Jupiter Facts

[timewerx]

just
You must have clear skies at your location. I grew up on the USA East Coast and only a few stars were visible so I assumed that was the way that the sky looked everywhere until I visited an island in the Caribbean and the whole sky seemed to explode with brilliant dots of light. That kind of a sky inspires star gazing. But the sky here discourages it. I had been taken to a planetarium when I was approx. five years old and imagined that such a sky was imagine actually. That visit gave me a lifelong interest in astronomy. I have considered viewing the Sun since that is definitely viewable despite the smog.

I live in a capital city with lots of light and air pollution. There are times I can still view Jupiter or Saturn clearly with the telescope.

It's easy to find Jupiter anyways. Jupiter tends to be the 3rd brightest object in the sky after the moon and Venus at night at its nearest point to Earth. It is slightly orange in color and consistent brilliance unlike a star. Saturn has the same color but only fainter.

I use a homebuilt refractor telescope with 50x magnification to spot it.

 

[Radrook]

I live in a capital city with lots of light and air pollution. There are times I can still view Jupiter or Saturn clearly with the telescope.

It's easy to find Jupiter anyways. Jupiter tends to be the 3rd brightest object in the sky after the moon and Venus at night at its nearest point to Earth. It is slightly orange in color and consistent brilliance unlike a star. Saturn has the same color but only fainter.

I use a homebuilt refractor telescope with 50x magnification to spot it.

Good to know that at least some things are still visible in our sky through all the lights and smog characteristic of human progress. Are Venus the moon and Jupiter ever visible close together in the same area of the sky?

 

[timewerx]

Good to know that at least some things are still visible in our sky through all the lights and smog characteristic of human progress. Are Venus the moon and Jupiter ever visible close together in the same area of the sky?

I never chanced upon it but it's possible, but Jupiter would also be in a part of its orbit much farther than its nearest distance to earth

 

[Aldebaran]

Good to know that at least some things are still visible in our sky through all the lights and smog characteristic of human progress. Are Venus the moon and Jupiter ever visible close together in the same area of the sky?

Yes. I've even taken a picture of it when it happened a couple years ago. But here's a more professional one of it: http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/2015/06/17/6-17-15-venus-jupiter.jpg

 

[Radrook]

Yes. I've even taken a picture of it when it happened a couple years ago. But here's a more professional one of it: http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/2015/06/17/6-17-15-venus-jupiter.jpg

Thanx for the photo!
I assume that Jupiter is the one on the bottom since it is the smaller and less bright due to distance.
Exactly at what time of year is this view possible?

 

[Aldebaran]

Thanx for the photo!
I assume that Jupiter is the one on the bottom since it is the smaller and less bright due to distance.
Exactly at what time of year is this view possible?

There's no particular time of the year. Such events happen depending on when planets happen to coincide in our sky in the course of their own orbits which aren't the same as the Earth's orbit. But there are plenty of other conjunctions to watch for. Here's a page that shows which ones are coming up. One of them is coming up on March 27th when the Moon and Venus will be close: Conjunctions

 

[Radrook]

There's no particular time of the year. Such events happen depending on when planets happen to coincide in our sky in the course of their own orbits which aren't the same as the Earth's orbit. But there are plenty of other conjunctions to watch for. Here's a page that shows which ones are coming up. One of them is coming up on March 27th when the Moon and Venus will be close: Conjunctions

Yes, I am aware that their orbits in relation to one another and to the Earth as well as the observer's location on Earth determines visibility in such conjunctions.. Thanks for the very informative link. Placed a shortcut to it.


BTW
There are also periodic conjunctions visible from Earth as well which are predictable.

Conjunctions between Venus and Jupiter are arguably the most spectacular to view, the two planets rivalling each other in colour and brightness. In the brightness stakes, Venus always wins the contest. Conjunctions between the two planets typically happen at intervals of about 445 days, 443 days and 305 days
Naked-Eye Venus: Apparitions, Conjunctions and Elongations, 2010-2020

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, I am aware that their orbits in relation to one another and to the Earth as well as the observer's location on Earth determines visibility in such conjunctions.. Thanks for the very informative link. Placed a shortcut to it.


BTW
There are also periodic conjunctions visible from Earth as well which are predictable.

Hmmmm. I wasn't aware of that. I learned something new today!

 

[Radrook]

I never chanced upon it but it's possible, but Jupiter would also be in a part of its orbit much farther than its nearest distance to earth

Wonder how large Jupiter would look in our sky if it replaced our moon.

 

[Aldebaran]

Wonder how large Jupiter would look in our sky if it replaced our moon.

Here's your answer: Picture of the Day: If Jupiter Was the Same Distance as the Moon

 

[Radrook]

Here's your answer: Picture of the Day: If Jupiter Was the Same Distance as the Moon

Yikes! That's just showing us a fourth of the planet. Imagine the rest!
Thanx! I imagined it to look big at that distance of approx. 243,000 miles but not that big. Had I remembered just how much bigger than the Earth Jupiter is then it would have helped me to visualize it like that.

Of course such a proximity would gravitationally wreak havoc.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yikes! That's just showing us a fourth of the planet. Imagine the rest!
Thanx! I imagined it to look big at that distance of approx. 243,000 miles but not that big.

If Jupiter was there in place of our moon, it wouldn't even be a moon. We'd be orbiting Jupiter and that would make Earth one of Jupiter's moons. Since Jupiter would be blocking the sun from reaching Earth so much of the time, it's questionable if we'd even be here.

 

[Radrook]

If Jupiter was there in place of our moon, it wouldn't even be a moon. We'd be orbiting Jupiter and that would make Earth one of Jupiter's moons. Since Jupiter would be blocking the sun from reaching Earth so much of the time, it's questionable if we'd even be here.

That is true. Earth would be considered a moon just as that planet called Pandora in the film Avatar was classified as a moon.
I assume that the planet depicted in the film doesn't have the deadly radiation that Jupiter has. But of course film-makers must take certain liberties in order to convey what the set out to convey.

 

[Aldebaran]

That is true. Earth would be considered a moon just as that planet called Pandora in the film Avatar was classified as a moon.
I assume that the planet depicted in the film doesn't have the deadly radiation that Jupiter has. But of course film-makers must take certain liberties in order to convey what the set out to convey.

Without looking it up, I believe Pandora had air that wasn't breathable for humans, so they needed oxygen to breathe when they were outside. It was only when a person was in their "avatar" body that they could breathe the air safely. Not sure about the radiation part though.

 

[Radrook]

Without looking it up, I believe Pandora had air that wasn't breathable for humans, so they needed oxygen to breathe when they were outside. It was only when a person was in their "avatar" body that they could breathe the air safely. Not sure about the radiation part though.

Seems that the radiation levels on the fictional moon Pandora if any were imagined to be either non-existent or negligible since humans are depicted as walking around with no spacesuit at all. The only reason that I tend to suspect that such gas giants include deadly zones of radiation is based on Jupiter. But that might be an exception.

Reminds me of how it was once believed that our solar system was typical of all solar systems. Yet it was found that the orbits and the arrangement of the planets around other star systems are vastly different from ours.

That discovery forced astronomers to reconsider the theories which seemed to explain exactly how our planets attained their orbital positions with the gas and ice giants in the outer solar system and the rocky planets, such as Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars in the inner solar system.

Contrary to expectations, they discovered some gas giants closer to their star than Mercury [approx. 32 million miles] is to our sun and other gas giants in such extreme elliptical orbits that they alternate between furnaces and refrigerators.

So now the neat idea of planets forming and remaining in relatively stable orbits had to be replaced by one in which they gravitationally jostle one another out of position and some wind up in distant locations from where they had formed.

So I guess my tendency to suspect that gas giants are somehow radioactive based on observation of Jupiter alone would be a hasty conclusion based on scanty evidence.

 

[Radrook]

The planetary system can be mapped according to a globe, flat, concave, or convex earth. That doesn't prove anything. It works BOTH in the globe and flat earth. Just because something orbits faster, doesn't mean anything.

So is any of them are equally suitable, why are practically all scientists choosing the present planetary concept of a globe as the right one?

 

[Aldebaran]

Seems that the radiation levels on the fictional moon Pandora if any were imagined to be either non-existent or negligible since humans are depicted as walking around with no spacesuit at all. The only reason that I tend to suspect that such gas giants include deadly zones of radiation is based on Jupiter. But that might be an exception.

Reminds me of how it was once believed that our solar system was typical of all solar systems. Yet it was found that the orbits and the arrangement of the planets around other star systems are vastly different from ours.

That discovery forced astronomers to reconsider the theories which seemed to explain exactly how our planets attained their orbital positions with the gas and ice giants in the outer solar system and the rocky planets, such as Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars in the inner solar system.

Contrary to expectations, they discovered some gas giants closer to their star than Mercury [approx. 32 million miles] is to our sun and other gas giants in such extreme elliptical orbits that they alternate between furnaces and refrigerators.

So now the neat idea of planets forming and remaining in relatively stable orbits had to be replaced by one in which they gravitationally jostle one another out of position and some wind up in distant locations from where they had formed.

So I guess my tendency to suspect that gas giants are somehow radioactive based on observation of Jupiter alone would be a hasty conclusion based on scanty evidence.

This is one example of why I wish people who relied on scientists for truth about everything would understand that they don't know everything. So many things that were long-held theories have been redefined as "facts", without the understanding that those theories might be wrong. Oftentimes, such as with the discovery of new planets, or a closer look at Jupiter with a more advanced probe such as Juno, they suddenly have to rethink their "facts". I was reading in an Air and Space Smithsonian magazine recently that many of the readings they got about Jupiter from Juno have turned planetary formation "facts" on their head, and that no theories that exist now match what Juno has found. I wish I knew the exact issue I read that in so I could reference it.

EDIT: I looked online, and this may be the article. Not sure exactly: To Dare the Realm of Jupiter | Space | Air & Space Magazine

 

[Radrook]

This is one example of why I wish people who relied on scientists for truth about everything would understand that they don't know everything. So many things that were long-held theories have been redefined as "facts", without the understanding that those theories might be wrong. Oftentimes, such as with the discovery of new planets, or a closer look at Jupiter with a more advanced probe such as Juno, they suddenly have to rethink their "facts". I was reading in an Air and Space Smithsonian magazine recently that many of the readings they got about Jupiter from Juno have turned planetary formation "facts" on their head, and that no theories that exist now match what Juno has found. I wish I knew the exact issue I read that in so I could reference it.

EDIT: I looked online, and this may be the article. Not sure exactly: To Dare the Realm of Jupiter | Space | Air & Space Magazine

That is a fascinating informative article. What I understand from it is that a previous mission to Jupiter brought up many issues which has challenged all our previous assumptions about its formation and its nature and that Juno will investigate further in order to provide an accurate picture.

I am also very impressed by the solar panel technology that makes this mission possible. Much more superior to the silicon-based solar-panel tech we previously had.

Juno will ultimately plunge into Jupiter after many orbital passes just as the other probe did. But by that time it will have provided all the answers that we are seeking about its interior and its relation to our sun and add to our knowledge of solar system formation.

Thanx again for the link!

 

[Radrook]

Yeah, density. Well, mass, really.

They are different.

The difference between mass and density is that a thing can be equally massive but unequally dense. Mass is the total amount of matter. Density is how tightly that matter is packed or compressed.

For example, the moon packed into a can of soup is far denser than the moon as it actually exists. Yet both have the same mass or amount of material. The Sun can be equally as massive as white dwarf but the white dwarf is far denser since its material is more tightly compressed.
Difference Between Mass and Density

Jupiter only has 1/80th the mass it needs to increase its density so that it becomes a star. In short, mass increases density by increasing gravity. So in planet and star formation density is the byproduct of mass. Large brown dwarfs and small stars can be as much as 200 times denser than Jupiter but only 100 times more massive.

 

[Kylie]

They are different.

The difference between mass and density is that a thing can be equally massive but unequally dense. Mass is the total amount of matter. Density is how tightly that matter is packed or compressed.

For example, the moon packed into a can of soup is far denser than the moon as it actually exists. Yet both have the same mass or amount of material. The Sun can be equally as massive as white dwarf but the white dwarf is far denser since its material is more tightly compressed.
Difference Between Mass and Density

Jupiter only has 1/80th the mass it needs to increase its density so that it becomes a star. In short, mass increases density by increasing gravity. So in planet and star formation density is the byproduct of mass. Large brown dwarfs and small stars can be as much as 200 times denser than Jupiter but only 100 times more massive.

Yes, but as mass increases, so does gravity, and gravity works from the center of the object. So as mass increases, density increases as a result of more gravity pull it in stronger.