Well, I suppose different people have their own definitions of "isolation".
Huh? An inductor doesn't store charge at all. The energy is stored in the magnetic field. The voltage everywhere in a superconductive energy-storage inductor is zero.
Or in flyback switching supplies. Or RF tank circuits.
OK.
John
At earth-orbit distance, a black-body bowling ball exposed to sunlight will settle at about 277K, just above freezing. But with a good umbrella to shield it from sunlight, it will cool off to the universe's background temp, around 4K.
Pluto should be far out enough for even a blackbody to be superconductive.
Interesting that Earth is a a distance from the sun that almost exactly corresponds to the blackbody freezing point of water.
Coincidence?
John
Well, at any rate, have yourself a great weekend, and always wash your ice cubes.
John
Wouldn't think so - let's face it, at least for the evolution of Life As We Know It (in the immortal words of Mr. Spock), a planet is going to HAVE to be placed within a certain distance range from its sun, said range being determined pretty much solely in terms of certain temperatures with respect to water.
Bob M.
I've seen the estimate that life depends on earth's orbital radius being within 1% of what it actually is.
Whoever is responsible: thanks!
John
I sure wish you guys would define "in isolation." The term seems sufficiently flexible that it can be adapted win any argument.[1]
Ditto "dynamic." I figured that dynamic energy storage would involve a flywheel or something.
John
[1] I suppose that means "in isolation" is "dynamic."
Actually, isn't that kind of a moot point? That is to say, if it _wasn't_, there wouldn't be any beings sitting around contemplating their existence, would there? ;-)
Cheers! Rich
:-)
Cheers! Rich
The good old Anthropic Principle!
On the other hand, the inhabitants of Pluto may be sitting around debating whether their being just far enough from the sun to allow superconductivity to switch on and off, thereby allowing their kind of life, is just a co-incidence.
And, of course, life just simply can't exist on those inner, rocky planets, can it!
(A bit off topic, but I love these free flowing discussions)
Sean
The Weak Anthropic Principle. It seems to ignore the wild improbability (essentially impossibility) that the proponent is in fact alive, now.
If the universe will exist for 100 billion years (and maybe a lot more) and we live to be 100, we are alive for 1e-9 of the time that exists. We are alive now. That seems fishy to me.
John
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required