Posted on 04/24/2007 1:41:01 PM PDT by Sopater
We can send the libs there to start fresh!
Good luck to them.
Just think how much Rosie would weigh?
Especially at the relativistic speeds necessary to get there!
|
WoW! I like your idea and I like your 'ride.'.........
I'll volunteer to be the camp cook/Sheriff.......
If it moves, I can shoot it. If I shoot it, I can cook it. LOL!
ping
Actually, spunkets' formula is completely correct. It doesn't matter whether the planet has a 10 mile radius or a radius of 1.5 Earths (roughly 6,000 miles), if you are at a distance of 1.5 Earths from the center of mass, the gravitational pull is the same. As spunkets pointed out, the inverse square law applies.
It also doesn't matter that all planets are denser toward the center, than near the surface. Gravitational anomalies (masses at the same depth with different densities) have a slight effect, but they would not be noticable to you.
Rotation would also be insignificant, unless the planet has a very fast rotational velocity. On the Earth's Equator, you are travelling around the Earth at about 1,000 miles per hour, but you can stand at the Equator, or at one of the Poles, and not notice the difference in weight (you are slightly heavier at the Poles).
This is simple Newtonian Statics and Dynamics, which is normally covered in the first quarter of college physics. Those who take physics in high school are likely to learn this before they get to college.
You only weigh 60 pounds?
That’s okay, the colony ship will have a eugenics program to select for skeletal and muscle strength, and will gradually increase its axial rotation to raise the simulated gravity during the trip, which should take about 6400 years travelling 600 mi/sec (approx. escape velocity for the solar system).
(Kind of shows how irrelevant this ‘news’ is when you think about it.)
Because the planet is bigger than Earth you are farther away than the center then on earth. So, someone who weighs 60 pounds on earth would actually weigh around 108 pounds on the other planet.
I know that earth's effect is pretty small. As I recall though, there's a tendency for large-mass solid objects (especially close in ones) to spin like the Dickens at some stage in their development until they transfer their momentum and become tidally locked, which is part of what has happened to the earth because of the moon. I only mentioned it because in certain conditions it might be sufficient to nudge the figures a bit. OTOH, if this thing is close enough in to have a 13 day "year", on an object as long-lived as a red dwarf, it's probably tidal-locked or nearly so.
No, I weigh 190 approx. But since that planet is 1.5 times as big as earth, I’d weigh 1.5 times as much.......
Cool!
Thanks for the ping!
Hey if these scientists can engage in wild speculation ... why not me?
You're correct though. Of course we haven't checked Europa or any of the ice moons with probable liquid oceans.
for the fy 09 budget Bush oughta offer free rides for liberals to this new planet. it would be worth the cost.
FWIW, Shostack is supposed to be on Coast during the first hour, talking about the new discovery.
Also see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070424_hab_exoplanet.html
Quadruple NASA’S budget and direct it to develop propulsive technology...with the side effect that the money can’t go to national healthcare. That would make the Dems go absolutely ape.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.