni's skulls a while back) sleeper cells in Damascus.

Bruno said...

[lee] "Actually, I was thinkin’ that Petes has taken of late to mimicking your habit for when you were stuck in a bad place. He's taken to makin’ repeated short soliloquies about how great and wonderful he is and how dismal and dejected I must now feel"

Ah yes, the deluded world of Lee,C. Where him gettin' hammered from pillar to post constitutes his opponent being "in a bad place".

Well, of course we resort to mockery and repetition since you are a dim-witted clown, nothing more.

Your stubborn denial of reality is 'bout the only thing you have goin' for ya.

Bruno said...

@ ZEYAD

If you have a moment and the inclination, would it be possible to post your opinion of the consequences in Iraq of a strike against Iran by either or both of the US / Israel? It seems to me that we are approaching some sort of flashpoint slowly but surely. I've got my own ideas of what might happen, but it would be most informative to hear the opinion of somebody with actual roots there. :)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

    
Before Zeyad either indulges or ignores the request from Bruno

More re:  American politics:

Marco Rubio canceled his scheduled appearance on PBS's ‘Charlie Rose’ program last night, citing ‘pressing business in Washington, of which there wasn't any.  He's just not yet ready to get asked questions on public, very public, television.  That leak about him not making the first cut for Romney's veep is seemingly a very big deal, at least a very big deal among Republicans, even if nobody else cares much.
 
             ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Nothin’ there deserving of a response Bruno; that was just lame pretty much all across the board, but you probably already expected that to be the judgement.
 
             ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Hey, Petes,
I  notice that Bruno seems to think you and he are on about the same level, so far as tactics and presentations go.
I do tend to agree with him on that. 

(Not a compliment, just in case you missed that.).

Zeyad said...

Bruno, at this point they can't do much more than lob mortars at American military bases inside Iraq (like they usually do) through the Mahdi Army and Hizbullah in Iraq. The Americans' relation with Maliki and the Kurds might get much troubled though.

Bruno said...

Zeyad, thanks for the reply. I was more worried of a repeat of the proxy war within Iraq, wherein Iraqis are used as pawns by whichever side. I'd hate to see Iraqis killing each other for Iran and America. Some might say ... again.

Part of the reason (maybe not stated outright) that I think there could be a strike against Iran, is precisely due to Maliki's success in keeping a lid on things in Iraq. That is to say, he's pretty close to Iran and not nearly as dependent on America as the US likes its vassals to be. A lot of times I read the question "who won in Iraq?" and usually the answer is "Iran". Cutting the Iranian connection could make the rest of the dominoes fall into the places they were intended to be in the first place.

Just a thought. I really hope that Iraqis don't end up paying for this too.

Black man driving towards Bruno's house said said...

It's drawing closer, Bruno.

Petes said...

[Troll]: "Hey, Petes, .. blah blah"

^Scroll

Petes said...

I started putting in "42" for all those house numbers that Google wants me to identify for them on their Recaptchas. I reckoned if it needed me to identify them, it couldn't know if I was doing it right.

Turns out it doesn't care if you put in anything at all ... so now I don't.

I thought Recaptcha was quite a noble idea when it was doing rare book transcriptions 'n' stuff. For Google's privately owned Big Brother-ish map database? ... not so much.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
That's three.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

   
More re:  American politics:
(should be enough for the day)

New Bloomberg poll just out has Obama leading Romney by double digits, 53% to 40%.  I'm skeptical of those numbers myself, but not skeptical of the direction things are heading, i.e. Romney dropping fast in public opinion.
Romney went into virtual hiding for a couple of weeks after he clinched the Republican nomination, and his favorable ratings went up and up; the longer he was in hiding, the higher his numbers went.  I was actually expecting his ratings to drop a but when he started campaigning again.  (This is a bit more than I was expecting, but the trend direction is exactly what I was expecting.)  The less he's actually campaigned, the better he's been doing.  I don't think that means his campaign strategy is necessarily bad.  I think what it means is….
Well…    The dogs just don't like the dog food.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[Bruno] ...as the US likes its vassals to be.

ROFL! Same old Bruno. Just can't resist a dig of some sort!

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Zeyad,

Whether it's Hezbollah or the Mahdi Army, I guess they all ultimately work for Iran. It's just the leaders of the various groups and the names that change.

Hmmm...I can see where our relationship with Maliki might be upset if we acted against Iran, but the Kurds? Really? I guess I was thinking they were turning more towards Turkey for an outside partnership? Or is that just one faction and the other still has ties to Iran?

Mahdai Army = Driller killers

Al-Qaida = Head choppers

They both seem to have their signature killing method (MO). Neither of which do I approve of. :(

I am happy you are no longer in that mess.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Zeyad,

Btw, that new(perhaps old) hobby I was going to think up for you...how about mine? Reading.

If you haven't already read it, I recommend highly "To Kill a Mockingbird". I think it one of the best American novels of all time. I am still working on Naguib Mahfouz, which is who you recommended ages ago. I can't help but wonder what he would make of the events in Egypt.

Give me a good book and you can put me just about anywhere and I'd be happy. :)

(In the comment above, Mahdai should read Mahdi, of course. *sigh*)

M said...

Lee: "Romney went into virtual hiding for a couple of weeks after he clinched the Republican nomination, and his favorable ratings went up and up; the longer he was in hiding, the higher his numbers went. I was actually expecting his ratings to drop a but when he started campaigning again."

That's not an uncommon phenomenon. Here in Sweden the Social Democrats had a dissapointing last election and the party leader Mona Sahlin (unpopular) resigned. Because of political in-party bickering they elected a walking, talking catastrophy called Håkan Juholt. He managed to get a new phrase coined in record time, to do a "Juholtare" which means blurting out some completely random opinion and then having to do a 180 and take it all back. So the Social Democrats fell in polls to their lowest ratings ever, at least in modern times. Then Juholt reluctantly resigned after heading his party for the shortest term ever and Stefan Löfvén took over. This brought about the so called Löfvén effect where the Social Democrats rose almost 15% in ratings, which is enormous in a multy-party system (8 parties in our parliament today). The funny thing is he managed that rise by not being Juholt, not speaking out much at all and by some unpopularity aimed at political opponents. I actuallly thiink he's a quite competent politician but it wasn't his politics that lifted his party.

Sometimes just ducking can yield a tremendous upswing for a politician or a party, but sooner or later have have to stick their head up and speak about politics.

Marcus said...

^Me, in case it wasn't obvious.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Lee,

I think people are highly skeptical of Romney's ability to handle the huge mess we are facing after the election. If he continues to toe the party line, that may prove fatal. After all, during the debt ceiling debacle, the polls of the American public seemed to lean toward a centrist stance on taxes and spending.

Personally, whoever he chooses for a VP will be irrelevant to me at this point.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

PeteS,

I was thinking about the Physics puzzle you posed the other day. So, I was just wondering, how is the health of our sun? Is the poor thing losing pieces of itself? Are we going to suddenly go flying off into space?

I know, I know, sometimes it is strange the things I think of when I'm not thinking about anything. :)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

He managed to get a new phrase coined in record time, to do a "Juholtare" which means blurting out some completely random opinion and then having to do a 180 and take it all back.

I have this feeling that Joe Biden and he would get along very well. :)

Marcus said...

@Bruno, Zeyad

Zeyad: "Bruno, at this point they can't do much more than lob mortars at American military bases inside Iraq (like they usually do) through the Mahdi Army and Hizbullah in Iraq. The Americans' relation with Maliki and the Kurds might get much troubled though."

I might be overly negative but I can see them trying, through proxies, to re-ignite sectarian strife or other civil strife in Iraq, if for no other reason than to try to squash the oil production output in every way they can. Iraq's oil output has just recently recovered to around 3 million barrels per day. In global terms that's just 4% or so of total production. But the loss of even a few percent will send prices skyrocketing and kill any economic recovery.

For sure a major component of any Iranian retaliation would be threats or actions towards the oil markets. Shutting off the strait of Hormuz is the major one we often hear about. But if they could strike at Iraq's oil output with little risk to themselves, working through proxies, why not?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
re:  Romney:

      "Sometimes just ducking can yield a tremendous
      upswing for a politician or a party, but sooner or later have
      have to stick their head up and speak about politics.
"

That seems to have summed up the numbers trend for the past few weeks. 
Bad economic news came out, and Obama's numbers dropped again, and Romney's started improving, then Romney himself resurfaced, and it turned out…  That…
Well…  He was still Romney.

With the economy being what it is, Obama should be toast already.  Historical precedents are clear and unequivocal.  Obama should be toast and the Republicans should be cruisin’ to an easy victory.  But, instead, they nominated Romney.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Are we going to suddenly go flying off into space?"

What will happen instead is that, long before the sun has lost half its mass, the mass that it does lose, and the gravity that it does lose along with that mass, will allow the surface layers of the sun to expand greatly.  (The surface is compressed gas, after all--plasma actually, but let's not get too detailed here.)  Our yellowish sun will turn into a ‘red giant’.  The surface of the sun will expand outward and the earth will wind up inside the sun.

This will mean that what happens next is kinda irrelevant.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lynnette In Minnesota said...

This will mean that what happens next is kinda irrelevant.

lol!

I'd say. So this means instead of ending up frozen "peoplesickles", we'll end up toasted. Well, at least it will be quick...

Marcus said...

No no no, that's what WOULD happpen if not for divine intervention. But the imminent second coming of Christ and and the soon to be coming of the Mahdi will prevent all that. Surely God would never allow his own single most impotant creation, created in His image, to perish, right? So forget about all that sience stuff and remember instead to pray as much as possible and forego any vice, and you'll be alright.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Zeyad,

Just thought of something. Are there even any American military bases left in Iraq? Weren't they all turned over to Iraqi control?




Strange, I've gotten the same verification words about 3 times in a row now.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Surely God would never allow his own single most impotant creation, created in His image, to perish, right?

Think ghosts or phantoms. People, just in another dimension...:)

Marcus said...

Pete, I've been meaning to ask you, do you believe that when I die I will go to hell for the crime of not having believed in God while I was here?

What about other believers such as hindus and buhddists that do not believe in one single true God, but have their own religion, will they too go to hell?

And what about muslims who do believe in one true God but not in the Christian version where Jesus is the sn of God, will they go to hell also?

And, lastly, what about protestants who do believe in one true God and in Jesus but not in the way that chatolisism says they should, will they go to hell?

I'm asking what the church dogma is on this and what your personal opinion is on ths also.

Petes said...

[Lynnette]: "I was thinking about the Physics puzzle you posed the other day. So, I was just wondering, how is the health of our sun? Is the poor thing losing pieces of itself? Are we going to suddenly go flying off into space?"

Nope, no danger of that whatsoever. The sun loses very little mass, relatively speaking. Although the nuclear processes inside it convert mass to energy at the prodigious rate of four million tons per second, that only adds up to about a trillionth of its mass each year. There are also events called coronal mass ejections, which are thought to be generated by magnetic effects in the sun's outer layers. These can be also be enormous, and yet tiny compared to the sun's overall mass.

Basically, during the normal, so-called "main sequence" part of the sun's life it will not lose any appreciable amount of its mass. That stage has lasted five billion years so far, and will go on for perhaps another five billion.

(This, I'm afraid is where I am once again forced to advise not to listen to trollsome Lee, whose knowledge is limited to Wiki pages that he's not capable of understanding. LOL @ him saying he wouldn't go into detail -- he managed to be flat out wrong in the three sentence summary).

When the sun reaches the red giant stage it does start losing more mass due to its lower surface gravity. However that stage is not at all brought on by lower gravity due to earlier mass loss, but by an increase in core temperature caused by the onset of new types of nuclear reactions when its initial fuel is used up. This causes the star to swell up to enormous proportions. We're actually able to measure the surface gravity of stars through a phenomenon known as "pressure broadening" which is an effect on the lines in the stars spectrum caused by atmospheric density, related to gravity.

So, in summary, there are plenty of hazards in the solar system, but the sun falling apart is not one of them.

Petes said...

Sorry, in case I didn't make it clear -- the lower surface gravity of a red giant is due to the very simple fact that the surface is further away from the centre, due to the temperature-induced size increase.

Petes said...

Marcus, of course you're going to hell, to burn agonisingly for all eternity for being an unbelieving swine.

Those Hindus and Buddhists? - yep, they're toast too.

Muslims? Yeah, there's an especially hot place for them, on account of them not lying down and taking their medicine during the crusades.

Needless to say, the Protestants are in for the most exquisite torture, since they have rejected the one true Church when they oughta have known better.

"I'm asking what the church dogma is on this and what your personal opinion is on ths also."

Oh, me and the Church are in complete agreement. Non-Catholics will be incinerated in the lake of fire. Gehenna, I do believe it is referred to as in scripture. It'll be like the final scene in Terminator II where Arnie gets lowered into the molten vat, except much more painful and there'll be no end to it. And just like a movie, the Catholics will be sitting in heaven eating popcorn and enjoying watching it all happen.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "This, I'm afraid is where I am once again forced to
      advise not to listen to trollsome Lee, whose knowledge is
      limited to Wiki…
"

Rolled that off the top of my head, didn't even bother to look it up.  Didn't bother with Wiki either.  And that's only the first thing you got wrong there
You mistake what you see for what you wanted to see.  I did not write that the red giant stage was brought on by ‘earlier’ mass losses.  I used the present tense, not the past tense.
I'm afraid you overworked yourself, looking for a fight to have.  I used the present tense, not the past tense, and I did that on purpose.  All that work ya put in, and, in the end, you picked the wrong nit to pick.  (And, fixated fool that ya are, ya walked right on by another nit that might actually have even been of slightly more use to you.) 
 
             ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I think you missed asking some better questions Marcus

  1.  Do Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, King David, and King Solomon, not to mention various and sundry other prophets, go to hell on account of them having been Jews instead of being Christians?
  2.  If the answer to 1. is negative, then at what point in time did Jews start going to Hell for being Jews instead of Christians?
 
      "…and what your personal opinion is on ths also."

The Catholic Church officially disallows personal opinions on this subject.  Therefore, Petes does not have a personal opinion on the subject; they are not allowed.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
I decided to go look up ‘red giant’ on Wiki after all, given that Petes brought the subject up.  Link here.
I'm good.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Post Script:

It is quite possible that Petes will at some point either allude to or threaten to unleash some magical ‘maths’ which will supposedly show that he is correct about how the sun is going to heat up due to ‘an increase in core temperature caused by the onset of new types of nuclear reactions when its initial fuel is used up’.  I suppose there's an outside chance of this happening, but it's highly unlikely.
Therefore, allusions and threats aside, Petes will, in fact, have no ‘maths’ to show to support said contention.  Ain't gonna happen.  So, he will eventually revert instead to telling us that it's all just above our heads anyway.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Hmmm…  That doesn't read clearly.  Let's try again…
There's an outside chance that the sun will begin ‘new types of nuclear reactions’ prior to entering its red giant stage, but that's not bloody likely.  Therefore, Petes will have no ‘maths’ to show to demonstrate his claim of causation there.

Petes said...

^ Scroll the trollzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Giving it up so soon, are ya?  And yet not soon enough it seems.  Probably you shoulda give it up before making your 12:38 AM posting. 

Petes said...

^ Scroll

Petes said...

LOL. Marcus, I fell asleep before I could post the non-joke version of your answer:

The Catholic Church doesn't presume to know who's going to heaven or hell, whether they're Catholics or otherwise. It maintains that God wants everyone to go to heaven. Nobody is predestined for hell, and nobody can go there except by actively rejecting God (not just through ignorance). It also makes some special claims for its own role in salvation, but doesn't thereby claim that only its signed up members are going to heaven, nor even that all of them are. Nobody goes to heaven by their own merits, but by grace freely given, according to Catholic (and Orthodox and Protestant) soteriology, so the mere fact of being a Christian is certainly no guarantee.

As to the distractions lobbed in by the troll ... Jews never started going to hell for being Jews, either before or after the foundation of Christianity. As for Catholics not being allowed to have an opinion on who goes to hell, the Church doesn't prohibit anyone from having opinions on anything, most especially things on which it has never made any dogmatic pronouncement itself. As usual, the troll may be ignored on this subject (bearing in mind that he didn't even know which documents contained authoritative statements on Catholic dogma in the Great Maronite Debate; the troll is just doing what trolls do -- having an opinion on stuff he knows zippo about).

Petes said...

Oil looks like it could be poised to fall through the $80 and $90/bbl levels for WTI and Brent crude respectively. Good news for hummer drivers (if there are any left). Nervous times for Albertans.

Bruno said...

[lynnette] "Are we going to suddenly go flying off into space?"
[petes] "Nope, no danger of that whatsoever."

Awesome trollportunity gone to waste there. :(

Speaking of trolls, it seems to me that the 'attack Iran' time is inexorably drawing closer. Yahoo comments on the topic is infested by dim American warmongers so fanatical that they make our own troll seem like a poet and nobel laureate :(

Bruno said...

I'd love to know what An Italian would have as a response to PeteS' assertions on the Catholic church. I'm guessing something highly amusing ...

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

:)

Hmmm...seems to me that there are two paths to that Sun argument, but they reach the same destination.

5 billion years? Okay, I'm good with that.

:)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Speaking of trolls, it seems to me that the 'attack Iran' time is inexorably drawing closer.

Don't be silly, Bruno. Isolation is the name of the game.

Now, if we can just take away their vassal state...

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

The Catholic Church doesn't presume to know who's going to heaven or hell, whether they're Catholics or otherwise. It maintains that God wants everyone to go to heaven.

But what exactly is heaven?

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

   
      "Nobody goes to heaven by their own merits, but by
      grace freely given, according to Catholic…soteriology…
"

And yet, Petes later claims that he's free to have his own opinion on that matter.
 
             ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 
      "Hmmm...seems to me that there are two paths to that
      Sun argument, but they reach the same destination.
"

Yep, there are stars that will do the ‘burning alternate fuel’ thing, but it's unlikely our sun will be among them; it almst certainly doesn't have sufficient mass to go that route.

Bruno said...

[bruno] it seems to me that the 'attack Iran' time is inexorably drawing closer."
[lynnette] Don't be silly, Bruno. Isolation is the name of the game."

That's another theory that's floating around ... to cripple Iran with sanctions as was done with Iraq, so that when the time comes to invade, they will be crippled and defenceless.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Oil looks like it could be poised to fall through the $80 and $90/bbl levels for WTI and Brent crude respectively. Good news for hummer drivers (if there are any left). Nervous times for Albertans.

On the surface good news, but what lies beneath? Is it more to do with rising supply or decreasing economic activity globally?

I noticed that Spain is having to borrow money at higher rates...

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

That's another theory that's floating around ... to cripple Iran with sanctions as was done with Iraq, so that when the time comes to invade, they will be crippled and defenceless.

Let me guess, you've been reading anti-war.com again, haven't you?

Petes said...

[Bruno]: "Speaking of trolls, it seems to me that the 'attack Iran' time is inexorably drawing closer. Yahoo comments on the topic is infested by dim American warmongers so fanatical that they make our own troll seem like a poet and nobel laureate :("

Hey, remember the good old days when you swore blind that the Bush administration was going to make sure they got an attack on Iran going before his term was up? A few words spring to mind. Boy. Cry. Wolf.

Bruno said...

@ Lynnette

Good idea. I haven't been there for a while.

@ PeteS

Yup. Good thing I was wrong, huh? Of course, there remain a great deal of cheerleaders who would like nothing less than to attack Iran. We're heading for another train wreck, I reckon

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
And, here's the neat part of the Petes answer on ‘who goes to heaven’.  All that space taken up, yet and Marcus is no closer to having his questions answered, than he'd have been if he'd never asked the questions in the first place.
This is not an accident.  This is Petes.

Petes said...

[Lynette]: "But what exactly is heaven?"

"A state of grace" according to the old penny catechism. While there's lots of traditional imagery, there is no official line on the matter. We don't know. Contrary to popular imagination, the Catholic Church doesn't have a just-so story for every element of metaphysics... not even an official number for the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin :-) (Cue the troll to tell me I'm not allowed to have an opinion on that either).

Bruno said...

Thanks to Antiwar:

The U.S. and Iran's Mistaken Path to War

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/the-us-and-irans-mistaken_b_1612874.html

An excellent piece of analysis

Petes said...

LOL. What a fabulous trollish retort. I said "I don't know". Troll says I didn't answer the question. Will probably tell me next that I'm not allowed to not know. What a vexatious troll that troll is. :-)

Petes said...

Right. I'm off golfing for a couple of days. Later dudes.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Right. I'm off golfing for a couple of days."

Anybody here didn't notice how fully and completely Petes abandoned his own arguments on the ‘red giant’ thing?  We need to go over any of that again ‘fore he gets fully gone for the weekend? 

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
More re:  American politics:
(‘nuff on the red giants then)

Quinnipiac poll shows Romney sliding 10 points against Obama in Florida.
They gotta figure out a way to let that fellah campaign from somewhere in hiding.  Coming out and letting the voters look at him ain't seemin’ to be doin’ him a whole lot of good.  On the other hand, they can at least hope that the economy will crash before November and Obama will get the blame for it.

Petes said...

Well, the golf resort has free wifi ... and lots of rain. Classic Oirish summer weather, in fact. :-)

LOL at the troll's pathos.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Sheesh! You really gotta be careful how you click, you can end up all over the place!

Anyway...

[Lynette]: "But what exactly is heaven?"

[PeteS]: "A state of grace" according to the old penny catechism.


So, I looked up the religious meaning of "grace" in my handy, dandy Webster's dictionary. It is, and I quote:

"unconstrained and undeserved divine favor or goodwill, God's loving mercy displayed to man for the salvation of his soul"

That would imply that heaven is not a place per se, but a state of being.

Still room in there for those ghosts & phantoms, Marcus. :) No body necessary.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

One more bit...that "undeserved" part seems to imply that there really is no "hell" then. Because God will forgive and be merciful to all.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Well, the golf resort has free wifi ... and lots of rain.

Speaking of, you should have seen the gully washer in Duluth! Talk about rain!

(Grandma's, great 'burgers.)

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "Well, the golf resort has free wifi ... and lots of rain."

Excellent.  We can look forward then to sometime over the weekend you explaining how it is you didn't just totally screw up that ‘red giant’ snark you tried to pull off.  I'll not be holdin’ my breath waitin’ on that though.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
(Hint for Lynnette and Marcus:  Purgatory.)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Before I delve into purgatory(figuratively speaking, of course) I thought I'd leave a lighter comment for the evening.

Excerpted from Readers Digest who grabbed it from "dearblankpleaseblank.com, a site that posts imaginary letters from submitters:

Dear Noah,
We could have sworn you said the ark wasn't leaving till 5.
Sincerely, Unicorns


Dear The Movie,
Meh.
Sincerely, The Book


Dear Twilight Fans,
Thank you for making us look sane and well adjusted.
Sincerely, Trekkies


Dear Rubik's Cube,
Done!
Sincerely, Color-Blind


Dear Movie Watcher,
Your parents are about to walk in.
Sincerely, The Only Sex Scene in the Movie

Petes said...

Lynnette:"That would imply that heaven is not a place per se, but a state of being."

Yep, the old penny catechism used to say:"heaven is a place or state of happiness"

Left the door open for the literal minded, as well as suggesting that it could be a state of being as you say.

(formatting apology - am on the iPad)

Petes said...

Wow @ Duluth.

Gotta adore those "Minnesoota" accents though :-)

Petes said...

Lynnette: "One more bit...that "undeserved" part seems to imply that there really is no "hell" then. Because God will forgive and be merciful to all."

Generally it's assumed that God is just as well as merciful. Would you want to share heaven with Hitler?

Zeyad said...

Hey Lynnette, I still read. My recent reads include Kissinger's biography, a firsthand account of the LA riots, and also re-reading Mahfouz's Children of the Alley (you might be interested in that one).

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
Looking back over the thread:  Petes still has that one glyph he never could figure out.  He alternately identified it as ‘the Kali figure’ and a ‘ringstone symbol’.  It is neither of those things.  Down one.
Then we had his ‘puzzle’ for which he supposedly had ‘maths’ or a ‘mathematical demonstration’.  His ‘mathx’ never materialize.  Down two.  And by this time he was trying to set up a gloating over finding typos.  Dead give-away that.
Then he started posting about having ‘the wrong equations’ and asking ‘what maths?’ in alternating posts, as if nobody would notice the obvious contradictions, but it was too obvious to not notice.  Call that down three.
Then he just had to jump in and tell us about the ‘alternate fuel’ scenario for when our sun eventually goes into red giant stage, except our sun doesn't have sufficient mass to go that route, so he was totally off-base there.  Down four for four.

Not been a good thread for Petes.  Not so far anyway.
Will he find a means to redeem himself?  Only time will show…
Me, I'm just waitin’ for the show to begin.

Bruno said...

Sweet Jeebus, does the simian have NOTHING better to do than to post his useless posts detailing all the entirely imaginary points that he has accumulated in his head? Sheesh.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

   
      "Sweet Jeebus, does the simian have NOTHING better
      to do than to post his useless posts…
"

Ah, but it does have a use.  I'm makin’ sure that Petes gets full value from his efforts at tryin’ to troll me up back at the start of this thread, make sure he fully appreciates the results.  (And you'd not be complaining if the exercise were useless; we both know that, as does Petes too.  I'll take your bitchin’ as confirmation that you don't like how it ended any better than did Petes and thank you for the confirmation.)

Bruno said...

I don't even know what the trolling was about. A misplaced comma? An extra space between words? The true meaning of 'of' ?

Who cares ...

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
      "I don't even know…"

Not a requirement.   Not even a consideration.

Bruno said...

tag

Petes said...

I nearly feel sorry for the troll. Nearly.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

 
The Syrians shot down a Turkish war plane over the Mediterranean.  That's an ‘oops’.  Syria has apologized.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

[PeteS] Gotta adore those "Minnesoota" accents though :-)

Accents, what accents?

lol!

[PeteS] Generally it's assumed that God is just as well as merciful. Would you want to share heaven with Hitler?

Good point. That doesn't sound at all appealing. Perhaps that is what Lee's purgatory is for?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Hi Zeyad,

Haven't "seen" you for a while. I thought maybe you had forsaken us.

I still read.

Then you are among old friends. :)

Kissinger's biography

Mmmm...think I'll pass on that one. Don't know why, but I just can't like the guy. Too hard-nosed perhaps?

a firsthand account of the LA riots,

Following the Rodney King beating? Bad times. While I like to think our police are pretty good, unfortunately I don't think they always act professionally. I think you need good top down leadership in the force to eliminate the kind of mentality that led to that incident.

Rodney King just passed away recently. Accidental drowning.

...and also re-reading Mahfouz's Children of the Alley (you might be interested in that one).

I have it. :) I am currently reading "Palace of Desire". I was a little annoyed when he killed off my favorite character in the first book, so didn't get back to the second book in that series until now.

I just finished "Behind the Beautiful Forevers" by Katherine Boo. Very good.

Get me talking about books and you won't get me to shut up! lol!

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

The Syrians shot down a Turkish war plane over the Mediterranean. That's an ‘oops’. Syria has apologized.

Big oops, that. They seem to be getting a little twitchy.

I heard there was a Syrian pilot who defected to Jordan recently. Kudos to him.

   Lee C.  ―  U.S.A.    said...

The remaining glyph is a Sikh symbol, known as a Khanda.

Marta Clavero said...

dfhgdfgh