From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 3:43 AM To: blue_planet@mpgn.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - headlines c718678@showme.missouri.edu wrote: > > Wordman, what you say about the wobble is true, but what I was saying is > that Jupiter would literally be visible as a dot next to the sun if you > were close enough, say alpha centauri, and had a telescope in orbit to > minimize distortions. We're building some really neat ground (well, mountaintop) observatories with more resolving power than Hubble (also newer, and easier to fix if x-technologies go funny). Might not be long before we could see some spiffy stuff ourselves. > Kai, I've wondered that myself. I don't think it would take better > technology than we have to detect a high mass object just outside the Part of the lack is simply observational data. There was a theory bandied about for a bit regarding a fourth gas giant way out there to account for some funny observations. It fell out of favor, but a wormhole in a different position might do the trick... > solar system. But there are some strange theories about black holes > (which may be related to wormholes) that say a black hole doesn't have to Whether black holes and wormholes are related depends on which model of the universe you subscribe to. Tricky thing, this. > be that massive, as long as all the mass is concentrated in one > infinitesimal point. I don't know enough about it to know if it has merit > or not, but its the only thing I can think of off the top of my head. Quantum singularities. The trick with them is that there are some very particular conditions governing their creation, which most likely haven't existed since the big bang. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: c718678@showme.missouri.edu Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 12:53 AM To: blue_planet@mpgn.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - headlines Wordman, what you say about the wobble is true, but what I was saying is that Jupiter would literally be visible as a dot next to the sun if you were close enough, say alpha centauri, and had a telescope in orbit to minimize distortions. Kai, I've wondered that myself. I don't think it would take better technology than we have to detect a high mass object just outside the solar system. But there are some strange theories about black holes (which may be related to wormholes) that say a black hole doesn't have to be that massive, as long as all the mass is concentrated in one infinitesimal point. I don't know enough about it to know if it has merit or not, but its the only thing I can think of off the top of my head. Later, Eva @@@(* > *)@@@ On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Tun Kai Poh wrote: > Wordman wrote: > >Another interesting note is that since one of the new planets > discovered in > >the new system is so close to the sun, that it doesn't need to be as > massive > >to create a visible "wobble", since gravitic attraction is inversely > >proportional to distance squared. > > Okay, I know this is going over slightly-worn paths, but roughly how > far out would a wormhole like the one in BP have to be to make sure we > can't detect it with existing technology? > > Kai Poh, Malaysian Lagomorph > > > _______________________________________________________________ > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 8:42 PM To: blue_planet@mpgn.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - headlines >Kai, I've wondered that myself. I don't think it would take better >technology than we have to detect a high mass object just outside the >solar system. But there are some strange theories about black holes >(which may be related to wormholes) that say a black hole doesn't have to >be that massive, as long as all the mass is concentrated in one >infinitesimal point. As I understand it, and I am not an astrophisicist, although there is no mass requirement for a black hole, only objects with a certain amount of mass (and rather a lot at that) will have enough to be able to collapse into one. By definition, black holes are the most massive objects in space, because as soon as something get as massive as a black hole, it has passed the limit and collapses into one. Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.