Unfortunately the thread has got rather long so to read it and get the goods out of it for a science project at school or a paper at university, open each page copy it to a word document and the add the next and so forth. This way you can extract the vital parts from it.
I ocassionally attempt going back over it but it is long, hard work, nevertheless I do believe there are a lot of interesting original ideas contained in it.
Have fun!
You are such a witless crank it's surprising sometimes.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 3 2012, 07:22 AM)
You are such a witless crank it's surprising sometimes.
What do you mean by that?
What do you mean by that?
A bit of a discussion on "My theory on rocky planet formation " at http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2911949&postcount=1
I tend to feel they haven't spent enough time thinking the problem through.
I tend to feel they haven't spent enough time thinking the problem through.
I think so and pay attention in the following...
QUOTE (broket+Mar 5 2012, 06:46 AM)
I think so and pay attention in the following...
I was waiting for the next word of wisdom but it was late arriving! What was it that we had to pay attention to?
I was waiting for the next word of wisdom but it was late arriving! What was it that we had to pay attention to?
New hypothesis proposed:
"It is Uranus that has the extreme tilt. It has something to do with the winds. In my theory (and I haven't thought too much about Uranus for a long time), these strong winds have made the planet rotate this way.
But what drives the winds? "
Next post: "But you check out my theory for a moment. Find out the cause for the wind, and when they started. If there has been this circulation from day 1 when the planet was forming there is no need for this impact. And remember it is a massive ball of liquid. Is anything going to changed it's rotation? I don't think so.
I think there is a reason the material forming this planet spun and had this angular momentum and that shows up in the tilt and the extreme winds circling the planet today. The winds make the oceans move which then makes the rocky core rotate the same way. Billions of years to make it happen. But it starts with the winds. "
The third post on the topic: "It was 15 years ago I thought the rotation of Uranus could be caused by accumulation of charged particles. I don't see any reason why these particles could not result in winds. Imagine if the solar wind particles are going slow enough at that distance to be accumulated by the gravitational attraction. The ionised particles reform in the atmosphere.
Ok I did read that the net wind circulation of the Earth has an effect on the speed of rotation of the Earth. OK it was fairly minimal but it was measured. Now that might have been 6 years ago so I'm not sure if it could be found again.
Now on the Earth and Venus the wind is powered, I believe, by the Sun so the energy source is external to the planet and depending on the density of the atmosphere and surface friction it would determine the speed of the wind and how much energy can be transferred.
The trees and mountains on Earth go along way to slowing the wind. If the wind wasn't slowed the circulation around the globe would intensify. For I believe the absorption of the incident radiation occurs to higher degree when the wind and radiation are moving in the same direction. (Conservation of energy and momentum preclude the opposite.)
Mercury has virtually no atmosphere so can't really be discussed, and what happens on Mars I don't know; I haven't looked it up.
Jupiter would be the real test case due to its enormous size. I'll get back on that."
and then: "The deeper winds on Jupiter are prograde (going in the same direction as planet is spinning).
“ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/272/5263/842.abstract
Abstract
Changes in the speed of the Galileo probe caused by zonal winds created a small but measurable Doppler effect in the probe relay carrier frequency. Analysis of the probe relay link frequency allows direct measurements of the speed of Jupiter's zonal winds beneath the cloud tops. The deep winds were prograde and strong, reaching a sustained 190 to 200 meters per second at an altitude marked by a pressure of 24 bars. The depth and strength of the zonal winds severely constrain dynamic modeling of the deeper layers and begin to rule out many shallow weather theories.
”
So if my analysis is correct this too is making the planet power-up. Considering Jupiter is the largest and fastest rotating planet, with a "surface" velocity of 45,300 km/hour it is surprising to think this might be getting faster!
So once again I'd say the winds affects the rotation of a planet. "
Lastly: "Earth has comparatively little atmosphere compared to Jupiter so the windage effect is always going to be minimal, but with global warming the effects of the wind will be one of the most notable results. Storms etc could get worse.
Extracting energy out of the wind will be one of the better things to do, so that the relative velocity of the wind compared to the Earth's surface is kept to a minimum. This may make the Earth rotate slightly faster but not by much."
Do the winds on the planets have this much imortance???
"It is Uranus that has the extreme tilt. It has something to do with the winds. In my theory (and I haven't thought too much about Uranus for a long time), these strong winds have made the planet rotate this way.
But what drives the winds? "
Next post: "But you check out my theory for a moment. Find out the cause for the wind, and when they started. If there has been this circulation from day 1 when the planet was forming there is no need for this impact. And remember it is a massive ball of liquid. Is anything going to changed it's rotation? I don't think so.
I think there is a reason the material forming this planet spun and had this angular momentum and that shows up in the tilt and the extreme winds circling the planet today. The winds make the oceans move which then makes the rocky core rotate the same way. Billions of years to make it happen. But it starts with the winds. "
The third post on the topic: "It was 15 years ago I thought the rotation of Uranus could be caused by accumulation of charged particles. I don't see any reason why these particles could not result in winds. Imagine if the solar wind particles are going slow enough at that distance to be accumulated by the gravitational attraction. The ionised particles reform in the atmosphere.
Ok I did read that the net wind circulation of the Earth has an effect on the speed of rotation of the Earth. OK it was fairly minimal but it was measured. Now that might have been 6 years ago so I'm not sure if it could be found again.
Now on the Earth and Venus the wind is powered, I believe, by the Sun so the energy source is external to the planet and depending on the density of the atmosphere and surface friction it would determine the speed of the wind and how much energy can be transferred.
The trees and mountains on Earth go along way to slowing the wind. If the wind wasn't slowed the circulation around the globe would intensify. For I believe the absorption of the incident radiation occurs to higher degree when the wind and radiation are moving in the same direction. (Conservation of energy and momentum preclude the opposite.)
Mercury has virtually no atmosphere so can't really be discussed, and what happens on Mars I don't know; I haven't looked it up.
Jupiter would be the real test case due to its enormous size. I'll get back on that."
and then: "The deeper winds on Jupiter are prograde (going in the same direction as planet is spinning).
“ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/272/5263/842.abstract
Abstract
Changes in the speed of the Galileo probe caused by zonal winds created a small but measurable Doppler effect in the probe relay carrier frequency. Analysis of the probe relay link frequency allows direct measurements of the speed of Jupiter's zonal winds beneath the cloud tops. The deep winds were prograde and strong, reaching a sustained 190 to 200 meters per second at an altitude marked by a pressure of 24 bars. The depth and strength of the zonal winds severely constrain dynamic modeling of the deeper layers and begin to rule out many shallow weather theories.
”
So if my analysis is correct this too is making the planet power-up. Considering Jupiter is the largest and fastest rotating planet, with a "surface" velocity of 45,300 km/hour it is surprising to think this might be getting faster!
So once again I'd say the winds affects the rotation of a planet. "
Lastly: "Earth has comparatively little atmosphere compared to Jupiter so the windage effect is always going to be minimal, but with global warming the effects of the wind will be one of the most notable results. Storms etc could get worse.
Extracting energy out of the wind will be one of the better things to do, so that the relative velocity of the wind compared to the Earth's surface is kept to a minimum. This may make the Earth rotate slightly faster but not by much."
Do the winds on the planets have this much imortance???
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 6 2012, 03:55 AM)
"It is Uranus that has the extreme tilt. It has something to do with the winds. In my theory (and I haven't thought too much about Uranus for a long time), these strong winds have made the planet rotate this way.
But what drives the winds? "
Absolute crap. Doesn't even make sense in the context of basic physics.
Wind is created by temperature differences in the atmosphere caused by the sun and other sources of heat.
Still crap.
Still crap.
So if my analysis is correct this too is making the planet power-up. Considering Jupiter is the largest and fastest rotating planet, with a "surface" velocity of 45,300 km/hour it is surprising to think this might be getting faster!
So once again I'd say the winds affects the rotation of a planet. "
Additional crap.
More crap.
More crap.
Do the winds on the planets have this much im[p]ortance???
No. Remember, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Wind has no net effect on a planet's rotation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Axial_tilt
But what drives the winds? "
Absolute crap. Doesn't even make sense in the context of basic physics.
Wind is created by temperature differences in the atmosphere caused by the sun and other sources of heat.
QUOTE
The third post on the topic: "It was 15 years ago I thought the rotation of Uranus could be caused by accumulation of charged particles. I don't see any reason why these particles could not result in winds. Imagine if the solar wind particles are going slow enough at that distance to be accumulated by the gravitational attraction. The ionised particles reform in the atmosphere.
Still crap.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The third post on the topic: "It was 15 years ago I thought the rotation of Uranus could be caused by accumulation of charged particles. I don't see any reason why these particles could not result in winds. Imagine if the solar wind particles are going slow enough at that distance to be accumulated by the gravitational attraction. The ionised particles reform in the atmosphere. |
Still crap.
So if my analysis is correct this too is making the planet power-up. Considering Jupiter is the largest and fastest rotating planet, with a "surface" velocity of 45,300 km/hour it is surprising to think this might be getting faster!
So once again I'd say the winds affects the rotation of a planet. "
Additional crap.
QUOTE
Lastly: "Earth has comparatively little atmosphere compared to Jupiter so the windage effect is always going to be minimal, but with global warming the effects of the wind will be one of the most notable results. Storms etc could get worse.
Extracting energy out of the wind will be one of the better things to do, so that the relative velocity of the wind compared to the Earth's surface is kept to a minimum. This may make the Earth rotate slightly faster but not by much."
Extracting energy out of the wind will be one of the better things to do, so that the relative velocity of the wind compared to the Earth's surface is kept to a minimum. This may make the Earth rotate slightly faster but not by much."
More crap.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lastly: "Earth has comparatively little atmosphere compared to Jupiter so the windage effect is always going to be minimal, but with global warming the effects of the wind will be one of the most notable results. Storms etc could get worse. Extracting energy out of the wind will be one of the better things to do, so that the relative velocity of the wind compared to the Earth's surface is kept to a minimum. This may make the Earth rotate slightly faster but not by much." |
More crap.
Do the winds on the planets have this much im[p]ortance???
No. Remember, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Wind has no net effect on a planet's rotation.
QUOTE
The reason for Uranus's unusual axial tilt is also not known with certainty, but the usual speculation is that during the formation of the Solar System, an Earth sized protoplanet collided with Uranus, causing the skewed orientation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Axial_tilt
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 6 2012, 04:16 PM)
Absolute crap. Doesn't even make sense in the context of basic physics.
Wind is created by temperature differences in the atmosphere caused by the sun and other sources of heat.
Still crap.
Additional crap.
More crap.
No. Remember, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Wind has no net effect on a planet's rotation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Axial_tilt
The only thing you seemed to be saying as "crap".
Look would there be any wind on the planets if there was no radiant energy from the Sun? No I don't think so.
So the Energy for the winds is solely from the Sun.
Now if that Energy is added to a moving molecule the energy must increase the velocity of the molecule not slow it down. If the atoms in the atmosphere of Jupiter are already doing 45,000 KM how is energy going to be added to the atmosphere swinging toward the Sun? No it can't but on the side going away from the Sun the gas molecules can pick up momentum from the photons and increase their velocity. So the Wind builds up. The Sun can't slow the wind.
Now you show me where the physics is wrong. The Wind makes the planet spin faster. Nothing else has a similar effect.
So a "planet " like Pluto might not be spinning greatly as the solar energy is so weak at that distance.
Wind is created by temperature differences in the atmosphere caused by the sun and other sources of heat.
Still crap.
Additional crap.
More crap.
No. Remember, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Wind has no net effect on a planet's rotation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Axial_tilt
The only thing you seemed to be saying as "crap".
Look would there be any wind on the planets if there was no radiant energy from the Sun? No I don't think so.
So the Energy for the winds is solely from the Sun.
Now if that Energy is added to a moving molecule the energy must increase the velocity of the molecule not slow it down. If the atoms in the atmosphere of Jupiter are already doing 45,000 KM how is energy going to be added to the atmosphere swinging toward the Sun? No it can't but on the side going away from the Sun the gas molecules can pick up momentum from the photons and increase their velocity. So the Wind builds up. The Sun can't slow the wind.
Now you show me where the physics is wrong. The Wind makes the planet spin faster. Nothing else has a similar effect.
So a "planet " like Pluto might not be spinning greatly as the solar energy is so weak at that distance.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 6 2012, 01:39 PM)
The only thing you seemed to be saying as "crap".
Correction, that's all you seem to be saying.
That is correct, but the energy is primarily transmitted in the form of electromagnetic energy, not charged particles.
That is correct, but the energy is primarily transmitted in the form of electromagnetic energy, not charged particles.
Now if that Energy is added to a moving molecule the energy must increase the velocity of the molecule not slow it down. If the atoms in the atmosphere of Jupiter are already doing 45,000 KM how is energy going to be added to the atmosphere swinging toward the Sun? No it can't but on the side going away from the Sun the gas molecules can pick up momentum from the photons and increase their velocity. So the Wind builds up. The Sun can't slow the wind.
It's thermal energy transfer, not kinetic energy transfer.
The sun transmits negligible kinetic energy to the bodies in orbit around it. Any relation between the sun and the spin of each body would be thermal in nature, and even that is nearly negligible.
Planetary spin is a product of angular momentum left over from a planet's formation, any collisions with other bodies, and gravitational interaction with the sun and each planets' satellites. This is a well-understood field. You are doing nothing but attempting to inflate your bogus "huge solar wind in the distant past" theory.
Correction, that's all you seem to be saying.
QUOTE
Look would there be any wind on the planets if there was no radiant energy from the Sun? No I don't think so.
So the Energy for the winds is solely from the Sun.
So the Energy for the winds is solely from the Sun.
That is correct, but the energy is primarily transmitted in the form of electromagnetic energy, not charged particles.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Look would there be any wind on the planets if there was no radiant energy from the Sun? No I don't think so. So the Energy for the winds is solely from the Sun. |
That is correct, but the energy is primarily transmitted in the form of electromagnetic energy, not charged particles.
Now if that Energy is added to a moving molecule the energy must increase the velocity of the molecule not slow it down. If the atoms in the atmosphere of Jupiter are already doing 45,000 KM how is energy going to be added to the atmosphere swinging toward the Sun? No it can't but on the side going away from the Sun the gas molecules can pick up momentum from the photons and increase their velocity. So the Wind builds up. The Sun can't slow the wind.
It's thermal energy transfer, not kinetic energy transfer.
QUOTE
Now you show me where the physics is wrong. The Wind makes the planet spin faster. Nothing else has a similar effect.
So a "planet " like Pluto might not be spinning greatly as the solar energy is so weak at that distance.
So a "planet " like Pluto might not be spinning greatly as the solar energy is so weak at that distance.
The sun transmits negligible kinetic energy to the bodies in orbit around it. Any relation between the sun and the spin of each body would be thermal in nature, and even that is nearly negligible.
Planetary spin is a product of angular momentum left over from a planet's formation, any collisions with other bodies, and gravitational interaction with the sun and each planets' satellites. This is a well-understood field. You are doing nothing but attempting to inflate your bogus "huge solar wind in the distant past" theory.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 6 2012, 07:26 PM)
Correction, that's all you seem to be saying.
That is correct, but the energy is primarily transmitted in the form of electromagnetic energy, not charged particles.
It's thermal energy transfer, not kinetic energy transfer.
The sun transmits negligible kinetic energy to the bodies in orbit around it. Any relation between the sun and the spin of each body would be thermal in nature, and even that is nearly negligible.
Planetary spin is a product of angular momentum left over from a planet's formation, any collisions with other bodies, and gravitational interaction with the sun and each planets' satellites. This is a well-understood field. You are doing nothing but attempting to inflate your bogus "huge solar wind in the distant past" theory.
Well at least this time you have given me something to sink my teeth into.
"the energy is primarily transmitted in the form of electromagnetic energy, not charged particles" yes that is true, but way out at Neptune the energy balance is different I would say. Radiant energy is way down and the Solar wind is slow enough to pick up particles from. Even the Earth gets particles from the Solar Wind so I don't see what the problem is.
"It's thermal energy transfer, not kinetic energy transfer." We have been discussing this on another thread, and thermal energy is kinetic energy when it comes down to single atoms. OK it is random movements in the end but each atom is accelerated when it interacts. It definitely doesn't decelerate.
"The sun transmits negligible kinetic energy to the bodies in orbit around it. Any relation between the sun and the spin of each body would be thermal in nature, and even that is nearly negligible." That is a basis of this hypothesis, you might disagree but let us explore the possibility. I think you are wrong.
"Planetary spin is a product of angular momentum left over from a planet's formation, any collisions with other bodies, and gravitational interaction with the sun and each planets' satellites." I accept that all of these were important at the beginning but in the billions of years since then the wind on the planets have made the difference between a slow spinner and a rapid one.
OK even Venus spinning the wrong way might be accountable due to windage effects too.
That is correct, but the energy is primarily transmitted in the form of electromagnetic energy, not charged particles.
It's thermal energy transfer, not kinetic energy transfer.
The sun transmits negligible kinetic energy to the bodies in orbit around it. Any relation between the sun and the spin of each body would be thermal in nature, and even that is nearly negligible.
Planetary spin is a product of angular momentum left over from a planet's formation, any collisions with other bodies, and gravitational interaction with the sun and each planets' satellites. This is a well-understood field. You are doing nothing but attempting to inflate your bogus "huge solar wind in the distant past" theory.
Well at least this time you have given me something to sink my teeth into.
"the energy is primarily transmitted in the form of electromagnetic energy, not charged particles" yes that is true, but way out at Neptune the energy balance is different I would say. Radiant energy is way down and the Solar wind is slow enough to pick up particles from. Even the Earth gets particles from the Solar Wind so I don't see what the problem is.
"It's thermal energy transfer, not kinetic energy transfer." We have been discussing this on another thread, and thermal energy is kinetic energy when it comes down to single atoms. OK it is random movements in the end but each atom is accelerated when it interacts. It definitely doesn't decelerate.
"The sun transmits negligible kinetic energy to the bodies in orbit around it. Any relation between the sun and the spin of each body would be thermal in nature, and even that is nearly negligible." That is a basis of this hypothesis, you might disagree but let us explore the possibility. I think you are wrong.
"Planetary spin is a product of angular momentum left over from a planet's formation, any collisions with other bodies, and gravitational interaction with the sun and each planets' satellites." I accept that all of these were important at the beginning but in the billions of years since then the wind on the planets have made the difference between a slow spinner and a rapid one.
OK even Venus spinning the wrong way might be accountable due to windage effects too.
Just confirming the "day" length of Pluto Wikipedia put it at
I.e 6.4 days to spin once. - quite slow, little atmosphere and little wind.
QUOTE
Sidereal rotation
period −6.387 230 day
6 d 9 h 17 m 36 s
period −6.387 230 day
6 d 9 h 17 m 36 s
I.e 6.4 days to spin once. - quite slow, little atmosphere and little wind.
this maybe the basis of the article I read some time back http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...10rotation.html
Maybe the Earth has just too little atmosphere left now for the wind patterns to cause a significant long term change.
QUOTE
CHANGES IN THE EARTH'S ROTATION ARE IN THE WIND
....
"The fact that the two vastly different systems, namely the meteorological and the astronomical, are in good agreement according to the conservation of angular momentum gives us assurance that both these types of measurements must be accurate. It shows, moreover, that changes in climate signals can have global implications on Earth’s overall rotation."
....
"The fact that the two vastly different systems, namely the meteorological and the astronomical, are in good agreement according to the conservation of angular momentum gives us assurance that both these types of measurements must be accurate. It shows, moreover, that changes in climate signals can have global implications on Earth’s overall rotation."
Maybe the Earth has just too little atmosphere left now for the wind patterns to cause a significant long term change.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 6 2012, 04:21 PM)
"the energy is primarily transmitted in the form of electromagnetic energy, not charged particles" yes that is true, but way out at Neptune the energy balance is different I would say. Radiant energy is way down and the Solar wind is slow enough to pick up particles from.
What? That makes even less sense than your earlier assertion. Particles don't just appear out of nowhere. Solar wind falls off even faster than visible light, and by the time you get out to Neptune, both are extremely weak.
True, but you're asking for movement in a single direction on a planetary scale. That argument isn't going to cut it.
True, but you're asking for movement in a single direction on a planetary scale. That argument isn't going to cut it.
That is a basis of this hypothesis, you might disagree but let us explore the possibility. I think you are wrong.
The facts speak louder than what you "think."
Your sense of mass scale is so off it's laughable.
Gravity-driven tidal forces are still the primary regulator of planetary spin in the solar system. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth because of this action.
What? That makes even less sense than your earlier assertion. Particles don't just appear out of nowhere. Solar wind falls off even faster than visible light, and by the time you get out to Neptune, both are extremely weak.
QUOTE
We have been discussing this on another thread, and thermal energy is kinetic energy when it comes down to single atoms. OK it is random movements in the end but each atom is accelerated when it interacts. It definitely doesn't decelerate.
True, but you're asking for movement in a single direction on a planetary scale. That argument isn't going to cut it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We have been discussing this on another thread, and thermal energy is kinetic energy when it comes down to single atoms. OK it is random movements in the end but each atom is accelerated when it interacts. It definitely doesn't decelerate. |
True, but you're asking for movement in a single direction on a planetary scale. That argument isn't going to cut it.
That is a basis of this hypothesis, you might disagree but let us explore the possibility. I think you are wrong.
The facts speak louder than what you "think."
QUOTE
I accept that all of these were important at the beginning but in the billions of years since then the wind on the planets have made the difference between a slow spinner and a rapid one.
OK even Venus spinning the wrong way might be accountable due to windage effects too.
OK even Venus spinning the wrong way might be accountable due to windage effects too.
Your sense of mass scale is so off it's laughable.
Gravity-driven tidal forces are still the primary regulator of planetary spin in the solar system. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth because of this action.
Here's an experiment for you. Get a basketball and fix a string to it so that you can suspend it from the ceiling. Get a fan and place it at the opposite end of the room, and point it directly at the basketball. Turn the fan on and watch the basketball.
Do you think it will:
1) Spin clockwise
2) Spin counterclockwise
3) Spin erratically, switching directions like a pendulum
4) Not spin at all
Do you think it will:
1) Spin clockwise
2) Spin counterclockwise
3) Spin erratically, switching directions like a pendulum
4) Not spin at all
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 7 2012, 02:46 AM)
What? That makes even less sense than your earlier assertion. Particles don't just appear out of nowhere. Solar wind falls off even faster than visible light, and by the time you get out to Neptune, both are extremely weak.
True, but you're asking for movement in a single direction on a planetary scale. That argument isn't going to cut it.
The facts speak louder than what you "think."
Your sense of mass scale is so off it's laughable.
Gravity-driven tidal forces are still the primary regulator of planetary spin in the solar system. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth because of this action.
This a very important discussion and any points you raise will be looked into.
First point you raise is "Particles don't just appear out of nowhere. Solar wind falls off even faster than visible light, and by the time you get out to Neptune, both are extremely weak." OK I will look this up and let you know what happens to the ultimate mass of the particles in the Solar Wind.
Second point The wind is a "movement in a single direction on a planetary scale".
Yes I think there is clear evidence of this on Venus, Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus.
The winds on these planets are global in nature with a net motion prograde to the rotation. Earth seemed to be a bit more difficult to determine.
Your third point "Gravity-driven tidal forces are still the primary regulator of planetary spin in the solar system. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth because of this action." That is a good point and maybe with the Earth - Moon system the angular momentum of the Earth being transferred to the Moon destroys the effectiveness of the winds. The moon without an atmosphere is more likely to become tidally locked as it has. It would be quite a study to know if the other planets are having this same effect on their moons. Some I understand are being drawn toward their planet rather than promoted.
True, but you're asking for movement in a single direction on a planetary scale. That argument isn't going to cut it.
The facts speak louder than what you "think."
Your sense of mass scale is so off it's laughable.
Gravity-driven tidal forces are still the primary regulator of planetary spin in the solar system. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth because of this action.
This a very important discussion and any points you raise will be looked into.
First point you raise is "Particles don't just appear out of nowhere. Solar wind falls off even faster than visible light, and by the time you get out to Neptune, both are extremely weak." OK I will look this up and let you know what happens to the ultimate mass of the particles in the Solar Wind.
Second point The wind is a "movement in a single direction on a planetary scale".
Yes I think there is clear evidence of this on Venus, Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus.
The winds on these planets are global in nature with a net motion prograde to the rotation. Earth seemed to be a bit more difficult to determine.
Your third point "Gravity-driven tidal forces are still the primary regulator of planetary spin in the solar system. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth because of this action." That is a good point and maybe with the Earth - Moon system the angular momentum of the Earth being transferred to the Moon destroys the effectiveness of the winds. The moon without an atmosphere is more likely to become tidally locked as it has. It would be quite a study to know if the other planets are having this same effect on their moons. Some I understand are being drawn toward their planet rather than promoted.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 7 2012, 02:55 AM)
Here's an experiment for you. Get a basketball and fix a string to it so that you can suspend it from the ceiling. Get a fan and place it at the opposite end of the room, and point it directly at the basketball. Turn the fan on and watch the basketball.
Do you think it will:
1) Spin clockwise
2) Spin counterclockwise
3) Spin erratically, switching directions like a pendulum
4) Not spin at all
If a ball is merely a heavier version of a balloon I will say the answer is 3.
I don't see the analogy or the point to this question. What was the point?
Do you think it will:
1) Spin clockwise
2) Spin counterclockwise
3) Spin erratically, switching directions like a pendulum
4) Not spin at all
If a ball is merely a heavier version of a balloon I will say the answer is 3.
I don't see the analogy or the point to this question. What was the point?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 6 2012, 11:34 PM)
If a ball is merely a heavier version of a balloon I will say the answer is 3.
I don't see the analogy or the point to this question. What was the point?
Wind doesn't cause spin.
I don't see the analogy or the point to this question. What was the point?
Wind doesn't cause spin.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 7 2012, 03:39 AM)
Wind doesn't cause spin.
I thought you might be trying to show the solar wind passing near the Earth doesn't cause the Earth to spin.
Now the Earth is a magnet and the Solar Wind is full of charged particles which could represent a current. Does a current passing near a magnet create a torque?
But that is another study.
I thought you might be trying to show the solar wind passing near the Earth doesn't cause the Earth to spin.
Now the Earth is a magnet and the Solar Wind is full of charged particles which could represent a current. Does a current passing near a magnet create a torque?
But that is another study.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 6 2012, 11:52 PM)
I thought you might be trying to show the solar wind passing near the Earth doesn't cause the Earth to spin.
Now the Earth is a magnet and the Solar Wind is full of charged particles which could represent a current. Does a current passing near a magnet create a torque?
But that is another study.
For that to occur, there would have to be an imbalance in the distribution of particles, favoring the leading or receding side of the Earth. Since there isn't, there is no net force on the Earth's rotation.
Now the Earth is a magnet and the Solar Wind is full of charged particles which could represent a current. Does a current passing near a magnet create a torque?
But that is another study.
For that to occur, there would have to be an imbalance in the distribution of particles, favoring the leading or receding side of the Earth. Since there isn't, there is no net force on the Earth's rotation.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 03:52 AM)
I thought you might be trying to show the solar wind passing near the Earth doesn't cause the Earth to spin.
Now the Earth is a magnet and the Solar Wind is full of charged particles which could represent a current. Does a current passing near a magnet create a torque?
But that is another study.
I don't understand all the physics of this but read this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/06/ve...her_explosions/
Venus BELCHES solar wind in shock weather explosion
ESA probe sniffs exposed planet's regurgitation trauma
You get the feeling we are only beginning to know much about the solar wind and it effects on planets.
Now the Earth is a magnet and the Solar Wind is full of charged particles which could represent a current. Does a current passing near a magnet create a torque?
But that is another study.
I don't understand all the physics of this but read this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/06/ve...her_explosions/
QUOTE
Venus BELCHES solar wind in shock weather explosion
ESA probe sniffs exposed planet's regurgitation trauma
You get the feeling we are only beginning to know much about the solar wind and it effects on planets.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 12:43 AM)
I don't understand all the physics of this but read this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/06/ve...her_explosions/
You get the feeling we are only beginning to know much about the solar wind and it effects on planets.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this has any effect on Venus's rate of rotation. That's like saying that you can roll a boulder by blowing on it. The force required isn't even in the same order of magnitude.
You get the feeling we are only beginning to know much about the solar wind and it effects on planets.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this has any effect on Venus's rate of rotation. That's like saying that you can roll a boulder by blowing on it. The force required isn't even in the same order of magnitude.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 7 2012, 04:56 AM)
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this has any effect on Venus' rate of rotation. That's like saying that you can roll a boulder by blowing on it. The force required isn't even in the same order of magnitude.
Note I never said Venus was affected in that way with the Solar Wind. It was Uranus that I thought would be the planet that had a special relationship with the solar wind, but as I said it was a thought and not based on evidence.
I had some concept that the planet Uranus could be behaving as a large armature generating spin from taking in particles from the Solar Wind. It was a long shot but one worth the wait to see if it could be true,
Note I never said Venus was affected in that way with the Solar Wind. It was Uranus that I thought would be the planet that had a special relationship with the solar wind, but as I said it was a thought and not based on evidence.
I had some concept that the planet Uranus could be behaving as a large armature generating spin from taking in particles from the Solar Wind. It was a long shot but one worth the wait to see if it could be true,
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 02:01 AM)
Note I never said Venus was affected in that way with the Solar Wind. It was Uranus that I thought would be the planet that had a special relationship with the solar wind, but as I said it was a thought and not based on evidence.
I had some concept that the planet Uranus could be behaving as a large armature generating spin from taking in particles from the Solar Wind. It was a long shot but one worth the wait to see if it could be true,
So you're shooting crap ideas at the wall to see what sticks? A third-grader could tell you that you're going about this in the wrong way.
I had some concept that the planet Uranus could be behaving as a large armature generating spin from taking in particles from the Solar Wind. It was a long shot but one worth the wait to see if it could be true,
So you're shooting crap ideas at the wall to see what sticks? A third-grader could tell you that you're going about this in the wrong way.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 7 2012, 12:25 PM)
So you're shooting crap ideas at the wall to see what sticks? A third-grader could tell you that you're going about this in the wrong way.
I don't know if that is really true. In my scientific method I think up some situation that might be plausible and then search for proof. You can't but try and guess what the outcome might be. OK but you must be able to admit you are wrong at times too.
I don't know if that is really true. In my scientific method I think up some situation that might be plausible and then search for proof. You can't but try and guess what the outcome might be. OK but you must be able to admit you are wrong at times too.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 01:06 PM)
I don't know if that is really true. In my scientific method I think up some situation that might be plausible and then search for proof. You can't but try and guess what the outcome might be.
I like how you say "my scientific method" because you know that it doesn't resemble the real scientific method.
Here's a refresher:
First, you have to study your subject of choice and attempt to identify areas where current scientific theories and explanations are not adequate to explain the facts that you have observed. This is by far the most difficult part, as it requires extensive study and the expertise to recognize eligible situations.
Second, you formulate a hypothesis. This hypothesis should account for all the facts known so far, and make predictions for what you should find as you continue studying and doing experiments.
Through your study, if you find that your hypothesis continues to explain phenomena, you may call it a "theory."
On the other hand, what you've done is create a problem that doesn't exist (life on Earth), ignore facts, invent more problems and theories that your first theory relies upon, and continue to fumble your way through with no deeper understanding at all. This is all really childish if you ask me.
I like how you say "my scientific method" because you know that it doesn't resemble the real scientific method.
Here's a refresher:
First, you have to study your subject of choice and attempt to identify areas where current scientific theories and explanations are not adequate to explain the facts that you have observed. This is by far the most difficult part, as it requires extensive study and the expertise to recognize eligible situations.
Second, you formulate a hypothesis. This hypothesis should account for all the facts known so far, and make predictions for what you should find as you continue studying and doing experiments.
Through your study, if you find that your hypothesis continues to explain phenomena, you may call it a "theory."
On the other hand, what you've done is create a problem that doesn't exist (life on Earth), ignore facts, invent more problems and theories that your first theory relies upon, and continue to fumble your way through with no deeper understanding at all. This is all really childish if you ask me.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 7 2012, 06:20 PM)
I like how you say "my scientific method" because you know that it doesn't resemble the real scientific method.
Here's a refresher:
First, you have to study your subject of choice and attempt to identify areas where current scientific theories and explanations are not adequate to explain the facts that you have observed. This is by far the most difficult part, as it requires extensive study and the expertise to recognize eligible situations.
Second, you formulate a hypothesis. This hypothesis should account for all the facts known so far, and make predictions for what you should find as you continue studying and doing experiments.
Through your study, if you find that your hypothesis continues to explain phenomena, you may call it a "theory."
On the other hand, what you've done is create a problem that doesn't exist (life on Earth), ignore facts, invent more problems and theories that your first theory relies upon, and continue to fumble your way through with no deeper understanding at all. This is all really childish if you ask me.
I don't view it as childish, for in fact I have taken this science extremely serious.
I don't like the theories where planets are changing orbits and colliding so I am looking for alternative explanations.
So if a planet like the Earth or Uranus is tilted how can that happen without having to resort to massive impact theories?
So that is why I thought Uranus might represent a planet formed from previously ionized material and somehow as it comes together creates this wind which has ultimately rotated the planet. But the wind effect is there right from the time the first few particles aggregate in the planet building process
Here's a refresher:
First, you have to study your subject of choice and attempt to identify areas where current scientific theories and explanations are not adequate to explain the facts that you have observed. This is by far the most difficult part, as it requires extensive study and the expertise to recognize eligible situations.
Second, you formulate a hypothesis. This hypothesis should account for all the facts known so far, and make predictions for what you should find as you continue studying and doing experiments.
Through your study, if you find that your hypothesis continues to explain phenomena, you may call it a "theory."
On the other hand, what you've done is create a problem that doesn't exist (life on Earth), ignore facts, invent more problems and theories that your first theory relies upon, and continue to fumble your way through with no deeper understanding at all. This is all really childish if you ask me.
I don't view it as childish, for in fact I have taken this science extremely serious.
I don't like the theories where planets are changing orbits and colliding so I am looking for alternative explanations.
So if a planet like the Earth or Uranus is tilted how can that happen without having to resort to massive impact theories?
So that is why I thought Uranus might represent a planet formed from previously ionized material and somehow as it comes together creates this wind which has ultimately rotated the planet. But the wind effect is there right from the time the first few particles aggregate in the planet building process
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 02:44 PM)
I don't view it as childish, for in fact I have taken this science extremely serious.
As seriously as a child can.
I'm sorry, but "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to reject a theory. This is an example of childishness.
I'm sorry, but "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to reject a theory. This is an example of childishness.
So if a planet like the Earth or Uranus is tilted how can that happen without having to resort to massive impact theories?
Off you go into la-la land.
We're off to see the wizard! The wonderful wizard of Oz!
As seriously as a child can.
QUOTE
I don't like the theories where planets are changing orbits and colliding so I am looking for alternative explanations.
I'm sorry, but "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to reject a theory. This is an example of childishness.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't like the theories where planets are changing orbits and colliding so I am looking for alternative explanations. |
I'm sorry, but "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to reject a theory. This is an example of childishness.
So if a planet like the Earth or Uranus is tilted how can that happen without having to resort to massive impact theories?
Off you go into la-la land.
QUOTE
So that is why I thought Uranus might represent a planet formed from previously ionized material and somehow as it comes together creates this wind which has ultimately rotated the planet. But the wind effect is there right from the time the first few particles aggregate in the planet building process
We're off to see the wizard! The wonderful wizard of Oz!
What is this about - Alien spacecraft filmed on Mercury by NASA????
Awesome NASA Video Captures What Looks Like an Alien Spaceship (Updated)
http://gizmodo.com/5865808/has-nasas-satel...ct-near-mercury
Awesome NASA Video Captures What Looks Like an Alien Spaceship (Updated)
http://gizmodo.com/5865808/has-nasas-satel...ct-near-mercury
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 03:09 PM)
What is this about - Alien spacecraft filmed on Mercury by NASA????
Awesome NASA Video Captures What Looks Like an Alien Spaceship (Updated)
http://gizmodo.com/5865808/has-nasas-satel...ct-near-mercury
Yes, because aliens are the most logical explanation...
Awesome NASA Video Captures What Looks Like an Alien Spaceship (Updated)
http://gizmodo.com/5865808/has-nasas-satel...ct-near-mercury
Yes, because aliens are the most logical explanation...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 7 2012, 04:56 AM)
.... That's like saying that you can roll a boulder by blowing on it. The force required isn't even in the same order of magnitude.
Where the body is a planet suspended frictionless in space any torque or force applied will result in albeit an infinitesimally small acceleration.
So it isn't like a rock on a surface in which case you would have to overcome friction first.
There is no reason to doubt that if the wind on a planet is powered by the Sun or the Solar Wind, and depending on the velocity of the wind, its density and the friction between the wind and land or liquid surface, with time the planet's rotation will be one way or the other affected and most likely enhanced by the wind.
Where the body is a planet suspended frictionless in space any torque or force applied will result in albeit an infinitesimally small acceleration.
So it isn't like a rock on a surface in which case you would have to overcome friction first.
There is no reason to doubt that if the wind on a planet is powered by the Sun or the Solar Wind, and depending on the velocity of the wind, its density and the friction between the wind and land or liquid surface, with time the planet's rotation will be one way or the other affected and most likely enhanced by the wind.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 08:39 PM)
Where the body is a planet suspended frictionless in space any torque or force applied will result in albeit an infinitesimally small acceleration.
So it isn't like a rock on a surface in which case you would have to overcome friction first.
There is no reason to doubt that if the wind on a planet is powered by the Sun or the Solar Wind, and depending on the velocity of the wind, its density and the friction between the wind and land or liquid surface, with time the planet's rotation will be one way or the other affected and most likely enhanced by the wind.
Either you aren't familiar with the concept of inertia, or you vastly overestimate the force of solar wind.
Wind is caused by movement of bodies of warm and cool gas. The sun warms gas near the surface, which rises. The rising air displaces the air above it, and pulls in air behind it, causing wind. Charged particles from the sun are completely blocked by the Earth's magnetosphere and are directed toward the poles, where you see the northern lights. Jupiter has an even larger magnetosphere, encompassing several of its own satellites.
Charged particles from the sun do not cause wind.
(edit)
I think you're misunderstanding the definition of the term "ablation."
Solar wind doesn't move matter via a kinetic collision, it does it by reacting with the body's matter at a chemical level, ionizing and vaporizing it, which can cause that matter to rise to a higher orbit.
So it isn't like a rock on a surface in which case you would have to overcome friction first.
There is no reason to doubt that if the wind on a planet is powered by the Sun or the Solar Wind, and depending on the velocity of the wind, its density and the friction between the wind and land or liquid surface, with time the planet's rotation will be one way or the other affected and most likely enhanced by the wind.
Either you aren't familiar with the concept of inertia, or you vastly overestimate the force of solar wind.
Wind is caused by movement of bodies of warm and cool gas. The sun warms gas near the surface, which rises. The rising air displaces the air above it, and pulls in air behind it, causing wind. Charged particles from the sun are completely blocked by the Earth's magnetosphere and are directed toward the poles, where you see the northern lights. Jupiter has an even larger magnetosphere, encompassing several of its own satellites.
Charged particles from the sun do not cause wind.
(edit)
I think you're misunderstanding the definition of the term "ablation."
Solar wind doesn't move matter via a kinetic collision, it does it by reacting with the body's matter at a chemical level, ionizing and vaporizing it, which can cause that matter to rise to a higher orbit.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 12:51 AM)
Either you aren't familiar with the concept of inertia, or you vastly overestimate the force of solar wind.
Wind is caused by movement of bodies of warm and cool gas. The sun warms gas near the surface, which rises. The rising air displaces the air above it, and pulls in air behind it, causing wind. Charged particles from the sun are completely blocked by the Earth's magnetosphere and are directed toward the poles, where you see the northern lights. Jupiter has an even larger magnetosphere, encompassing several of its own satellites.
Charged particles from the sun do not cause wind.
(edit)
I think you're misunderstanding the definition of the term "ablation."
Solar wind doesn't move matter via a kinetic collision, it does it by reacting with the body's matter at a chemical level, ionizing and vaporizing it, which can cause that matter to rise to a higher orbit.
Wind of the type that occur on Venus and Jupiter will definitely enhance the planet's rotation.
On Earth there is very little atmosphere left and the wind is not as effective but as I showed in the link it has been measured.
The energy in the wind is transferred to the land the land accelerates a little. This is standard science. OK the rotation of the planet might only speed up by a microsecond/year but over billions of years that adds up.
over 4.5 Billion years that would shorten the day by 1.25 hours
Wind is caused by movement of bodies of warm and cool gas. The sun warms gas near the surface, which rises. The rising air displaces the air above it, and pulls in air behind it, causing wind. Charged particles from the sun are completely blocked by the Earth's magnetosphere and are directed toward the poles, where you see the northern lights. Jupiter has an even larger magnetosphere, encompassing several of its own satellites.
Charged particles from the sun do not cause wind.
(edit)
I think you're misunderstanding the definition of the term "ablation."
Solar wind doesn't move matter via a kinetic collision, it does it by reacting with the body's matter at a chemical level, ionizing and vaporizing it, which can cause that matter to rise to a higher orbit.
Wind of the type that occur on Venus and Jupiter will definitely enhance the planet's rotation.
On Earth there is very little atmosphere left and the wind is not as effective but as I showed in the link it has been measured.
The energy in the wind is transferred to the land the land accelerates a little. This is standard science. OK the rotation of the planet might only speed up by a microsecond/year but over billions of years that adds up.
over 4.5 Billion years that would shorten the day by 1.25 hours
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 09:12 PM)
Wind of the type that occur on Venus and Jupiter will definitely enhance the planet's rotation.
This is complete BS.
Your "gas giant Earth" theory is still as worthless as the day you shat it out of your brain.
Your "gas giant Earth" theory is still as worthless as the day you shat it out of your brain.
The energy in the wind is transferred to the land the land accelerates a little. This is standard science. OK the rotation of the planet might only speed up by a microsecond/year but over billions of years that adds up.
Solar wind does not affect atmospheric wind. You have no evidence or even a mechanism for how this is supposed to happen. All you're going on is "wind = wind" which completely misunderstands the nature of solar wind. Even IF solar wind could transfer directional force to atmospheric wind, there is no reason why that force would favor clockwise rotation vs counterclockwise rotation.
You are so desperate to keep your stupid theory from falling apart that you're not even using your brain.
This is complete BS.
QUOTE
On Earth there is very little atmosphere left and the wind is not as effective but as I showed in the link it has been measured.
Your "gas giant Earth" theory is still as worthless as the day you shat it out of your brain.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| On Earth there is very little atmosphere left and the wind is not as effective but as I showed in the link it has been measured. |
Your "gas giant Earth" theory is still as worthless as the day you shat it out of your brain.
The energy in the wind is transferred to the land the land accelerates a little. This is standard science. OK the rotation of the planet might only speed up by a microsecond/year but over billions of years that adds up.
Solar wind does not affect atmospheric wind. You have no evidence or even a mechanism for how this is supposed to happen. All you're going on is "wind = wind" which completely misunderstands the nature of solar wind. Even IF solar wind could transfer directional force to atmospheric wind, there is no reason why that force would favor clockwise rotation vs counterclockwise rotation.
You are so desperate to keep your stupid theory from falling apart that you're not even using your brain.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 01:26 AM)
This is complete BS.
Your "gas giant Earth" theory is still as worthless as the day you shat it out of your brain.
Solar wind does not affect atmospheric wind. You have no evidence or even a mechanism for how this is supposed to happen. All you're going on is "wind = wind" which completely misunderstands the nature of solar wind. Even IF solar wind could transfer directional force to atmospheric wind, there is no reason why that force would favor clockwise rotation vs counterclockwise rotation.
You are so desperate to keep your stupid theory from falling apart that you're not even using your brain.
On the Earth the light shines on the ground so the atmosphere is less affected than on Jupiter and Venus which both have thick atmospheres. The light from the Sun does not hit the the ground and is either absorbed or reflected. Due to conservation of energy and momentum gas molecules moving in the opposite direction to the light rays will not absorb light but just reflect it. On the opposite side of the planet where the molecules are on the whole moving with the light rays they can be absorbed. The photon energy causes the molecule to accelerate and will have more kinetic energy.
So on these gas covered planets the wind rotates faster than the planet (prograde) and the energy in the wind is gradually making the planet rotate faster.
This is nothing to do with solar wind but just EM radiation (IR, light, UV) from the Sun.
Your "gas giant Earth" theory is still as worthless as the day you shat it out of your brain.
Solar wind does not affect atmospheric wind. You have no evidence or even a mechanism for how this is supposed to happen. All you're going on is "wind = wind" which completely misunderstands the nature of solar wind. Even IF solar wind could transfer directional force to atmospheric wind, there is no reason why that force would favor clockwise rotation vs counterclockwise rotation.
You are so desperate to keep your stupid theory from falling apart that you're not even using your brain.
On the Earth the light shines on the ground so the atmosphere is less affected than on Jupiter and Venus which both have thick atmospheres. The light from the Sun does not hit the the ground and is either absorbed or reflected. Due to conservation of energy and momentum gas molecules moving in the opposite direction to the light rays will not absorb light but just reflect it. On the opposite side of the planet where the molecules are on the whole moving with the light rays they can be absorbed. The photon energy causes the molecule to accelerate and will have more kinetic energy.
So on these gas covered planets the wind rotates faster than the planet (prograde) and the energy in the wind is gradually making the planet rotate faster.
This is nothing to do with solar wind but just EM radiation (IR, light, UV) from the Sun.
The latest nonsense from Robittybitty.
Every misunderstood fact that you stumble across you try to shoehorn into your silliness.
Every misunderstood fact that you stumble across you try to shoehorn into your silliness.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 09:41 PM)
Due to conservation of energy and momentum gas molecules moving in the opposite direction to the light rays will not absorb light but just reflect it. On the opposite side of the planet where the molecules are on the whole moving with the light rays they can be absorbed. The photon energy causes the molecule to accelerate and will have more kinetic energy.
That is not even remotely true. Relative velocity has absolutely nothing to do with whether a photon is reflected or absorbed. This is like reading a third-grade science project from a student who didn't do his homework.
That is not even remotely true. Relative velocity has absolutely nothing to do with whether a photon is reflected or absorbed. This is like reading a third-grade science project from a student who didn't do his homework.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 8 2012, 02:23 AM)
The latest nonsense from Robittybitty.
Every misunderstood fact that you stumble across you try to shoehorn into your silliness.
There is a study available on the Internet. I'm not sure how good it is but I'll give you a chance to look at it.
www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers.../4029
An Introduction to Studies of the Effect of Solar Wind and CNO
Cycles on the Retrograde Rotation of Venus
2. Retrograde rotation of a planet
We will show that the dense gas atmosphere of Venus, given the direction of the solar
wind, carries particle currents that can change the direction of rotation. The geophysical
historical events show that our earth's north pole has changed several times. The inner current of
the magnetic field of earth, provides ideal conditions for life. Without the Van Allen belt, we
could not survive because of the dangers of solar wind isotopes, particles and rays.
This author tries to show it is the Solar Wind that has changed the rotation of Venus. Look I'm not qualified to analyse this paper, I'm sorry.
Every misunderstood fact that you stumble across you try to shoehorn into your silliness.
There is a study available on the Internet. I'm not sure how good it is but I'll give you a chance to look at it.
www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers.../4029
QUOTE
An Introduction to Studies of the Effect of Solar Wind and CNO
Cycles on the Retrograde Rotation of Venus
2. Retrograde rotation of a planet
We will show that the dense gas atmosphere of Venus, given the direction of the solar
wind, carries particle currents that can change the direction of rotation. The geophysical
historical events show that our earth's north pole has changed several times. The inner current of
the magnetic field of earth, provides ideal conditions for life. Without the Van Allen belt, we
could not survive because of the dangers of solar wind isotopes, particles and rays.
This author tries to show it is the Solar Wind that has changed the rotation of Venus. Look I'm not qualified to analyse this paper, I'm sorry.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 02:55 AM)
That is not even remotely true. Relative velocity has absolutely nothing to do with whether a photon is reflected or absorbed. This is like reading a third-grade science project from a student who didn't do his homework.
Isn’t this the basis of radiant pressure? Radiant pressure does not draw molecules toward the direction of the radiation does it. So it is the relative motion of the particles that is important.
Can you prove to me that all molecules absorb the radiation regardless of their direction?
I know it is mind boggling to think that radiation going at the speed of light can have any way of telling which way a molecule is heading. If it did absorb it would immediately release a photon at the same time. Conservation of energy and momentum is vital in this situation.
Can you prove to me that all molecules absorb the radiation regardless of their direction?
Isn’t this the basis of radiant pressure? Radiant pressure does not draw molecules toward the direction of the radiation does it. So it is the relative motion of the particles that is important.
Can you prove to me that all molecules absorb the radiation regardless of their direction?
I know it is mind boggling to think that radiation going at the speed of light can have any way of telling which way a molecule is heading. If it did absorb it would immediately release a photon at the same time. Conservation of energy and momentum is vital in this situation.
Can you prove to me that all molecules absorb the radiation regardless of their direction?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 11:10 PM)
There is a study available on the Internet. I'm not sure how good it is but I'll give you a chance to look at it.
www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers.../4029
That site appears to be a crackpot journal. I can't find any source verifying its legitimacy, or any mention of it at all from legitimate scientific sites.
www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers.../4029
That site appears to be a crackpot journal. I can't find any source verifying its legitimacy, or any mention of it at all from legitimate scientific sites.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 7 2012, 11:20 PM)
Isn’t this the basis of radiant pressure? Radiant pressure does not draw molecules toward the direction of the radiation does it. So it is the relative motion of the particles that is important.
Radiant pressure occurs, but the pressure is double when the photon is reflected than when it is absorbed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Atoms absorb or reflect photons based on their composition and the frequency of the photon. That's why different compounds are different colors.
If what you said was true, objects moving toward you would be a different color than the same object moving away from you. Reflected photons are the ones you see, while materials that absorb photons reflect little light back to your eye.
Atoms absorb or reflect photons based on their composition and the frequency of the photon. That's why different compounds are different colors.
If what you said was true, objects moving toward you would be a different color than the same object moving away from you. Reflected photons are the ones you see, while materials that absorb photons reflect little light back to your eye.
I know it is mind boggling to think that radiation going at the speed of light can have any way of telling which way a molecule is heading. If it did absorb it would immediately release a photon at the same time. Conservation of energy and momentum is vital in this situation.
It's simply not true.
I think my example above has done just that.
Radiant pressure occurs, but the pressure is double when the photon is reflected than when it is absorbed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
QUOTE
Can you prove to me that all molecules absorb the radiation regardless of their direction?
Atoms absorb or reflect photons based on their composition and the frequency of the photon. That's why different compounds are different colors.
If what you said was true, objects moving toward you would be a different color than the same object moving away from you. Reflected photons are the ones you see, while materials that absorb photons reflect little light back to your eye.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can you prove to me that all molecules absorb the radiation regardless of their direction? |
Atoms absorb or reflect photons based on their composition and the frequency of the photon. That's why different compounds are different colors.
If what you said was true, objects moving toward you would be a different color than the same object moving away from you. Reflected photons are the ones you see, while materials that absorb photons reflect little light back to your eye.
I know it is mind boggling to think that radiation going at the speed of light can have any way of telling which way a molecule is heading. If it did absorb it would immediately release a photon at the same time. Conservation of energy and momentum is vital in this situation.
It's simply not true.
QUOTE
Can you prove to me that all molecules absorb the radiation regardless of their direction?
I think my example above has done just that.
The same topic has been discussed on PhysicsForums http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=455193
"Changing a planets rotation speed"
Might be worth a read.
"Changing a planets rotation speed"
Might be worth a read.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 03:30 AM)
Radiant pressure occurs, but the pressure is double when the photon is reflected than when it is absorbed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Atoms absorb or reflect photons based on their composition and the frequency of the photon. That's why different compounds are different colors.
If what you said was true, objects moving toward you would be a different color than the same object moving away from you. Reflected photons are the ones you see, while materials that absorb photons reflect little light back to your eye.
It's simply not true.
I think my example above has done just that.
Just looking at that link the only sentence which goes anywhere near to what happens on a molecular level was this:
Now looking at a single molecule or droplets as you get in the atmosphere to conserve momentum the combination must travel in the same direction (as explain in the article) The Energy (E = PC) Momentum times speed of light. If the momentum added was going to slow the molecule the momentum could not be conserved and reflection occurs.
OK the pressure from a 100% reflection would be twice that of an absorption. But what are the chances of the reflection being 100%? It ids more than likely it is diverted (like refracted, glancing pass) and before you know it after several glances this way that way the radiation is absorbed as general non directional heating of the atmosphere. But on the other side the momentum is more directional so there develops a wind. It doesn't take much study to understand this. You tell me what makes the wind on Venus roar around the planet as it does?
Look it would be interesting to really see if objects change colour at high speed. In fact I think they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Atoms absorb or reflect photons based on their composition and the frequency of the photon. That's why different compounds are different colors.
If what you said was true, objects moving toward you would be a different color than the same object moving away from you. Reflected photons are the ones you see, while materials that absorb photons reflect little light back to your eye.
It's simply not true.
I think my example above has done just that.
Just looking at that link the only sentence which goes anywhere near to what happens on a molecular level was this:
QUOTE
"Because the ratio of surface area to volume (and thus mass) increases with decreasing particle size, dusty (micrometre-size) particles are susceptible to radiation pressure even in the outer solar system. For example, the evolution of the outer rings of Saturn is significantly influenced by radiation pressure.
Now looking at a single molecule or droplets as you get in the atmosphere to conserve momentum the combination must travel in the same direction (as explain in the article) The Energy (E = PC) Momentum times speed of light. If the momentum added was going to slow the molecule the momentum could not be conserved and reflection occurs.
OK the pressure from a 100% reflection would be twice that of an absorption. But what are the chances of the reflection being 100%? It ids more than likely it is diverted (like refracted, glancing pass) and before you know it after several glances this way that way the radiation is absorbed as general non directional heating of the atmosphere. But on the other side the momentum is more directional so there develops a wind. It doesn't take much study to understand this. You tell me what makes the wind on Venus roar around the planet as it does?
Look it would be interesting to really see if objects change colour at high speed. In fact I think they do.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 8 2012, 12:15 AM)
OK the pressure from a 100% reflection would be twice that of an absorption. But what are the chances of the reflection being 100%? It ids more than likely it is diverted (like refracted, glancing pass) and before you know it after several glances this way that way the radiation is absorbed as general non directional heating of the atmosphere. But on the other side the momentum is more directional so there develops a wind. It doesn't take much study to understand this. You tell me what makes the wind on Venus roar around the planet as it does?
You obviously have no desire to learn; you'd much rather hear yourself talk. Absorption/Reflection/Refraction depends entirely on the state the matter is in and the frequency of the photon. It has nothing to do with the atom's velocity. This is simple EM theory.
At relativistic velocities, light reflected or transmitted from an object can red or blue shift, but this is an entirely separate phenomenon.
You obviously have no desire to learn; you'd much rather hear yourself talk. Absorption/Reflection/Refraction depends entirely on the state the matter is in and the frequency of the photon. It has nothing to do with the atom's velocity. This is simple EM theory.
QUOTE
Look it would be interesting to really see if objects change colour at high speed. In fact I think they do.
At relativistic velocities, light reflected or transmitted from an object can red or blue shift, but this is an entirely separate phenomenon.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 04:38 AM)
You obviously have no desire to learn; you'd much rather hear yourself talk. Absorption/Reflection/Refraction depends entirely on the state the matter is in and the frequency of the photon. It has nothing to do with the atom's velocity. This is simple EM theory.
Well you give me the answer to the question I have asked you since you think you know it all?
Well you give me the answer to the question I have asked you since you think you know it all?
QUOTE
You tell me what makes the wind on Venus roar around the planet as it does?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 04:38 AM)
You obviously have no desire to learn; you'd much rather hear yourself talk. Absorption/Reflection/Refraction depends entirely on the state the matter is in and the frequency of the photon. It has nothing to do with the atom's velocity. This is simple EM theory.
At relativistic velocities, light reflected or transmitted from an object can red or blue shift, but this is an entirely separate phenomenon.
This may help me appreciate redshift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
At relativistic velocities, light reflected or transmitted from an object can red or blue shift, but this is an entirely separate phenomenon.
This may help me appreciate redshift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
QUOTE
Doppler effect, yellow (~575 nm wavelength) ball appears greenish (blueshift to ~565 nm wavelength) approaching observer, turns orange (redshift to ~585 nm wavelength) as it passes, and returns to yellow when motion stops. To observe such a change in color, the object would have to be traveling at approximately 5200 km/s, or about 75 times faster than the speed record for the fastest manmade space probe.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 8 2012, 05:55 AM)
Well you give me the answer to the question I have asked you since you think you know it all?
Let's see if we can sort this out?
First site:
http://starryskies.com/solar_system/venus/winds_of_venus.htm
Now that gentle breeze is a bit deceptive for the viscosity of the atmosphere changes that gentle breeze into more like standing in river.
Let's see if we can sort this out?
First site:
http://starryskies.com/solar_system/venus/winds_of_venus.htm
QUOTE
THE WINDS OF VENUS
The atmosphere of Venus is about 250 km (155 mi) thick. The atmosphere circulates in a westerly direction about every 4 days.
The windspeed in the highest cloud layer reach 355 km/hr (220 mi/hr) which is roughly equal the Earth's jet stream.
The middle cloud layer has the fastest winds. These winds can reach 724 km/hr (450 mi/hr.) That is faster than the fastest tornado on Earth!
In the lowest cloud levels, the winds blow at around 160 km/hr (100 mi./hr) Then, at the surface there is a gentle breeze of only 3.6 km/hr (2.2 mi./hr.)
The atmosphere of Venus is about 250 km (155 mi) thick. The atmosphere circulates in a westerly direction about every 4 days.
The windspeed in the highest cloud layer reach 355 km/hr (220 mi/hr) which is roughly equal the Earth's jet stream.
The middle cloud layer has the fastest winds. These winds can reach 724 km/hr (450 mi/hr.) That is faster than the fastest tornado on Earth!
In the lowest cloud levels, the winds blow at around 160 km/hr (100 mi./hr) Then, at the surface there is a gentle breeze of only 3.6 km/hr (2.2 mi./hr.)
Now that gentle breeze is a bit deceptive for the viscosity of the atmosphere changes that gentle breeze into more like standing in river.
from wikipedia on Venus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Very dense hot atmosphere. So there is a huge drag on the surface on the planet from the global wind that is passing over the entire surface.
Very dense hot atmosphere. So there is a huge drag on the surface on the planet from the global wind that is passing over the entire surface.
Winds at the surface are slow, moving at a few kilometers per hour, but because of the high density of the atmosphere at the Venusian surface, they exert a significant amount of force against obstructions, and transport dust and small stones across the surface. This alone would make it difficult for a human to walk through, even if the heat and lack of oxygen were not a problem.[43]
But the planet is barely spinning
So it is definitely in a phase a reaccelerating after some event that reversed its rotation.
More crap from the alleged mind of Ribbitybobbity.
The bolded word does not belong in that sentence. To descibe yourself as a scientist is to do violence against the english language.
More crap from the alleged mind of Ribbitybobbity.
The bolded word does not belong in that sentence. To descibe yourself as a scientist is to do violence against the english language.
English has a capital "E" I'll have you know!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
QUOTE
The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water). The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C
Very dense hot atmosphere. So there is a huge drag on the surface on the planet from the global wind that is passing over the entire surface.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water). The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C |
Very dense hot atmosphere. So there is a huge drag on the surface on the planet from the global wind that is passing over the entire surface.
Winds at the surface are slow, moving at a few kilometers per hour, but because of the high density of the atmosphere at the Venusian surface, they exert a significant amount of force against obstructions, and transport dust and small stones across the surface. This alone would make it difficult for a human to walk through, even if the heat and lack of oxygen were not a problem.[43]
But the planet is barely spinning
QUOTE
Winds at the surface are slow, moving at a few kilometers per hour, but because of the high density of the atmosphere at the Venusian surface, they exert a significant amount of force against obstructions, and transport dust and small stones across the surface. This alone would make it difficult for a human to walk through, even if the heat and lack of oxygen were not a problem.[43]
So it is definitely in a phase a reaccelerating after some event that reversed its rotation.
And not a single clue as to why the wind is roaring around the planet!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 8 2012, 05:56 AM)
And not a single clue as to why the wind is roaring around the planet!
Why is it so difficult to understand heat convection?
Why is it so difficult to understand heat convection?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 02:22 PM)
Why is it so difficult to understand heat convection?
So when you boil your porridge it just doesn't bubble but stirs itself in the pot!
That is not a correct answer. I want to see your detailed reasons and see how you you can get the entire planet's atmosphere circulating at speeds of up to 700 km/hour.
So when you boil your porridge it just doesn't bubble but stirs itself in the pot!
That is not a correct answer. I want to see your detailed reasons and see how you you can get the entire planet's atmosphere circulating at speeds of up to 700 km/hour.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 8 2012, 01:02 PM)
So when you boil your porridge it just doesn't bubble but stirs itself in the pot!
That is not a correct answer. I want to see your detailed reasons and see how you you can get the entire planet's atmosphere circulating at speeds of up to 700 km/hour.
Now you're the skeptic? Every statement you make is brimming with dishonesty.
The Earth is spinning, and the sun can only heat one side at a time. This causes temperature variations between the day and night side of the planet. Cool air contracts, warm air expands. Cool air sinks, warm air rises. All this movement is what we call "wind."
To try to put this all on radiation pressure is stupid.
That is not a correct answer. I want to see your detailed reasons and see how you you can get the entire planet's atmosphere circulating at speeds of up to 700 km/hour.
Now you're the skeptic? Every statement you make is brimming with dishonesty.
The Earth is spinning, and the sun can only heat one side at a time. This causes temperature variations between the day and night side of the planet. Cool air contracts, warm air expands. Cool air sinks, warm air rises. All this movement is what we call "wind."
To try to put this all on radiation pressure is stupid.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 05:29 PM)
Now you're the skeptic? Every statement you make is brimming with dishonesty.
The Earth is spinning, and the sun can only heat one side at a time. This causes temperature variations between the day and night side of the planet. Cool air contracts, warm air expands. Cool air sinks, warm air rises. All this movement is what we call "wind."
To try to put this all on radiation pressure is stupid.
21 years ago I made a vow to never to tell a lie. In all that time since then I have only told 1 lie that I can recall, and that was a deliberate planned one to see what difference a lie would make in a certain response. So I get rather annoyed by your comment that I'm being dishonest.
As I said the moment you prove to me you have the answer I will change but so far you have failed miserably.
Contraction and expansion still doesn't result in rotation.
I am not putting this down to radiation pressure but to an effect that I seem to be the only scientist to have described. That is the absorption of a photon (heat radiation) causing an increase in velocity. But this absorption only able to happen in those molecules going in the same direction as the EM radiation.
It is like Radiant Pressure but it is not based on reflection only or absorption only but the differential absorption and radiation depending on the velocity of the particle relative to the radiation.
I've not seen anyone describe quite the same thing as yet.
The Earth is spinning, and the sun can only heat one side at a time. This causes temperature variations between the day and night side of the planet. Cool air contracts, warm air expands. Cool air sinks, warm air rises. All this movement is what we call "wind."
To try to put this all on radiation pressure is stupid.
21 years ago I made a vow to never to tell a lie. In all that time since then I have only told 1 lie that I can recall, and that was a deliberate planned one to see what difference a lie would make in a certain response. So I get rather annoyed by your comment that I'm being dishonest.
As I said the moment you prove to me you have the answer I will change but so far you have failed miserably.
Contraction and expansion still doesn't result in rotation.
I am not putting this down to radiation pressure but to an effect that I seem to be the only scientist to have described. That is the absorption of a photon (heat radiation) causing an increase in velocity. But this absorption only able to happen in those molecules going in the same direction as the EM radiation.
It is like Radiant Pressure but it is not based on reflection only or absorption only but the differential absorption and radiation depending on the velocity of the particle relative to the radiation.
I've not seen anyone describe quite the same thing as yet.
QUOTE
I am not putting this down to radiation pressure but to an effect that I seem to be the only scientist to have described. That is the absorption of a photon (heat radiation) causing an increase in velocity. But this absorption only able to happen in those molecules going in the same direction as the EM radiation.
More crap from the alleged mind of Ribbitybobbity.
The bolded word does not belong in that sentence. To descibe yourself as a scientist is to do violence against the english language.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 8 2012, 05:52 PM)
More crap from the alleged mind of Ribbitybobbity.
The bolded word does not belong in that sentence. To descibe yourself as a scientist is to do violence against the english language.
English has a capital "E" I'll have you know!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 8 2012, 01:48 PM)
21 years ago I made a vow to never to tell a lie. In all that time since then I have only told 1 lie that I can recall, and that was a deliberate planned one to see what difference a lie would make in a certain response. So I get rather annoyed by your comment that I'm being dishonest.
Then maybe you shouldn't go around calling yourself a scientist.
Neither of us are meteorologists. I can't PROVE to you the exact mechanism with which convection drives the wind. You aren't exactly being specific. When you talk about rotation, I can't tell which planet you're even referring to. No planet that I know of has the wind blowing in only one direction relative to rotation.
Neither of us are meteorologists. I can't PROVE to you the exact mechanism with which convection drives the wind. You aren't exactly being specific. When you talk about rotation, I can't tell which planet you're even referring to. No planet that I know of has the wind blowing in only one direction relative to rotation.
But this absorption only able to happen in those molecules going in the same direction as the EM radiation.
It is like Radiant Pressure but it is not based on reflection only or absorption only but the differential absorption and radiation depending on the velocity of the particle relative to the radiation.
Another bogus "fact" that you made up. As I communicated in a fairly straightforward example, things don't change color or brightness depending on their motion relative to a light source (except for red and blue shifting, which has to do with a frequency shift of the light in transit, not how the light was transmitted initially). Absorption/reflection is ENTIRELY dictated by the atom's type, mass, ionization, and bonds and also the frequency of the photon. That is how mass spectroscopy works. We can look at the light an object reflects and figure out its composition. This wouldn't work if it changed colors based on the slightest movement relative to a light source.
Then maybe you shouldn't go around calling yourself a scientist.
QUOTE
As I said the moment you prove to me you have the answer I will change but so far you have failed miserably.
Contraction and expansion still doesn't result in rotation.
Contraction and expansion still doesn't result in rotation.
Neither of us are meteorologists. I can't PROVE to you the exact mechanism with which convection drives the wind. You aren't exactly being specific. When you talk about rotation, I can't tell which planet you're even referring to. No planet that I know of has the wind blowing in only one direction relative to rotation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As I said the moment you prove to me you have the answer I will change but so far you have failed miserably. Contraction and expansion still doesn't result in rotation. |
Neither of us are meteorologists. I can't PROVE to you the exact mechanism with which convection drives the wind. You aren't exactly being specific. When you talk about rotation, I can't tell which planet you're even referring to. No planet that I know of has the wind blowing in only one direction relative to rotation.
But this absorption only able to happen in those molecules going in the same direction as the EM radiation.
It is like Radiant Pressure but it is not based on reflection only or absorption only but the differential absorption and radiation depending on the velocity of the particle relative to the radiation.
Another bogus "fact" that you made up. As I communicated in a fairly straightforward example, things don't change color or brightness depending on their motion relative to a light source (except for red and blue shifting, which has to do with a frequency shift of the light in transit, not how the light was transmitted initially). Absorption/reflection is ENTIRELY dictated by the atom's type, mass, ionization, and bonds and also the frequency of the photon. That is how mass spectroscopy works. We can look at the light an object reflects and figure out its composition. This wouldn't work if it changed colors based on the slightest movement relative to a light source.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 06:18 PM)
Then maybe you shouldn't go around calling yourself a scientist.
Neither of us are meteorologists. I can't PROVE to you the exact mechanism with which convection drives the wind. You aren't exactly being specific. When you talk about rotation, I can't tell which planet you're even referring to. No planet that I know of has the wind blowing in only one direction relative to rotation.
Another bogus "fact" that you made up. As I communicated in a fairly straightforward example, things don't change color or brightness depending on their motion relative to a light source (except for red and blue shifting, which has to do with a frequency shift of the light in transit, not how the light was transmitted initially). Absorption/reflection is ENTIRELY dictated by the atom's type, mass, ionization, and bonds and also the frequency of the photon. That is how mass spectroscopy works. We can look at the light an object reflects and figure out its composition. This wouldn't work if it changed colors based on the slightest movement relative to a light source.
Venus and Jupiter have winds that predominantly going in the one direction. And Venus is the mysterious one, having such strong winds yet spinning so slowly and not only that but spinning in the opposite way to the rest of the planets. Some say it stopped and started rotating the other way in fairly recent history. Did it's own Moon crash into it? and made it spin backwards? I could live with that.
And now the Venusian wind is trying to speed up its rotation again.
Reflection of colour is relatively stable and takes speed of over 5000km/sec before yellow turns green or vice versa. I never disputed that.
Neither of us are meteorologists. I can't PROVE to you the exact mechanism with which convection drives the wind. You aren't exactly being specific. When you talk about rotation, I can't tell which planet you're even referring to. No planet that I know of has the wind blowing in only one direction relative to rotation.
Another bogus "fact" that you made up. As I communicated in a fairly straightforward example, things don't change color or brightness depending on their motion relative to a light source (except for red and blue shifting, which has to do with a frequency shift of the light in transit, not how the light was transmitted initially). Absorption/reflection is ENTIRELY dictated by the atom's type, mass, ionization, and bonds and also the frequency of the photon. That is how mass spectroscopy works. We can look at the light an object reflects and figure out its composition. This wouldn't work if it changed colors based on the slightest movement relative to a light source.
Venus and Jupiter have winds that predominantly going in the one direction. And Venus is the mysterious one, having such strong winds yet spinning so slowly and not only that but spinning in the opposite way to the rest of the planets. Some say it stopped and started rotating the other way in fairly recent history. Did it's own Moon crash into it? and made it spin backwards? I could live with that.
And now the Venusian wind is trying to speed up its rotation again.
Reflection of colour is relatively stable and takes speed of over 5000km/sec before yellow turns green or vice versa. I never disputed that.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 8 2012, 02:40 PM)
Venus and Jupiter have winds that predominantly going in the one direction.
Jupiter not so much:
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/movies/av...413jupispot.gif
All winds on Venus are ultimately driven by convection.[3] Hot air rises in the equatorial zone, where solar heating is concentrated, and flows to the poles. Such an almost-planetwide overturning of the troposphere is called Hadley circulation.[3] However, the meridional air motions are much slower than zonal winds. The poleward limit of the planet wide Hadley cell on Venus is near ±60° latitudes.[3] Here air starts to descend and returns to the equator below the clouds. This interpretation is supported by the distribution of the carbon monoxide, which is also concentrated in the vicinity of ±60° latitudes.[3] Poleward of the Hadley cell a different pattern of circulation is observed. In the latitude range 60°–70° cold polar collars exist.[3][6] They are characterised by temperatures about 30–40 K lower than in the upper troposphere at nearby latitudes.[6] The lower temperature is probably caused by the upwelling of the air in them and by the resulting adiabatic cooling.[6] Such an interpretation is supported by the denser and higher clouds in the collars. The clouds lie at 70–72 km altitude in the collars—about 5 km higher than at the poles and low latitudes.[3] A connection may exist between the cold collars and high speed midlatitude jets in which winds blow as fast as 140 m/s. Such jets are a natural consequence of the Hadley–type circulation and should exist on Venus between 55–60° latitude.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Circulation
This isn't a random color change. The whole spectrum shifts due to relativistic stretching of the photon's frequency. This has nothing to do with reflection/absorption.
Jupiter not so much:
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/movies/av...413jupispot.gif
QUOTE
And Venus is the mysterious one, having such strong winds yet spinning so slowly and not only that but spinning in the opposite way to the rest of the planets. Some say it stopped and started rotating the other way in fairly recent history. Did it's own Moon crash into it? and made it spin backwards? I could live with that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And Venus is the mysterious one, having such strong winds yet spinning so slowly and not only that but spinning in the opposite way to the rest of the planets. Some say it stopped and started rotating the other way in fairly recent history. Did it's own Moon crash into it? and made it spin backwards? I could live with that. |
All winds on Venus are ultimately driven by convection.[3] Hot air rises in the equatorial zone, where solar heating is concentrated, and flows to the poles. Such an almost-planetwide overturning of the troposphere is called Hadley circulation.[3] However, the meridional air motions are much slower than zonal winds. The poleward limit of the planet wide Hadley cell on Venus is near ±60° latitudes.[3] Here air starts to descend and returns to the equator below the clouds. This interpretation is supported by the distribution of the carbon monoxide, which is also concentrated in the vicinity of ±60° latitudes.[3] Poleward of the Hadley cell a different pattern of circulation is observed. In the latitude range 60°–70° cold polar collars exist.[3][6] They are characterised by temperatures about 30–40 K lower than in the upper troposphere at nearby latitudes.[6] The lower temperature is probably caused by the upwelling of the air in them and by the resulting adiabatic cooling.[6] Such an interpretation is supported by the denser and higher clouds in the collars. The clouds lie at 70–72 km altitude in the collars—about 5 km higher than at the poles and low latitudes.[3] A connection may exist between the cold collars and high speed midlatitude jets in which winds blow as fast as 140 m/s. Such jets are a natural consequence of the Hadley–type circulation and should exist on Venus between 55–60° latitude.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Circulation
QUOTE
Reflection of colour is relatively stable and takes speed of over 5000km/sec before yellow turns green or vice versa. I never disputed that.
This isn't a random color change. The whole spectrum shifts due to relativistic stretching of the photon's frequency. This has nothing to do with reflection/absorption.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 06:50 PM)
Jupiter not so much:
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/movies/av...413jupispot.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Circulation
This isn't a random color change. The whole spectrum shifts due to relativistic stretching of the photon's frequency. This has nothing to do with reflection/absorption.
That video of Jupiter is showing the upper atmosphere movements. The atmosphere of Jupiter was thousands of km thick, so we have upper middle and lower level effects, so it is not easy to say what is happening over all just by looking from the outside.
The circulation of Venus seem to be describing a local frame circulation (like weather). But unless all the other sources are wrong there is a global circulation as well.
Colour of objects is the reflection or transmission of light, and the reflected/transmitted light is as far as I understand is affected by redshift if the object is going away from you.
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/movies/av...413jupispot.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Circulation
This isn't a random color change. The whole spectrum shifts due to relativistic stretching of the photon's frequency. This has nothing to do with reflection/absorption.
That video of Jupiter is showing the upper atmosphere movements. The atmosphere of Jupiter was thousands of km thick, so we have upper middle and lower level effects, so it is not easy to say what is happening over all just by looking from the outside.
The circulation of Venus seem to be describing a local frame circulation (like weather). But unless all the other sources are wrong there is a global circulation as well.
Colour of objects is the reflection or transmission of light, and the reflected/transmitted light is as far as I understand is affected by redshift if the object is going away from you.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 8 2012, 03:06 PM)
That video of Jupiter is showing the upper atmosphere movements. The atmosphere of Jupiter was thousands of km thick, so we have upper middle and lower level effects, so it is not easy to say what is happening over all just by looking from the outside.
Uhh, that's the point. There is no net rotation.
That's what they're saying. It's a global convection system.
That's what they're saying. It's a global convection system.
Colour of objects is the reflection or transmission of light, and the reflected/transmitted light is as far as I understand is affected by redshift if the object is going away from you.
Can you at least read up on Redshift before you start making crap up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Repeat after me: Reflection/absorption/transmission of photons is not affected by the velocity of the matter relative to the light source.
Uhh, that's the point. There is no net rotation.
QUOTE
The circulation of Venus seem to be describing a local frame circulation (like weather). But unless all the other sources are wrong there is a global circulation as well.
That's what they're saying. It's a global convection system.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The circulation of Venus seem to be describing a local frame circulation (like weather). But unless all the other sources are wrong there is a global circulation as well. |
That's what they're saying. It's a global convection system.
Colour of objects is the reflection or transmission of light, and the reflected/transmitted light is as far as I understand is affected by redshift if the object is going away from you.
Can you at least read up on Redshift before you start making crap up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Repeat after me: Reflection/absorption/transmission of photons is not affected by the velocity of the matter relative to the light source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
and also article "Winds on Venus" http://www.universetoday.com/36816/winds-on-venus/
and also article "Winds on Venus" http://www.universetoday.com/36816/winds-on-venus/
The winds on Venus travel in a westerly direction, the same backwards direction that Venus rotates. Seen from above, Venus rotates in a clockwise direction. This is backwards from the other 7 planets, which rotate counter-clockwise.
A wind blowing in a westerly direction would be called an Easterly wind on Earth. This fact seems to be causing confusion in some articles.
But note this important fact "the winds on Venus travel in a westerly direction, the same backwards direction that Venus rotates." Note: Same direction as the rotation so the wind is moving faster by far than the surface. Venus only has 1.9 rotations in 365 Earth days. Yet the wind blows around the planet in a matter of days.
FBM tell me why and what makes this happen despite the on going friction with the land surface?
He already has Bibbity. Several times.
Global convection systems.
Now move on.
He already has Bibbity. Several times.
Global convection systems.
Now move on.
That is not the answer. There is definitely convection as well, I don't dispute that, but to get the net rotation there is more than convection. Does porridge stir itself?
Take your porridge, apply an uneven heat source, while spinning the pot around, and yes, your porridge stir.
Here Robotty, I know you're a big fan of wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind#Cause
Take your porridge, apply an uneven heat source, while spinning the pot around, and yes, your porridge stir.
Here Robotty, I know you're a big fan of wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind#Cause
Wind is caused by differences in pressure. When a difference in pressure exists, the air is accelerated from higher to lower pressure. On a rotating planet, the air will be deflected by the Coriolis effect, except exactly on the equator. Globally, the two major driving factors of large-scale winds (the atmospheric circulation) are the differential heating between the equator and the poles (difference in absorption of solar energy leading to buoyancy forces) and the rotation of the planet. Outside the tropics and aloft from frictional effects of the surface, the large-scale winds tend to approach geostrophic balance. Near the Earth's surface, friction causes the wind to be slower than it would be otherwise. Surface friction also causes winds to blow more inward into low pressure areas.[1]
Take your porridge, apply an uneven heat source, while spinning the pot around, and yes, your porridge stir.
Here Robotty, I know you're a big fan of wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind#Cause
I have read it years ago that where they added up all the air movements on Earth the net movement was to the East. This maybe expressed in the following paragraph from
paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap8.pdf
Chapter 8 The general circulation of the atmosphere
So we have these local winds but there is the dominant large scale atmospheric movement over and about that moving the air from the West to the East (same way as the Earth spins).
I just haven't been able to find the right reference as yet.
QUOTE
Strong 300 km/h winds at the cloud tops circle the planet about every four to five earth days.[46] Venusian winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet's rotation, while Earth's fastest winds are only 10% to 20% rotation speed.[47]
and also article "Winds on Venus" http://www.universetoday.com/36816/winds-on-venus/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Strong 300 km/h winds at the cloud tops circle the planet about every four to five earth days.[46] Venusian winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet's rotation, while Earth's fastest winds are only 10% to 20% rotation speed.[47] |
and also article "Winds on Venus" http://www.universetoday.com/36816/winds-on-venus/
The winds on Venus travel in a westerly direction, the same backwards direction that Venus rotates. Seen from above, Venus rotates in a clockwise direction. This is backwards from the other 7 planets, which rotate counter-clockwise.
A wind blowing in a westerly direction would be called an Easterly wind on Earth. This fact seems to be causing confusion in some articles.
But note this important fact "the winds on Venus travel in a westerly direction, the same backwards direction that Venus rotates." Note: Same direction as the rotation so the wind is moving faster by far than the surface. Venus only has 1.9 rotations in 365 Earth days. Yet the wind blows around the planet in a matter of days.
FBM tell me why and what makes this happen despite the on going friction with the land surface?
QUOTE
FBM tell me why and what makes this happen despite the on going friction with the land surface?
He already has Bibbity. Several times.
Global convection systems.
Now move on.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 8 2012, 07:59 PM)
He already has Bibbity. Several times.
Global convection systems.
Now move on.
That is not the answer. There is definitely convection as well, I don't dispute that, but to get the net rotation there is more than convection. Does porridge stir itself?
QUOTE
Does porridge stir itself?
Take your porridge, apply an uneven heat source, while spinning the pot around, and yes, your porridge stir.
Here Robotty, I know you're a big fan of wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind#Cause
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Does porridge stir itself? |
Take your porridge, apply an uneven heat source, while spinning the pot around, and yes, your porridge stir.
Here Robotty, I know you're a big fan of wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind#Cause
Wind is caused by differences in pressure. When a difference in pressure exists, the air is accelerated from higher to lower pressure. On a rotating planet, the air will be deflected by the Coriolis effect, except exactly on the equator. Globally, the two major driving factors of large-scale winds (the atmospheric circulation) are the differential heating between the equator and the poles (difference in absorption of solar energy leading to buoyancy forces) and the rotation of the planet. Outside the tropics and aloft from frictional effects of the surface, the large-scale winds tend to approach geostrophic balance. Near the Earth's surface, friction causes the wind to be slower than it would be otherwise. Surface friction also causes winds to blow more inward into low pressure areas.[1]
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 8 2012, 04:40 PM)
Take your porridge, apply an uneven heat source, while spinning the pot around, and yes, your porridge stir.
Nice one
Nice one
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 8 2012, 08:40 PM)
Take your porridge, apply an uneven heat source, while spinning the pot around, and yes, your porridge stir.
Here Robotty, I know you're a big fan of wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind#Cause
I have read it years ago that where they added up all the air movements on Earth the net movement was to the East. This maybe expressed in the following paragraph from
paoc.mit.edu/labweb/notes/chap8.pdf
Chapter 8 The general circulation of the atmosphere
QUOTE
Even though the west-to-east circulation in the upper troposphere is the
dominant component of the large-scale atmospheric flow, is cannot be responsible
for the required poleward transports of heat and angular momentum,
for which north-south flow is needed.
dominant component of the large-scale atmospheric flow, is cannot be responsible
for the required poleward transports of heat and angular momentum,
for which north-south flow is needed.
So we have these local winds but there is the dominant large scale atmospheric movement over and about that moving the air from the West to the East (same way as the Earth spins).
I just haven't been able to find the right reference as yet.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 8 2012, 06:06 PM)
So we have these local winds but there is the dominant large scale atmospheric movement over and about that moving the air from the West to the East (same way as the Earth spins).
So... what's your point?
So... what's your point?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 10:09 PM)
So... what's your point?
The point I was making was that even on Earth we have the same global mass circulation of the atmosphere when the motion of all particles are added up giving a net flow from the West to the East, in other word a prograde rotation just like that which is happening on Venus and Jupiter, but on a lesser scale.
The point I was making was that even on Earth we have the same global mass circulation of the atmosphere when the motion of all particles are added up giving a net flow from the West to the East, in other word a prograde rotation just like that which is happening on Venus and Jupiter, but on a lesser scale.
Look at this! They need to ask Dr. Bob!
Measuring The Winds Of Venus
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Measurin..._Venus_999.html
Measuring The Winds Of Venus
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Measurin..._Venus_999.html
QUOTE
"Despite all the data brought together, we are still not able to explain why a planet than spins so slowly has hurricane global winds that are much more intense than terrestrial ones and are, moreover, concentrated at the top of its clouds" stated Mr Sánchez Lavega. This study has enabled advances to be made in a precise explanation of the origin of superotation in Venusian winds as well as in the knowledge of the general circulation of planetary atmospheres.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 8 2012, 06:31 PM)
The point I was making was that even on Earth we have the same global mass circulation of the atmosphere when the motion of all particles are added up giving a net flow from the West to the East, in other word a prograde rotation just like that which is happening on Venus and Jupiter, but on a lesser scale.
So?
So?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 8 2012, 11:01 PM)
So?
So where does the net momentum come from? Do you think this net glogal atmosphere rotation acts to speed up the rotation of the Earth as I have proposed is happening elsewhere (Venus Jupiter)?
I agree it probably so insignificant it is not important in the scheme of things on Earth.
So where does the net momentum come from? Do you think this net glogal atmosphere rotation acts to speed up the rotation of the Earth as I have proposed is happening elsewhere (Venus Jupiter)?
I agree it probably so insignificant it is not important in the scheme of things on Earth.
Look I'm not the only one who thinks a planets spin is affected by the air movements: This from the European Space Agency
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM0TLSXXXG_index_0.html
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM0TLSXXXG_index_0.html
QUOTE
If Venus has a solid core, its mass must be more concentrated towards the centre. In this case, the planet’s rotation would react less to external forces.
The most important of those forces is due to the dense atmosphere – more than 90 times the pressure of Earth’s and high-speed weather systems, which are believed to change the planet’s rotation rate through friction with the surface.
Earth experiences a similar effect, where it is largely caused by wind and tides. The length of an Earth day can change by roughly a millisecond and depends seasonally with wind patterns and temperatures over the course of a year.
The most important of those forces is due to the dense atmosphere – more than 90 times the pressure of Earth’s and high-speed weather systems, which are believed to change the planet’s rotation rate through friction with the surface.
Earth experiences a similar effect, where it is largely caused by wind and tides. The length of an Earth day can change by roughly a millisecond and depends seasonally with wind patterns and temperatures over the course of a year.
Just looking at how gases absorb infrared radiation.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
Since this a simple example of how IR is taken up (certain band widths of radiation is absorbed.
Now the essence of what I propose is the this absorption will only happen if the laws of conservation of energy and momentum can be satisfied. This precludes the absorption occurring if the gas is moving rapidly in the opposite direction to the IR.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
QUOTE
Greenhouse Gases Absorb Infrared Radiation
Radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth as radiant visible light. You feel this effect on a sunny day when you stand in the sunshine vs. the shade. Eventually, the heat from the earth is re-emitted into the atmosphere as infrared radiation (IR). As an example, infrared radiation is what you can feel and see (slightly) as the red hot burner of an electric stove. The different types of electromagnetic radiation are shown in the graphic on the left.
Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen the major gases in the atmosphere do not have this property. The infrared radiation strikes a molecule such as carbon dioxide and causes the bonds to bend and vibrate - this is called the absorption of IR energy. The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere. Analogy: Think of a partially stretched "toy slinky" - if you bump the slinky, the energy of the bump is absorbed by the vibrations in the slinky.
Radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth as radiant visible light. You feel this effect on a sunny day when you stand in the sunshine vs. the shade. Eventually, the heat from the earth is re-emitted into the atmosphere as infrared radiation (IR). As an example, infrared radiation is what you can feel and see (slightly) as the red hot burner of an electric stove. The different types of electromagnetic radiation are shown in the graphic on the left.
Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen the major gases in the atmosphere do not have this property. The infrared radiation strikes a molecule such as carbon dioxide and causes the bonds to bend and vibrate - this is called the absorption of IR energy. The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere. Analogy: Think of a partially stretched "toy slinky" - if you bump the slinky, the energy of the bump is absorbed by the vibrations in the slinky.
Since this a simple example of how IR is taken up (certain band widths of radiation is absorbed.
Now the essence of what I propose is the this absorption will only happen if the laws of conservation of energy and momentum can be satisfied. This precludes the absorption occurring if the gas is moving rapidly in the opposite direction to the IR.
Nobody of any worth is going to listen to you BibittyBob.
You frigin' talk to yourself!
You frigin' talk to yourself!
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 9 2012, 01:53 AM)
Nobody of any worth is going to listen to you BibittyBob.
You frigin' talk to yourself!
I do too. I was walking down the corridor thinking up arguments to post on to the forum, and others overheard me. Lol
I would like the view count to go to 200 views per day and soon someone will take me in a give me a lab to test my theory. I have already imagine what the apparatus might look like.
You frigin' talk to yourself!
I do too. I was walking down the corridor thinking up arguments to post on to the forum, and others overheard me. Lol
I would like the view count to go to 200 views per day and soon someone will take me in a give me a lab to test my theory. I have already imagine what the apparatus might look like.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 8 2012, 07:20 PM)
So where does the net momentum come from?
Energy from the sun and the Earth's rotation.
What is your point? Your "solar wind makes planets spin faster" theory got blown out of the water. Your "Earth used to be a gas giant" theory is still worthless. This thread consists mostly of ejaculations from your overinflated ego.
Energy from the sun and the Earth's rotation.
QUOTE
Do you think this net glogal atmosphere rotation acts to speed up the rotation of the Earth as I have proposed is happening elsewhere (Venus Jupiter)?
I agree it probably so insignificant it is not important in the scheme of things on Earth.
I agree it probably so insignificant it is not important in the scheme of things on Earth.
What is your point? Your "solar wind makes planets spin faster" theory got blown out of the water. Your "Earth used to be a gas giant" theory is still worthless. This thread consists mostly of ejaculations from your overinflated ego.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 9 2012, 02:14 PM)
Energy from the sun and the Earth's rotation.
What is your point? Your "solar wind makes planets spin faster" theory got blown out of the water. Your "Earth used to be a gas giant" theory is still worthless. This thread consists mostly of ejaculations from your overinflated ego.
It didn't get blown out of the water for you just fired at it with a pop gun.
I want to see someone like RPenner come in and make a comment. I'm quite sure you haven't the fire power to knock over a matchstick.
You're the one with the ego .... it's evident from your name.
What is your point? Your "solar wind makes planets spin faster" theory got blown out of the water. Your "Earth used to be a gas giant" theory is still worthless. This thread consists mostly of ejaculations from your overinflated ego.
It didn't get blown out of the water for you just fired at it with a pop gun.
I want to see someone like RPenner come in and make a comment. I'm quite sure you haven't the fire power to knock over a matchstick.
You're the one with the ego .... it's evident from your name.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 9 2012, 02:14 PM)
Energy from the sun and the Earth's rotation.
That is your best and final answer! Remember I asked "So where does the net momentum come from?" That was referring to the "net global atmosphere rotation".
So you are thinking it is possible that the Earth slows it's rotation somehow and imparts its lost momentum into the little bit of atmosphere on the Earth.
How stupid can you get FBM for the atmosphere would immediately give it back. Or if it did happen we would have winds the likes of you've never seen before.
How-about learning some physics FBM.
That is your best and final answer! Remember I asked "So where does the net momentum come from?" That was referring to the "net global atmosphere rotation".
So you are thinking it is possible that the Earth slows it's rotation somehow and imparts its lost momentum into the little bit of atmosphere on the Earth.
How stupid can you get FBM for the atmosphere would immediately give it back. Or if it did happen we would have winds the likes of you've never seen before.
How-about learning some physics FBM.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 9 2012, 01:58 PM)
That is your best and final answer! Remember I asked "So where does the net momentum come from?" That was referring to the "net global atmosphere rotation".
So you are thinking it is possible that the Earth slows it's rotation somehow and imparts its lost momentum into the little bit of atmosphere on the Earth.
Tidal forces from the Sun and Moon are much bigger factors in slowing down the Earth's rotation. Tides are the "elephant in the room" when it comes to changes in Earth's angular momentum.
So you are thinking it is possible that the Earth slows it's rotation somehow and imparts its lost momentum into the little bit of atmosphere on the Earth.
Tidal forces from the Sun and Moon are much bigger factors in slowing down the Earth's rotation. Tides are the "elephant in the room" when it comes to changes in Earth's angular momentum.
QUOTE
How stupid can you get FBM for the atmosphere would immediately give it back. Or if it did happen we would have winds the likes of you've never seen before.
How-about learning some physics FBM.
How-about learning some physics FBM.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 9 2012, 06:06 PM)
Tidal forces from the Sun and Moon are much bigger factors in slowing down the Earth's rotation. Tides are the "elephant in the room" when it comes to changes in Earth's angular momentum.
I don't disagree with that, but when the Earth had more water and atmosphere things surely would have been different. The Sun powering the global circulation would have counteracted the slowing effect of the momentum transferred to the Moon.
Do you agree with those that say the Earth once had a day length of just 5 hour or so?
That is a lot of momentum to loose. But we have an example of other large planets roaring away at this rate (Jupiter 9.8hours).
Did it require a Jupiter like Earth to achieve this rapidity?
I don't disagree with that, but when the Earth had more water and atmosphere things surely would have been different. The Sun powering the global circulation would have counteracted the slowing effect of the momentum transferred to the Moon.
Do you agree with those that say the Earth once had a day length of just 5 hour or so?
That is a lot of momentum to loose. But we have an example of other large planets roaring away at this rate (Jupiter 9.8hours).
Did it require a Jupiter like Earth to achieve this rapidity?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 9 2012, 02:19 PM)
I don't disagree with that, but when the Earth had more water and atmosphere things surely would have been different.
It didn't, so no.
That's not how it works, dimwit.
That's not how it works, dimwit.
Do you agree with those that say the Earth once had a day length of just 5 hour or so?
Idiotic.
The fast spin of a planet like Jupiter has to do with the angular velocity of the mass that formed the planet.
It didn't, so no.
QUOTE
The Sun powering the global circulation would have counteracted the slowing effect of the momentum transferred to the Moon.
That's not how it works, dimwit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Sun powering the global circulation would have counteracted the slowing effect of the momentum transferred to the Moon. |
That's not how it works, dimwit.
Do you agree with those that say the Earth once had a day length of just 5 hour or so?
Idiotic.
QUOTE
That is a lot of momentum to loose. But we have an example of other large planets roaring away at this rate (Jupiter 9.8hours).
The fast spin of a planet like Jupiter has to do with the angular velocity of the mass that formed the planet.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 9 2012, 06:50 PM)
It didn't, so no.
That's not how it works, dimwit.
Idiotic.
The fast spin of a planet like Jupiter has to do with the angular velocity of the mass that formed the planet.
Well what was your estimate or understanding of how fast the Earth was spinning when it was first established?
There is clear evidence that the rotation has slowed from 19 hours to 24 hours in the last 600 million years. So any ideas?
So you really think that through random collisions a planet the size of Jupiter would pick up that much spin? The events are just as likely to cancel each other out.
That's not how it works, dimwit.
Idiotic.
The fast spin of a planet like Jupiter has to do with the angular velocity of the mass that formed the planet.
Well what was your estimate or understanding of how fast the Earth was spinning when it was first established?
There is clear evidence that the rotation has slowed from 19 hours to 24 hours in the last 600 million years. So any ideas?
So you really think that through random collisions a planet the size of Jupiter would pick up that much spin? The events are just as likely to cancel each other out.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 9 2012, 03:13 PM)
Well what was your estimate or understanding of how fast the Earth was spinning when it was first established?
I have no estimate because I have no evidence. I don't pull numbers out of my a$$ when I need to prove a point.
Where is this evidence?
Where is this evidence?
So you really think that through random collisions a planet the size of Jupiter would pick up that much spin? The events are just as likely to cancel each other out.
That's not even close to what I said. I said that the rotational velocity was a product of the formation of the planet. As Jupiter accreted gas, its angular velocity increased.
It's one of the major crank threads at sciforum. Robbity was right at home there.
It's one of the major crank threads at sciforum. Robbity was right at home there.
But it was the geologists that explained these to us. You can't deny the hard evidence in the geological record. Any theory has to be able to account for the record.
Bitty, you're ridiculously ignorant.
Bitty, you're ridiculously ignorant.
Aren't you confusing the object's original kinetic energy and momentum.
A comet hitting the Earth will have KE well before nearing the Earth but the extra KE it gets from gravitational pull from the Earth is exactly matched by the same negative pull it is applying to the Earth. So the gravitational attraction will not add to the Earth's angular momentum.
It is its own prior KE that does that. If you think I'm wrong, could you give me a clue please? Even I am having my doubts about this now.
I have no estimate because I have no evidence. I don't pull numbers out of my a$$ when I need to prove a point.
QUOTE
There is clear evidence that the rotation has slowed from 19 hours to 24 hours in the last 600 million years. So any ideas?
Where is this evidence?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is clear evidence that the rotation has slowed from 19 hours to 24 hours in the last 600 million years. So any ideas? |
Where is this evidence?
So you really think that through random collisions a planet the size of Jupiter would pick up that much spin? The events are just as likely to cancel each other out.
That's not even close to what I said. I said that the rotational velocity was a product of the formation of the planet. As Jupiter accreted gas, its angular velocity increased.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 9 2012, 07:30 PM)
I have no estimate because I have no evidence. I don't pull numbers out of my a$$ when I need to prove a point.
Where is this evidence?
That's not even close to what I said. I said that the rotational velocity was a product of the formation of the planet. As Jupiter accreted gas, its angular velocity increased.
I didn't want you to pull numbers out of there! Research it and form an opinion. You seem to have some opinion for you are surprised by how much the Earth has slowed over the last 600 million years Look up the word "tidalites" in Australia. We were discussing it at Sciforums http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107740 so I'll get the link. I can't deny what they taught me there.
There would not be any net angular momentum from the gas. The planet pulls the gas to itself, so it both gains and loses momentum.
Where is this evidence?
That's not even close to what I said. I said that the rotational velocity was a product of the formation of the planet. As Jupiter accreted gas, its angular velocity increased.
I didn't want you to pull numbers out of there! Research it and form an opinion. You seem to have some opinion for you are surprised by how much the Earth has slowed over the last 600 million years Look up the word "tidalites" in Australia. We were discussing it at Sciforums http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107740 so I'll get the link. I can't deny what they taught me there.
There would not be any net angular momentum from the gas. The planet pulls the gas to itself, so it both gains and loses momentum.
QUOTE
I can't deny what they taught me there.
It's one of the major crank threads at sciforum. Robbity was right at home there.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 9 2012, 03:52 PM)
I didn't want you to pull numbers out of there! Research it and form an opinion. You seem to have some opinion for you are surprised by how much the Earth has slowed over the last 600 million years Look up the word "tidalites" in Australia. We were discussing it at Sciforums http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107740 so I'll get the link. I can't deny what they taught me there.
Looks like the blind leading the blind.
Do you really think it just falls straight in?
Looks like the blind leading the blind.
QUOTE
There would not be any net angular momentum from the gas. The planet pulls the gas to itself, so it both gains and loses momentum.
Do you really think it just falls straight in?
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 9 2012, 07:54 PM)
It's one of the major crank threads at sciforum. Robbity was right at home there.
But it was the geologists that explained these to us. You can't deny the hard evidence in the geological record. Any theory has to be able to account for the record.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 9 2012, 08:06 PM)
Looks like the blind leading the blind.
Do you really think it just falls straight in?
No but what does the pulling? Answer the planet. What gains the momentum when the two accrete? So what it gave to the particle it regains later. Gravity also pulls to the centre of mass so it pulls into a position that won't add angular momentum.
Do you really think it just falls straight in?
No but what does the pulling? Answer the planet. What gains the momentum when the two accrete? So what it gave to the particle it regains later. Gravity also pulls to the centre of mass so it pulls into a position that won't add angular momentum.
links to read about tidalites
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=28...0&postcount=613
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453w...99RG900016.pdf
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=28...0&postcount=613
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453w...99RG900016.pdf
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 9 2012, 04:17 PM)
No but what does the pulling? Answer the planet. What gains the momentum when the two accrete? So what it gave to the particle it regains later. Gravity also pulls to the centre of mass so it pulls into a position that won't add angular momentum.
Do you understand vectors? The gas already has a velocity relative to the planet, and gravity tends to pull things in on spiraling paths. Almost every gravity-driven impact happens at an oblique angle, because gravity pulls the gas off course to collide with the planet. The oblique angle transfers its momentum into the planet's rotation. With only a couple exceptions, all objects in our solar system are orbiting and spinning in the same direction, including planets, moons, the sun. Uranus and Pluto are the only exceptions.
Do you understand vectors? The gas already has a velocity relative to the planet, and gravity tends to pull things in on spiraling paths. Almost every gravity-driven impact happens at an oblique angle, because gravity pulls the gas off course to collide with the planet. The oblique angle transfers its momentum into the planet's rotation. With only a couple exceptions, all objects in our solar system are orbiting and spinning in the same direction, including planets, moons, the sun. Uranus and Pluto are the only exceptions.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 9 2012, 09:59 PM)
Do you understand vectors? The gas already has a velocity relative to the planet, and gravity tends to pull things in on spiraling paths. Almost every gravity-driven impact happens at an oblique angle, because gravity pulls the gas off course to collide with the planet. The oblique angle transfers its momentum into the planet's rotation. With only a couple exceptions, all objects in our solar system are orbiting and spinning in the same direction, including planets, moons, the sun. Uranus and Pluto are the only exceptions.
But are you saying they are all coming in on the same direction? I would say sometimes they come in clockwise, and others anticlockwise so in the end it will be virtually cancel. I'm not convinced by your argument. The amount of matter coming in would have virtually no impact on the rotation period (this is my guess because we have looked at the amount coming in from space and it was such a tiny amount compared to the volume of the Earth).
But are you saying they are all coming in on the same direction? I would say sometimes they come in clockwise, and others anticlockwise so in the end it will be virtually cancel. I'm not convinced by your argument. The amount of matter coming in would have virtually no impact on the rotation period (this is my guess because we have looked at the amount coming in from space and it was such a tiny amount compared to the volume of the Earth).
QUOTE
Gravity also pulls to the centre of mass so it pulls into a position that won't add angular momentum.
Bitty, you're ridiculously ignorant.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 10 2012, 12:15 AM)
Bitty, you're ridiculously ignorant.
Aren't you confusing the object's original kinetic energy and momentum.
A comet hitting the Earth will have KE well before nearing the Earth but the extra KE it gets from gravitational pull from the Earth is exactly matched by the same negative pull it is applying to the Earth. So the gravitational attraction will not add to the Earth's angular momentum.
It is its own prior KE that does that. If you think I'm wrong, could you give me a clue please? Even I am having my doubts about this now.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 9 2012, 07:53 PM)
But are you saying they are all coming in on the same direction? I would say sometimes they come in clockwise, and others anticlockwise so in the end it will be virtually cancel. I'm not convinced by your argument. The amount of matter coming in would have virtually no impact on the rotation period (this is my guess because we have looked at the amount coming in from space and it was such a tiny amount compared to the volume of the Earth).
Because the whole solar system game out of the same proto-planetary disk, all matter is orbiting the sun in the same direction.
Because the whole solar system game out of the same proto-planetary disk, all matter is orbiting the sun in the same direction.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 10 2012, 03:44 AM)
Because the whole solar system game out of the same proto-planetary disk, all matter is orbiting the sun in the same direction.
A few years back a comet crashed into Jupiter and it was observed so shall we check out if the impact from that increased the rotation of Jupiter or not? I have not seen any comments regarding this but we should be able to see the trajectory and the rotation of Jupiter and work out whether it added momentum or removed it?
A few years back a comet crashed into Jupiter and it was observed so shall we check out if the impact from that increased the rotation of Jupiter or not? I have not seen any comments regarding this but we should be able to see the trajectory and the rotation of Jupiter and work out whether it added momentum or removed it?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 10 2012, 07:16 AM)
A few years back a comet crashed into Jupiter and it was observed so shall we check out if the impact from that increased the rotation of Jupiter or not? I have not seen any comments regarding this but we should be able to see the trajectory and the rotation of Jupiter and work out whether it added momentum or removed it?
Comet's name was Shoemaker–Levy 9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9
So the scientists tried to predict events:
So the scientists tried to predict events:
One of the great debates in advance of the impact was whether the effects of the impact of such small bodies would be noticeable from Earth, apart from a flash as they disintegrated like giant meteors.[11] Other suggested effects of the impacts were seismic waves travelling across the planet, an increase in stratospheric haze on the planet due to dust from the impacts, and an increase in the mass of the Jovian ring system. However, given that observing such a collision was completely unprecedented, astronomers were cautious with their predictions of what the event might reveal.[5]
No mention there of speeding up the rotation!
one homework help site
http://burro.cwru.edu/denise/Spring03/hw5ans.htm
Close but still not quite answered.
But it looks like we have been discussing an importat question:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Jupiter
Close but still not quite answered.
But it looks like we have been discussing an importat question:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Jupiter
Problems for uniformitarian theories.
Jupiter's sidereal day is less than ten Earth hours long. If Jupiter formed simply as an accretion aggregate of the solar nebula, then it should not have acquired such tremendous angular momentum. The problem involves not merely the short sidereal day but also Jupiter's tremendous mass.
see what that said " If Jupiter formed simply as an accretion aggregate of the solar nebula, then it should not have acquired such tremendous angular momentum." Maybe I'm on to something.
Comet's name was Shoemaker–Levy 9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9
QUOTE
the orbit of Shoemaker–Levy 9 passed within Jupiter's Roche limit, and Jupiter's tidal forces had acted to pull the comet apart. The comet was later observed as a series of fragments ranging up to 2 km (1.2 mi) in diameter. These fragments collided with Jupiter's southern hemisphere between July 16 and July 22, 1994, at a speed of approximately 60 km/s (37 mi/s). The prominent scars from the impacts were more easily visible than the Great Red Spot and persisted for many months.
So the scientists tried to predict events:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the orbit of Shoemaker–Levy 9 passed within Jupiter's Roche limit, and Jupiter's tidal forces had acted to pull the comet apart. The comet was later observed as a series of fragments ranging up to 2 km (1.2 mi) in diameter. These fragments collided with Jupiter's southern hemisphere between July 16 and July 22, 1994, at a speed of approximately 60 km/s (37 mi/s). The prominent scars from the impacts were more easily visible than the Great Red Spot and persisted for many months. |
So the scientists tried to predict events:
One of the great debates in advance of the impact was whether the effects of the impact of such small bodies would be noticeable from Earth, apart from a flash as they disintegrated like giant meteors.[11] Other suggested effects of the impacts were seismic waves travelling across the planet, an increase in stratospheric haze on the planet due to dust from the impacts, and an increase in the mass of the Jovian ring system. However, given that observing such a collision was completely unprecedented, astronomers were cautious with their predictions of what the event might reveal.[5]
No mention there of speeding up the rotation!
one homework help site
http://burro.cwru.edu/denise/Spring03/hw5ans.htm
QUOTE
This angular momentum could then add to the spin of Jupiter about its internal axis, if the comet were orbiting in the same direction as Jupiter was rotating.
Close but still not quite answered.
But it looks like we have been discussing an importat question:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Jupiter
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This angular momentum could then add to the spin of Jupiter about its internal axis, if the comet were orbiting in the same direction as Jupiter was rotating. |
Close but still not quite answered.
But it looks like we have been discussing an importat question:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Jupiter
Problems for uniformitarian theories.
Jupiter's sidereal day is less than ten Earth hours long. If Jupiter formed simply as an accretion aggregate of the solar nebula, then it should not have acquired such tremendous angular momentum. The problem involves not merely the short sidereal day but also Jupiter's tremendous mass.
see what that said " If Jupiter formed simply as an accretion aggregate of the solar nebula, then it should not have acquired such tremendous angular momentum." Maybe I'm on to something.
From various images Shoemaker Levy 9 appears as if it hit Jupiter at an angle slightly against the rotation on the southern part.
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/top20.html
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/top20.html
Screw off.
You're just one of a thousand delusional's....
You're just one of a thousand delusional's....
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Mar 10 2012, 12:05 PM)
Screw off.
You're just one of a thousand delusional's....
Where have you been? Haven't seen you on the forum lately. Help us sort these issues please.
You're just one of a thousand delusional's....
Where have you been? Haven't seen you on the forum lately. Help us sort these issues please.
Beer w/straw suffers Asperger Syndrome so just ignore him.
www.mychildwithoutlimits.org/
Can the humans prevent this Earth becoming a Greenhouse gas (GHG) nightmare?
One would wonder if all countries don't take the problem seriously.
But here we are going to try and understand why the planets have atmospheres that roar around them faster than the planets spins. Is this a GHG effect?
www.mychildwithoutlimits.org/
Can the humans prevent this Earth becoming a Greenhouse gas (GHG) nightmare?
One would wonder if all countries don't take the problem seriously.
But here we are going to try and understand why the planets have atmospheres that roar around them faster than the planets spins. Is this a GHG effect?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.