EPTOn June 21 2019 01:49 JimmiC wrote:
What if a planet was in a very hot zone and was cooled by an super cold "ice sun".
What if a planet was in a very hot zone and was cooled by an super cold "ice sun".
Ain't nothing in space colder than space.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 733
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9838 Posts
Ain't nothing in space colder than space. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5112 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11811 Posts
On June 21 2019 01:49 JimmiC wrote: What if a planet was in a very hot zone and was cooled by an super cold "ice sun". There is no such thing as cold suns, and especiallz nothing like "cold energy". There is only heat energy. More heat energy on the same object means it gets hotter. The background temperature of space is roughly 3 K, so 3 degrees warmer than the absolute coldest possible temperature. Thus, it is really hard to have something "cooling down" stuff in space, because that would mean that you have something colder (than background) on that side which absorbs the heat energy. But that thing which is colder than the background would grow warmer by absorbing heat energy from its surroundings, and thus also reaches background temperature. Stars are hot because they turn matter into energy, which they than dissipate into their surroundings, heating them. The opposite effect of something turning background heat into matter is not really physically possible. Thus, there are no "cold suns" If something is called a "cold sun" by someone that actually knows something about astronomy, that is probably because it is cold for a sun. Which is still pretty hot, usually at least a few thousand degrees kelvin surface temperature (otherwise it would stop being shiny). | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18275 Posts
On June 21 2019 01:42 Simberto wrote: No, the equator is the part of the planet furthest away from it's axis of rotation. Two hot poles would be hard, but you could have a planet where one pole is aimed at the star, and the axis of rotation also rotates around the star, so that one pole always points towards the star (I actually don't know if this is possible, but i don't really see why it shouldn't be). This would mean that this one pole is hottest, the other pole is coldest, and the equator is in the middle. 2 suns on opposite sides of the planet might happen in a static system or for a short period of time in a moving system, but i cannot see how that would be the state in which things are most of the time in a system where stuff tends to move on ellipses around other stuff. I guess we could have some cheating version where a large part of the surface heat doesn't come from the star, but maybe from geological activity fueled by nuclear decay at the center of the planet. So, hot molten core, and for some reason the heat erupts mostly at the poles. Maybe you have a crust which moves from poles to the equator, and submerges there. So you have lots of hot volcanoes at the poles, and thus the poles are the hottest part of the planet? What about a binary star system with a planet just happening to (1) be in the Lagrange point between them, And (2) rotate around its axis at the exact rate that the two stars orbit one another? Wouldn't that work to have the two poles facing each star continuously? The ice belt is gonna be hard, but there *might* be a way even that could happen? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11811 Posts
On June 21 2019 04:14 Acrofales wrote: What about a binary star system with a planet just happening to (1) be in the Lagrange point between them, And (2) rotate around its axis at the exact rate that the two stars orbit one another? Wouldn't that work to have the two poles facing each star continuously? The ice belt is gonna be hard, but there *might* be a way even that could happen? Sounds reasonable. At that point you have no problem with the ice belt either, because the equator will be the coldest part of the planet. So you just need to tune it so that "the coldest" is below 0°C, while the rest is above by moving stars further apart, or having less hot stars. | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
And then a chicken? | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5112 Posts
On June 21 2019 07:25 Simberto wrote: Sounds reasonable. At that point you have no problem with the ice belt either, because the equator will be the coldest part of the planet. So you just need to tune it so that "the coldest" is below 0°C, while the rest is above by moving stars further apart, or having less hot stars. OR, your most abundant liquid on the planet is something that is solid a bit above 273 K, OR you have stars with less than 1 solar mass. | ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
On June 21 2019 19:10 Alakaslam wrote: What if a Fish? And then a chicken? Yes, then no. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 21 2019 23:44 Uldridge wrote: OR, your most abundant liquid on the planet is something that is solid a bit above 273 K, OR you have stars with less than 1 solar mass. Or the sheer gravitational forces involved by being in between a binary star causes a the planet to be nothing more than a churning molten mass heated by sheer friction alone. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
A friend cancels 1 hour before it begins, so I take my brother instead. Is my friend entitled to his money back? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23894 Posts
On June 27 2019 09:05 FiWiFaKi wrote: I'm doing an activity with 3 friends, so 4 people... I booked the reservation and paid for it all already for everyone, and everyone sent me an etransfer for the event already. A friend cancels 1 hour before it begins, so I take my brother instead. Is my friend entitled to his money back? Entitled no, but neither was your brother to the ticket, they should probably split the cost if they both want to be fair (in the friendly sense) imo. | ||
|
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
If the event still goes on without your friend then yes I think your friend is entitled to his money back. Obviously I'm talking about social obligations/entitlements not legal. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On June 27 2019 11:25 Fecalfeast wrote: Does the event/activity still happen if there are only 3 people? If the 4th member is necessary then I think your friend is obligated to at least help pay for your brother's ticket. If the event still goes on without your friend then yes I think your friend is entitled to his money back. Obviously I'm talking about social obligations/entitlements not legal. But my brother didn't want to go nearly as much as my friend, you're going with people you don't really know well, so it's probably not as good of an experience as going with his friends. And it's not like my friend could sell the ticket, because it was all under one reservation (imagine sharing a table at a restaurant). I don't know, I can justify it to myself both ways. Well yes, I did cancel last minute, but you found someone else, so they should pay for the ticket since they went. But I also view it as, oh, I cancelled extremely last minute, inconvinienced people by not having the planned group, and now someone who probably doesn't care much for the event and had no heads up to plan is going instead, he should just go out there and enjoy himself. To me, the second one makes a bit more sense. Actually, it was around $25/person, so it's a pretty small amount to buy things over, and it's not like I'm in a dilemma... I was just trying to think what the ethically right thing to do was in this situation. Because even splitting it 50-50 seems like a bit too good of a deal for the canceller to me... But then like JimmiC said, depends on the joy the person who went got out of it, etc. But then you start to analyse pretty obscure variables, so idk. | ||
|
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
If you feel that your friend is jilting you by canceling and asking for his money back, that's between your group of friends and not your brother, who you needed to fill the spot. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11811 Posts
If he had just cancelled and your brother didn't take the ticket, he wouldn't have gotten any money back (I assume that you couldn't return the ticket at this last minute point?) And if no ticket were available, your brother wouldn't have gotten to go, which he apparently wanted to do at least more than staying at home. Splitting the cost sounds like a fair solution. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7162 Posts
On June 27 2019 11:32 JimmiC wrote: Also whether or not your brother would have gone if it was not free. It is always better to figure this kinda stuff out first because there are no hard and fast rules, and after it is hard to come up with something “fair”. Hopefully with reasonable people something can be worked out. Depending on cost or whatever maybe the friend goes I couldn’t use it anyway and your bro is like thanks here is a case of beer for the experience. Then the friend gets to feel generous and appreciated and your bro gets a deal on the event and feel like a good guy giving the guy a gift. This! Friend pays full, brother invites friend to a beer sometime. All are happy :D At least that's what we would do | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 27 2019 09:05 FiWiFaKi wrote: I'm doing an activity with 3 friends, so 4 people... I booked the reservation and paid for it all already for everyone, and everyone sent me an etransfer for the event already. A friend cancels 1 hour before it begins, so I take my brother instead. Is my friend entitled to his money back? Is this really a question? There is no detail to form an answer and I am disturbed that the moral answer can be difficult... Answer is, it depends on a million things but mainly: If your friend cancels expecting his money back, and rightfully so as, if he had booked it himself he would had been refunded, then he should be refunded that amount he would had received as if he booked it himself. That he cancelled does not entitle your brother to take his place. What you have just done is to take someone else's money and used it for your brother. In that case the only morally and legally correct course of action would be to give his money back from your own pocket, but I'm sure you can manipulate your brother and other people to giving the money instead. If it was for an event where his cancelling would not have gotten his money back, then there is nothing to give back. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5112 Posts
Booking, then canceling and understanding the cancellation and subsequent loss of money does not necessarily (strongly) impact the individual (perhaps because of said understanding). However, the loss of even one person, making the experience less fulfilling for the group is felt significantly. This can be subdued by the substitution of the friend for the brother. Not only will the group be happier, but the brother will be happy too because he gets a free lunch. The only things you need to ponder now are the following equations: Does the loss of happiness of not getting the friend's money back (who doesn't necessarily know he could get a refund) to said friend outweigh the boost in happiness of the group (which is now complete again in a sense) and the added elation of the brother to join the event? OR Does the neutral state (or even slightly negative state, because he did not get to go to the event) of the friend who cancelled and has gotten his money back outweigh the boost in happiness of the group (which is now complete again in a sense) and the added elation (but slightly dimmed because he does not get a free meal) of the brother to join the event? | ||
| ||
