# Tag Info

0

I suspect that they were lucky that their predictions agreed with reality so closely, but any prediction was going to have Neptune roughly (perhaps very roughly) in the same direction as Uranus, during the times when it affects Uranus the most. So I suspect their calculations meaningfully ruled out large swathes of sky, which improved odds of finding it.

4

Although this may not be what you're looking for... They weren't "simply lucky." In fact, they didn't use Bode's law at all- they used calculations based on Neptune's supposed gravitational effect on Uranus. In fact, had the two used Bode's law, they would never have found Neptune, as the Bode "law" would predict a completely different location. (This is ...

1

It will simply be swallowed up. There's no fall involved. All the material that once made up Mercury will become part of the mass of Sun and presumably over time diffuse completely into that mass, so that no trace of Mercury will be found, even though its actual matter hasn't been destroyed.

0

Your question is a bit hard to understand because it's not clear what exactly you want to do, and not all necessary values are given. However, I will show you the principles you need for such a calculation. First, 150Ah is the charge of the battery, not the power. It means, the battery can provide a current of 150A for 1 hour, or 75A for two hours and so ...

2

Venus has an axial tilt of 177$^\circ$, so it rotates backwards compared to the majority of other planets. It also has an extremely slow rotation rate of one rotation every 244 days. In comparison, Uranus rotates every 17 hours, but has an axial tilt of 98$^\circ$. It rotates in a direction almost in the same plane as its orbital motion. It seems very ...

1

Like all steady state circuit analysis things in parallel share the same voltage, and things in series share the same current. The question then really boils down to what the current vs. voltage curve looks like for a solar panel. A quick search turned up this: from https://www.folsomlabs.com/modeling/module/module_model So in this case it looks like you ...

5

You change the wavelength of light through the nonlinear processes of intermodulation; some examples of these processes are upconversion, downconversion and multiphoton processes. However, in the context of energy winning from solar radiation, the use of any such process to concentrate a spectrum into something more like a monochromatic source will always ...

5

The Earth's tilt doesn't change so much as it's position around the sun changes. Notice the North Pole sees more sun in summer than in winter cause it's tilted towards the sun in summer but not in winter. The north pole always points in the same direction into space pretty much. It wobbles slightly, and quite slowly, completing a full wobble every ...

0

Rickman (2014) reviews the relationship between the Oort cloud and long period comets, but does touch on the origins of the Oort cloud. The review of Jewitt (2010) deals with the Oort cloud, Kuiper belt and comets (basically, icy bodies in the solar system), highlighting what we don't know. The Annual Reviews articles by Mumma & Charnley (2011) and by ...

4

The answer is basically, angular momentum. The collapsing proto-solar nebula has some angular momentum. Whilst dissipative processes can allow the nebula to collapse along the axis of rotation, there is still the problem of how to shed angular momentum in order to allow gas/dust to orbit closer to the rotation axis. This is just a basic application of ...

0

The simple fact is that scientists have to have a theory to explain comets in our solar system. If the galaxy is billions of years old, all the comets would have been destroyed by our sun, and long long ago. So... why do we still see comets? Must be an ort cloud somewhere out there. That is the ultimate reason for the theory. There simply has to be a reason, ...

1

I can see that this question has been downvoted but I think it still deserves a proper answer. First, it is the Chandrasekhar (one word) limit, named after the Indian-American astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. Second, the Chandrasekhar limit does not mean that an object cannot be more massive than 1.4 times the mass of the Sun. There are plenty of ...

Top 50 recent answers are included