How big are Honorverse Asteroid Belts?

Tenshinai wrote:
Which wasn´t really a good way to do it once i started hitting university level math.

So no, my advantage in regards to physics is that i am exceedingly good at throwing around totally abstract ideas, concepts and "items" in my mind, utterly unbound by any limits, like those math enforces...

Abstract without physics/math = Abject failure

Abject failure due to lack of discipline/structure. That is all physics and math is after all. Structure.

If I had to guess:

From what you type up in different threads, you seem to have had roughly the same younger years experience as I. The ol' I was the smartest/wuickest/best memory in every class by a fair margin making everything come very easy in Grade/high school growing up but failed to learn discipline and structure. Sure I had "enough" structure, but... This lack of discipline made me lazy. Very smart folks can work in the abstract very well. Welcome to the club.

Ability to handle abstract concepts only goes a very short distance. Found out there are LOTS of very smart folks out there able to handle abstract ideas and the lack of my own discipline/structure bit big time forcing me to take 5 years to graduate instead of 4.

Then started working during Sophmore year, effectively took a year and a half hiatus, and found out that all those classes were pretty much a waste of $$$ and all one needs to do is pick up a book and read/work problems on top of the very simple fact that an entire 800 page book can be effectively condensed into about 20 pages. Generally tabulated in the appendix. This required discipline. I finally buckled down and built a structure for solving all problems etc. This required a Huge effort at first to overcome my inbuilt lazyness caused by arrogance/ease of study habits. Finally, this new found discipline saved me a ton of $$$ though via testing out of courses. Actually saved me several tons. I learned the courses I self taught myself far better than those I paid good money for.

I still suffer from a lack of discipline structure and keep getting reminded generally by a knock upside the head that working in abstracts is fine, but only works in the very short term. Disciple/Structure is required for communication. Without communication = Abysmal failure.

Here's to hoping you create the structure needed to apply your good abstract mind.

Relax wrote:Abstract without physics/math = Abject failure

Hardly! Stuff i started arguing online in late 90s, then controversial, is now slowly becoming mainline theory, total win for me, yay!
And that´s something i did with zero math involved.

For me maths is truly just a useless distraction from the REAL fun.

Relax wrote:From what you type up in different threads, you seem to have had roughly the same younger years experience as I. The ol' I was the smartest/wuickest/best memory in every class by a fair margin making everything come very easy in Grade/high school growing up but failed to learn discipline and structure. Sure I had "enough" structure, but... This lack of discipline made me lazy. Very smart folks can work in the abstract very well. Welcome to the club.

Mmm, there´s some truth in that at least.

Definitely not the best memory though, as i take after my father by being absentminded to ridiculous levels.

Lazy or discipline never really was a (big) problem for me though, but rather that i became chronically ill at the tender age of 10.
Being absent from school 30-80% per term meant i never had all that much chance to be lazy. Although i spent a lot of that "home sick" time reading very interesting books.

Including 2 full encyclopedias from beginning to end.
It´s safe to say that i was very interested in learning, still is.

Let´s just say that the lowest i ever scored in an IQ test was 119, and that was with a really bad fever, half delirious and a test that really didn´t like me(or possibly vice versa).

Relax wrote:Ability to handle abstract concepts only goes a very short distance. Found out there are LOTS of very smart folks out there able to handle abstract ideas and the lack of my own discipline/structure bit big time forcing me to take 5 years to graduate instead of 4.

I´m actually yet to meet anyone that can work with abstract like i do.

Actually studying something hard, for me didn´t help much though, so discipline or structure obviously wasn´t that much of an issue, odd memory and lack of energy was/is.

But yes, i certainly never developed GOOD study habits.
And overcoming that could be, a not so easy matter indeed.

Relax wrote:Then started working during Sophmore year, effectively took a year and a half hiatus, and found out that all those classes were pretty much a waste of $$$

Well that´s a big difference here, classes doesn´t cost anything unless you go to some very unusual places that doesn´t fall under the domain of public grants.

And as long as you maintain enough points of studying that you didn´t fail per term, you can get student grants(if you still live with parents, it´s enough to live on, if not by much).

Relax wrote:I still suffer from a lack of discipline structure and keep getting reminded generally by a knock upside the head that working in abstracts is fine, but only works in the very short term. Disciple/Structure is required for communication. Without communication = Abysmal failure.

Meh, it´s funny though, my best area is languages, yet communication has never really functioned well, regardless of abstract stuff or not.

Put together with someone that "is on the same wavelength", i can work wonders though.

And there´s probably not even a single place where i have worked, where i have not improved the work structure.
My crowning achievement if you wish, a place moving historical records on paper into searchable databases, my "small" modification to the procedure speeded the thing up drastically, something like ~5 times faster.

Relax wrote:Here's to hoping you create the structure needed to apply your good abstract mind.

Meh, not very likely, unfortunately. I have permanent, partial sickness compensation since some time now for a good reason.

It would be nice to do some good work, but few employers will be cool with someone with very little official affidavits in regards to abilities or knowledge, and who can never guarantee when actual work can be done, or how much.

Sorry, Chthia, no, I was not messing with you. I have studied Relativity, but I have not come across the use of EFE as an abbreviation for Einstein Field Equations. (I studied under Alan Guth.) I am more familiar with the Special Theory than the General, though.

Cthia, after refreshing my memory about the Einstein Field Equations, I stand by what I said earlier. General Relativity and Einstein Field Equations do not say anything about waves, or Planck's quanta, or wave-particle duality. Yes, you can use the equations to determine how gravitation affects both waves and particles, but the theory and equations say nothing about waves. What you are talking about is the interpretation, extension, and application of General Relativity. The theory itself is agnostic about waves and particles.

One always gets the idea from astronomers' talk about the asteroid belt that it contains ALL the asteroids in the solar system, but that simply isn't true, is it?

I mean, there are thousands, if not millions, of sizeable asteroids distributed throughout the rest of the solar system - many of them quite close to Earth's orbit.

I'd suggest that it'd be far more economically feasible to focus any future asteroid-based resource extraction efforts on those asteroids than the asteroid belt itself. Any comments?

hanuman wrote:One always gets the idea from astronomers' talk about the asteroid belt that it contains ALL the asteroids in the solar system, but that simply isn't true, is it?

I mean, there are thousands, if not millions, of sizeable asteroids distributed throughout the rest of the solar system - many of them quite close to Earth's orbit.

I'd suggest that it'd be far more economically feasible to focus any future asteroid-based resource extraction efforts on those asteroids than the asteroid belt itself. Any comments?

I don't think it's so much that some asteroids are close to Earth's orbit, as they occasionally *cross* Earth's orbit. The other end of their orbit may actually be farther out than the asteroid belt, their orbit may be seriously inclined relative to the ecliptic, or both.

MaxxQ wrote:

hanuman wrote:One always gets the idea from astronomers' talk about the asteroid belt that it contains ALL the asteroids in the solar system, but that simply isn't true, is it?

I mean, there are thousands, if not millions, of sizeable asteroids distributed throughout the rest of the solar system - many of them quite close to Earth's orbit.

I'd suggest that it'd be far more economically feasible to focus any future asteroid-based resource extraction efforts on those asteroids than the asteroid belt itself. Any comments?

I don't think it's so much that some asteroids are close to Earth's orbit, as they occasionally *cross* Earth's orbit. The other end of their orbit may actually be farther out than the asteroid belt, their orbit may be seriously inclined relative to the ecliptic, or both.

So it's not as if they're just hanging around in space? They have actual orbits of their own?

MaxxQ wrote:

hanuman wrote:One always gets the idea from astronomers' talk about the asteroid belt that it contains ALL the asteroids in the solar system, but that simply isn't true, is it?

I mean, there are thousands, if not millions, of sizeable asteroids distributed throughout the rest of the solar system - many of them quite close to Earth's orbit.

I'd suggest that it'd be far more economically feasible to focus any future asteroid-based resource extraction efforts on those asteroids than the asteroid belt itself. Any comments?

I don't think it's so much that some asteroids are close to Earth's orbit, as they occasionally *cross* Earth's orbit. The other end of their orbit may actually be farther out than the asteroid belt, their orbit may be seriously inclined relative to the ecliptic, or both.

Actually there are classes of asteroids that routinely cross Earth's orbit - namely the the Apollo, Amor and Aten families of minor planets. Others, like 3753 Cruithne, actually appear to orbit Earth in a kidney bean shaped orbit - this particuliar planetoid has a solar orbit of 364 days, and it precession through our skies takes ~380 years to complete it's earthwise motion.

In addition, we have 1 known planetoid trapped at one of Earths Lagrange Points - at Lagrange point 4, asteroid 2010TK7 follows Earth's orbit perfectly. Nothing appears to be trapped at Lagrange point 5 (these are the 2 "stable" gravitational points created by the constructive interference of the gravity of the Earth and the Sun.) The 2 similiar Jovian Lagrange points are lousy with stellar detrius.

hanuman wrote:
So it's not as if they're just hanging around in space? They have actual orbits of their own?

If they are not orbiting the sun or have sufficient velocity where they are shooting through our solar system never to return, they would just fall into the Sun (or a planet if it's close) due to gravity. Anything that was just sitting there got pulled by gravity either into the sun ot into an orbit 4+ billion years ago.

All asteroids , comets and even space trash are moving in an orbit. the Comets are rockey snowballs that almost had enough energy to get out of the solar system, but the Sun's gravity slowed them over millenia (or sometimes more) anthen they get pulled back in - only to miss the sun and get looped back out into the cold to repeat.

hanuman wrote:
So it's not as if they're just hanging around in space? They have actual orbits of their own?

Uh, yeah why shouldn´t they have? If they didn´t they would quickly be pulled into an orbit or be slingshot away from the solar system.

Also, do recall that the sun and the solar system as a whole MOVES.