Uranus and Neptune aren't made of what we thought, new study hints

[admin]

A study suggests the ice giants Uranus and Neptune aren't quite as watery as previously thought. They may also contain huge amounts of frozen methane, potentially solving the puzzle of how they formed.

Uranus and Neptune aren't made of what we thought, new study hints : Read more

 

[Philly]

Uranus contains huge amounts of methane? Well of course. Did someone test this after eating bean burritos and tacos?

 

[TheBox]

A study suggests the ice giants Uranus and Neptune aren't quite as watery as previously thought. They may also contain huge amounts of frozen methane, potentially solving the puzzle of how they formed.

Uranus and Neptune aren't made of what we thought, new study hints : Read more

I am sorry but the reality of this claim isn't very true and guess work rather than anything ''concrete'' .

 

[TheBox]

Uranus contains huge amounts of methane? Well of course. Did someone test this after eating bean burritos and tacos?

Things like this make science and astronomy sound laughable because we all know nobody from Earth as been there and we can't see the surfaces etc .

 

[bolide]

Things like this make science and astronomy sound laughable because we all know nobody from Earth as been there and we can't see the surfaces etc .

You must not accept much of science then, especially astronomy, if your standard for belief is that somebody has to have been there and seen something. So what's your take on the planets, then? Ptolemaic spheres? Or do you accept the radical theories of Copernicus?

 

[TheBox]

You must not accept much of science then, especially astronomy, if your standard for belief is that somebody has to have been there and seen something. So what's your take on the planets, then? Ptolemaic spheres? Or do you accept the radical theories of Copernicus?

The planets move I can observe that . The Earth does not necessary orbit the Sun because the physics implies Stars can't move because of inertia .

I accept all science but I do not accept that all science is true . Present science is a reference frame and the idea of science is to advance that information even if it means disregarding present information because it is proved incorrect by the advancing of the information .

Aether theory for example , disregarded , but then Einstein , Higgs, Tesla , who ever come up with dark energy , all then tried to explain an aether but in different terminology .

Of course I came along and proved my Quantum Mainframe Server , QMS for short .

This ''Einstein , Higgs, Tesla , who ever come up with dark energy '' and aether theory being my citations .

I have simply completed and advanced the work that existed before me .

Planets are planets , formed from the same elements as our planet but we shouldn't say things like we have just discovered alcohol in space because that makes science sound more insane than the crackpots .

 

[TorbjornLarsson]

There is a large latitude in models, and it will take more missions to Uranus and Neptune to sort it out. "Although the [composition] model considered above is reasonably standard, it is not unique; other models also satisfy observations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus

The planets move I can observe that . The Earth does not necessary orbit the Sun because the physics implies Stars can't move because of inertia .

I accept all science but I do not accept that all science is true .

Then you don't accept science at all. Science isn't based on axiomatic "truth" values but on universally shareable facts from observation and theory. Maybe you want to be funny but your personal opinion presentation is just confusing readers about the facts, in the crackpot style you mention. Sure, scientists may not accept all commonly shared facts. But all of useful science method works, tests facts and produce more tested facts.

Stars move because if conservation of inertia, which from Noether's theorems can very simply be recognized as an expression of space homogeneity - having the same physics "here" as "there". [A similar derivation explains angular momentum from conservation of rotational inertia, from having the same physics in all directions.] For instance, once in motion in a perfect vacuum a mass will keep its speed. Else you try to joke/seriously contemplate pre-newtonian physics which confused friction with a need for "impetus" (the opposite to inertia conservation).

It is a well known and commonly accepted fact that stars move and Earth orbit the Sun once every year (which from a slight ellipsoid orbit and Earth axis tilt explains seasons, as we all know).

Inertia is the tendency of objects in motion to stay in motion, and objects at rest to stay at rest, unless a force causes its speed or direction to change. It is one of the fundamental principles in classical physics, and described by Isaac Newton in his first law of motion (also known as The Principle of Inertia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

 

[TheBox]

Stars move because if conservation of inertia,

Please provide evidence that the Sun moves and the Earth Orbits the Sun?

Provide the evidence of matter material from Neptune and Uranus ?

I suspect I'll be waiting for a very long time for you to provide none existence evidence .

 

[bolide]

The planets move I can observe that . The Earth does not necessary orbit the Sun because the physics implies Stars can't move because of inertia

So, thumbs down to Copernicus. What, then?

The evidence that Earth and other planets orbit the Sun is such that even you can see, just by observing the sky and the apparent motions of what you see there. What other explanation is simpler or more likely, and fits the data?

Your second sentence above contains both a nonsequitur, and a mischaracterization of an elementary law. The claim that "stars can't move" has no bearing on whether planets are in orbit around them. And inertia does not imply that a star (or anything else) can't move. It only says that any change in its motion must be due to a force exerted on it.

 

[TheBox]

So, thumbs down to Copernicus. What, then?

The evidence that Earth and other planets orbit the Sun is such that even you can see, just by observing the sky and the apparent motions of what you see there. What other explanation is simpler or more likely, and fits the data?

Your second sentence above contains both a nonsequitur, and a mischaracterization of an elementary law. The claim that "stars can't move" has no bearing on whether planets are in orbit around them. And inertia does not imply that a star (or anything else) can't move. It only says that any change in its motion must be due to a force exerted on it.

Your comments are ''taken onboard'' but I'd still like to know how we got from , Einstein's we can't tell which body is moving '' , to detailed elliptic orbits ?

My observations thus far are mainly of the Sun , I have even created an Earth clock and can tell you the angle of the Sun and time from my location using my earth clock .

At the moment though that is a little bit of an approximation because I can't add the numbers or a protractor for exact angle , time and the speed it is travelling relative to my earth clock . The reason for this is my core of the clock is a telegraph pole and the shadow is my hand of time .

But anyway , my observations of the Sun don't require the Earth to be orbiting the Sun . The observation only requires the Earth to be rotating right to left (West to east, anti-clockwise ) .

As for night observations , where I live , I get too much ambient light to see a good picture and use my Earth clock to map space .

If I could see the ''big dipper'' constellation regular , then I could build a better picture of whether or not the earth orbits the sun .
Using my earth clock I might be able to calculate the exact distance of the sun . We should also be able to get an exact speed the Earth rotates at . So far my studies on the speed the earth rotates at is a bit intermittent . In one cycle it seems to speed up and slow down but I would need more precise equipment for certainty .

P.s My clock is a relative small circle and one cycle of my clock is 24 hrs . The Sun travels a much larger cycle in 24hrs than my clock(according to science) . There is something about this information I just can't find . The cycle must be the same speed as my clock ? It will come to me , I will find the lost information . My clock face has 6 oclock where 3 oclock would be on a normal clock . (90 degrees .

 

[bolide]

Your comments are ''taken onboard'' but I'd still like to know how we got from , Einstein's we can't tell which body is moving '' , to detailed elliptic orbits ?

My observations thus far are mainly of the Sun , I have even created an Earth clock and can tell you the angle of the Sun and time from my location using my earth clock .

....

Sounds like you are describing a sundial. I had thoughts of marking the street in front of my house, using a telephone pole as the gnomon, but I never did.

Your efforts at observation are admirable, but you seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel. Trying to see what you can figure out on your own is fun, I like to do it too. But when it comes to dialogue with the rest of the world, about what is or is not actually the case, you can't just quote yourself.

Others have been there and done this and dealt with these issues. You need to get familiar with the long history of these questions, to debate them. (For starters, the "detailed elliptical orbits" go back to Kepler. Einstein was much much later.) Read Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Tycho Brahe. They are the scientists who established the basic understanding of our solar system that we still use today. To find out how observations can tell us what other planets are made of, read about absorption spectrometry.

 

[TheBox]

Sounds like you are describing a sundial. I had thoughts of marking the street in front of my house, using a telephone pole as the gnomon, but I never did.

I am using a telephone pole and it works on a similar principle to a sun dial except my earth is clock is really special because it has got me behind the wheel .

My mind can see things people can't see because I have evolved past the evolution of fools state . So forgive me if I'll trust my own eyes rather than those you mentioned , on angles and timings of events etc .

I really need go find a spot where I can see the sun in the day and the big dipper at night . I then have triangulation and the first principle of a spatial map .

I might be able use degrees somehow to measure the suns radius away from us . It is on the tip of my tongue how to mathematically achieve this .

 

[bolide]

"I'll trust my own eyes ... "

What you trust isn't the issue. The point is that to engage these problems publicly, and scientifically, you have to deal with other people, and what they see and think. You don't have to believe Kepler, et al., but to challenge them publicly you'll have to show how they are wrong, in ways that not only you can see.