Looking at The Titius Bode Law article on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law
"This latter point seems in particular to follow from the astonishing relation which the known six planets observe in their distances from the Sun. Let the distance from the Sun to Saturn be taken as 100, then Mercury is separated by 4 such parts from the Sun. Venus is 4+3=7. The Earth 4+6=10. Mars 4+12=16. Now comes a gap in this so orderly progression. After Mars there follows a space of 4+24=28 parts, in which no planet has yet been seen. Can one believe that the Founder of the universe had left this space empty? Certainly not. From here we come to the distance of Jupiter by 4+48=52 parts, and finally to that of Saturn by 4+96=100 parts."
This seems to suggest that there was once a small planet closer to the Sun to Mercury.
This could finally account for the massive impact collision that would be needed to create the Comets and asteroids that affected the Earth during the Late Heavy Bombardment Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment
QUOTE
Bode's law was then widely accepted until Neptune was discovered in 1846 and found not to satisfy Bode's law. Simultaneously, the large number of known asteroids in the belt resulted in Ceres no longer being considered a planet. (It is now understood that no planet could have formed in the belt, due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter.) Bode's law was discussed as an example of fallacious reasoning by the astronomer and logician Charles Sanders Peirce in 1898.[3]
The discovery of Pluto in 1930 confounded the issue still further. While nowhere near its position as predicted by Bode's law, it was roughly at the position the law had predicted for Neptune. However, the subsequent discovery of the Kuiper belt, and in particular of the object Eris, which is larger than Pluto yet does not fit Bode's law, have further discredited the formula.[4]....
However, astrophysicist Alan Boss states that it is just a coincidence, and the planetary science journal Icarus no longer accepts papers attempting to provide improved versions of the law.[4]
The discovery of Pluto in 1930 confounded the issue still further. While nowhere near its position as predicted by Bode's law, it was roughly at the position the law had predicted for Neptune. However, the subsequent discovery of the Kuiper belt, and in particular of the object Eris, which is larger than Pluto yet does not fit Bode's law, have further discredited the formula.[4]....
However, astrophysicist Alan Boss states that it is just a coincidence, and the planetary science journal Icarus no longer accepts papers attempting to provide improved versions of the law.[4]
You did bother to read the whole article, didn't you?
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 29 2011, 10:47 PM)
You did bother to read the whole article, didn't you?
He tends to ignore statements that conflict with his premises.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 30 2011, 12:10 AM)
He tends to ignore statements that conflict with his premises.
But that aside then do you think it is possible, for it seems to have worked quite well for the planets closer in.
As the planet closer in loss mass rapidly it could have suffered severe perturbations until at one time it whacked into Mercury fracturing into multiple asteroids. (Similar to the impact theory for the Moon formation.)
But that aside then do you think it is possible, for it seems to have worked quite well for the planets closer in.
As the planet closer in loss mass rapidly it could have suffered severe perturbations until at one time it whacked into Mercury fracturing into multiple asteroids. (Similar to the impact theory for the Moon formation.)
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 29 2011, 08:37 PM)
But that aside then...
You don't get to put that aside. You're dishonest AND stupid.
You don't get to put that aside. You're dishonest AND stupid.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 30 2011, 03:00 AM)
You don't get to put that aside. You're dishonest AND stupid.
I'm neither. If it the rule has a constant 4 at the beginning I would propose that represents an additional planet. And you know there is no way you can say that is wrong for they are saying that at the distance that Mercury is it has already lost 50% of it's mass, so there would be every reason to believe that a planet closer in has completely gone by now.
I'm neither. If it the rule has a constant 4 at the beginning I would propose that represents an additional planet. And you know there is no way you can say that is wrong for they are saying that at the distance that Mercury is it has already lost 50% of it's mass, so there would be every reason to believe that a planet closer in has completely gone by now.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 30 2011, 03:18 AM)
I'm neither. If it the rule has a constant 4 at the beginning I would propose that represents an additional planet. And you know there is no way you can say that is wrong for they are saying that at the distance that Mercury is it has already lost 50% of it's mass, so there would be every reason to believe that a planet closer in has completely gone by now.
From Wikipedia on Mercury (planet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28pl...te_note-Benz-26
"Mercury's core has a higher iron content than that of any other major planet in the Solar System, and several theories have been proposed to explain this. The most widely accepted theory is that Mercury originally had a metal-silicate ratio similar to common chondrite meteorites, thought to be typical of the Solar System's rocky matter, and a mass approximately 2.25 times its current mass.[27] Early in the Solar System’s history, Mercury may have been struck by a planetesimal of approximately 1/6 that mass and several hundred kilometers across.[27] The impact would have stripped away much of the original crust and mantle, leaving the core behind as a relatively major component.[27] A similar process, known as the giant impact hypothesis, has been proposed to explain the formation of Earth’s Moon.[27]"
See what it said "Early in the Solar System’s history, Mercury may have been struck by a planetesimal of approximately 1/6 that mass and several hundred kilometres across.[27]"
Why could that planetesimal be the remnant of another smaller inner planet. Stripped rapidly by the intensity of the Sun?
From Wikipedia on Mercury (planet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28pl...te_note-Benz-26
"Mercury's core has a higher iron content than that of any other major planet in the Solar System, and several theories have been proposed to explain this. The most widely accepted theory is that Mercury originally had a metal-silicate ratio similar to common chondrite meteorites, thought to be typical of the Solar System's rocky matter, and a mass approximately 2.25 times its current mass.[27] Early in the Solar System’s history, Mercury may have been struck by a planetesimal of approximately 1/6 that mass and several hundred kilometers across.[27] The impact would have stripped away much of the original crust and mantle, leaving the core behind as a relatively major component.[27] A similar process, known as the giant impact hypothesis, has been proposed to explain the formation of Earth’s Moon.[27]"
See what it said "Early in the Solar System’s history, Mercury may have been struck by a planetesimal of approximately 1/6 that mass and several hundred kilometres across.[27]"
Why could that planetesimal be the remnant of another smaller inner planet. Stripped rapidly by the intensity of the Sun?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 30 2011, 06:12 AM)
See what it said "Early in the Solar System’s history, Mercury may have been struck by a planetesimal of approximately 1/6 that mass and several hundred kilometres across.[27]"
Why could that planetesimal be the remnant of another smaller inner planet. Stripped rapidly by the intensity of the Sun?
Collision with a planetesimal does not necessarily imply a body from a close or inner orbit. The offending object may have been thrown inward by the Jovians from the outer solar system.
Why could that planetesimal be the remnant of another smaller inner planet. Stripped rapidly by the intensity of the Sun?
Collision with a planetesimal does not necessarily imply a body from a close or inner orbit. The offending object may have been thrown inward by the Jovians from the outer solar system.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 30 2011, 10:25 AM)
Collision with a planetesimal does not necessarily imply a body from a close or inner orbit. The offending object may have been thrown inward by the Jovians from the outer solar system.
That is true, but the material found in these impacts is more like the substance of an inner planet rather than the ice giants.
That is true, but the material found in these impacts is more like the substance of an inner planet rather than the ice giants.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 30 2011, 12:34 PM)
That is true, but the material found in these impacts is more like the substance of an inner planet rather than the ice giants.
What is an ice giant?
You do realize that Jupiter is very very hot, right?
What is an ice giant?
You do realize that Jupiter is very very hot, right?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 30 2011, 05:30 PM)
What is an ice giant?
You do realize that Jupiter is very very hot, right?
Jupiter hot? Why do you say that? What I did realise I wanted to reply to that post and I had heard of the term "Jovian" but I was not sure which planets it was referring to. I thought it must have been the planets futher out nearer the Kuiper belt, or its associated scattered disc, which lie beyond the orbit of Neptune.
"Uranus and Neptune are also called "Ice Giants," although most of their pressurized ices are probably in the form of supercritical fluids rather than the ices found on Earth and Mars (Hofstadter et al, 2008 draft). These two giant planets probably have large fractions of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur -- the next most abundant elements in the Sun and Solar nebula after hydrogen and helium -- relative to Jupiter and Saturn, as solids and gases trapped in water-ice clathrates (Hofstadter et al, 2008 draft; and Ingersoll et al, 2005). According to some planetary models, these two giant planets may have substantial layers of "superionic water" ice under relatively shallow hydrogen and helium atmospheres (in addition to "metallic ice" also found in Jupiter and Saturn), which would explain their unusual non-axisymmetric and non-dipolar, magnetic fields (Stanley and Bloxham, 2006)."
You do realize that Jupiter is very very hot, right?
Jupiter hot? Why do you say that? What I did realise I wanted to reply to that post and I had heard of the term "Jovian" but I was not sure which planets it was referring to. I thought it must have been the planets futher out nearer the Kuiper belt, or its associated scattered disc, which lie beyond the orbit of Neptune.
"Uranus and Neptune are also called "Ice Giants," although most of their pressurized ices are probably in the form of supercritical fluids rather than the ices found on Earth and Mars (Hofstadter et al, 2008 draft). These two giant planets probably have large fractions of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur -- the next most abundant elements in the Sun and Solar nebula after hydrogen and helium -- relative to Jupiter and Saturn, as solids and gases trapped in water-ice clathrates (Hofstadter et al, 2008 draft; and Ingersoll et al, 2005). According to some planetary models, these two giant planets may have substantial layers of "superionic water" ice under relatively shallow hydrogen and helium atmospheres (in addition to "metallic ice" also found in Jupiter and Saturn), which would explain their unusual non-axisymmetric and non-dipolar, magnetic fields (Stanley and Bloxham, 2006)."
QUOTE
The temperature at the top of Jupiter's clouds is approximately -230oF (-145oC). The temperature increases as you move downward through the clouds, and reaches 70oF (21oC) at the point in the atmosphere where its atmospheric pressure is about 10 times that of earth's. Near the core of Jupiter the temperature may reach 43,000oF (24,000oC), which is hotter than the surface of the sun.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_temp...r#ixzz1cIFfgP1k
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_temp...r#ixzz1cIFfgP1k
Well then it is hard to describe as Hot or cold for that really depends on where you are on or in the planet.
So even if the Earth was going through an enormous Ice Age it would still have a molten core. Hot or cold?
To me Jupiter is cold for the surface is cold. The core temperature is irrelevant.
So even if the Earth was going through an enormous Ice Age it would still have a molten core. Hot or cold?
To me Jupiter is cold for the surface is cold. The core temperature is irrelevant.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 30 2011, 03:01 PM)
Jupiter hot? Why do you say that? What I did realise I wanted to reply to that post and I had heard of the term "Jovian" but I was not sure which planets it was referring to. I thought it must have been the planets futher out nearer the Kuiper belt, or its associated scattered disc, which lie beyond the orbit of Neptune.
Pressure creates heat. That's how fusion in the center of a star begins. Jupiter falls into the category of "brown dwarf," where it has the right composition to be a star, but it falls short of the minimum mass requirement (which is about 70-80 times the mass of Jupiter). Another interesting fact, the core of Jupiter is most likely metallic Hydrogen, aka Hydrogen compressed to its solid form due to the extreme pressure.
As AlexG said, the outer edge of the atmosphere is very cold, but the heat goes up as you go down, just like Earth.
If you're going to copy something wholesale, you need to provide a reference/source.
"Jovian" is a reference to "Jove," another name for Jupiter, the Roman god.
If you're going to copy something wholesale, you need to provide a reference/source.
"Jovian" is a reference to "Jove," another name for Jupiter, the Roman god.
To me Jupiter is cold for the surface is cold. The core temperature is irrelevant.
Jupiter has no surface. It is a gradient from gas to solid, with no clear stages. It just gets thicker and thicker as you go down.
Pressure creates heat. That's how fusion in the center of a star begins. Jupiter falls into the category of "brown dwarf," where it has the right composition to be a star, but it falls short of the minimum mass requirement (which is about 70-80 times the mass of Jupiter). Another interesting fact, the core of Jupiter is most likely metallic Hydrogen, aka Hydrogen compressed to its solid form due to the extreme pressure.
As AlexG said, the outer edge of the atmosphere is very cold, but the heat goes up as you go down, just like Earth.
QUOTE
"Uranus and Neptune are also called "Ice Giants," although most of their pressurized ices are probably in the form of supercritical fluids rather than the ices found on Earth and Mars (Hofstadter et al, 2008 draft). These two giant planets probably have large fractions of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur -- the next most abundant elements in the Sun and Solar nebula after hydrogen and helium -- relative to Jupiter and Saturn, as solids and gases trapped in water-ice clathrates (Hofstadter et al, 2008 draft; and Ingersoll et al, 2005). According to some planetary models, these two giant planets may have substantial layers of "superionic water" ice under relatively shallow hydrogen and helium atmospheres (in addition to "metallic ice" also found in Jupiter and Saturn), which would explain their unusual non-axisymmetric and non-dipolar, magnetic fields (Stanley and Bloxham, 2006)."
If you're going to copy something wholesale, you need to provide a reference/source.
"Jovian" is a reference to "Jove," another name for Jupiter, the Roman god.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Uranus and Neptune are also called "Ice Giants," although most of their pressurized ices are probably in the form of supercritical fluids rather than the ices found on Earth and Mars (Hofstadter et al, 2008 draft). These two giant planets probably have large fractions of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur -- the next most abundant elements in the Sun and Solar nebula after hydrogen and helium -- relative to Jupiter and Saturn, as solids and gases trapped in water-ice clathrates (Hofstadter et al, 2008 draft; and Ingersoll et al, 2005). According to some planetary models, these two giant planets may have substantial layers of "superionic water" ice under relatively shallow hydrogen and helium atmospheres (in addition to "metallic ice" also found in Jupiter and Saturn), which would explain their unusual non-axisymmetric and non-dipolar, magnetic fields (Stanley and Bloxham, 2006)." |
If you're going to copy something wholesale, you need to provide a reference/source.
"Jovian" is a reference to "Jove," another name for Jupiter, the Roman god.
To me Jupiter is cold for the surface is cold. The core temperature is irrelevant.
Jupiter has no surface. It is a gradient from gas to solid, with no clear stages. It just gets thicker and thicker as you go down.
Don't they talk about the surface of the Sun and that is also a gas? So the surface of Jupiter is the gas surface too.
It was just a random reference to show how others are referring to 2 outer planets as Ice Giants.
It was just a random reference to show how others are referring to 2 outer planets as Ice Giants.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 30 2011, 04:34 PM)
That is true, but the material found in these impacts is more like the substance of an inner planet rather than the ice giants.
I referred to the Jovian planets (the gas giants) in regards to their mass, not their composition. It wasn’t a matter of what they could contribute materially, but how their large masses could influence the orbits of other bodies in the solar system.
I referred to the Jovian planets (the gas giants) in regards to their mass, not their composition. It wasn’t a matter of what they could contribute materially, but how their large masses could influence the orbits of other bodies in the solar system.
QUOTE
A series of simulations by Gomes et al. start with a Solar System where the gas giant planets are in a tight orbital configuration.[15] This configuration is in itself stable, but assuming a rich trans-Neptunian belt, stray transneptunians interacted with these planets, causing them to migrate slowly during a time of several hundred million years. Jupiter is predicted to migrate inward, whereas the other planets go outwards. By this migration, the solar system became catastrophically unstable when Jupiter and Saturn reached a 2:1 orbital resonance, causing the outer solar system to reconfigure rapidly to a wide jovian system. As these planets migrated, resonances would be "swept" through the asteroid belt and Kuiper belt. These resonances would increase the orbital eccentricity of the objects, allowing them to enter the inner solar system and impact with the terrestrial planets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bo...Possible_causes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bo...Possible_causes
You get the feeling so much is unknown many feasible propositions could be formulated.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 30 2011, 07:09 PM)
You get the feeling so much is unknown many feasible propositions could be formulated.
The key word here is "feasible."
The key word here is "feasible."
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 30 2011, 11:09 PM)
You get the feeling so much is unknown many feasible propositions could be formulated.
Then it might be wiser to focus on feasibility born out by professional research rather than the imagination of amateurs.
Then it might be wiser to focus on feasibility born out by professional research rather than the imagination of amateurs.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 30 2011, 11:09 PM)
You get the feeling so much is unknown many feasible propositions could be formulated.
That comment was after reading the referenced link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bo...Possible_causes
There is possibilities based on previous possibilities, and the end I realized there was no certainty.
That comment was after reading the referenced link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bo...Possible_causes
There is possibilities based on previous possibilities, and the end I realized there was no certainty.
What is wrong with having inner planetesimals?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Oct 29 2011, 10:17 PM)
Looking at The Titius Bode Law article on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law
"This latter point seems in particular to follow from the astonishing relation which the known six planets observe in their distances from the Sun. Let the distance from the Sun to Saturn be taken as 100, then Mercury is separated by 4 such parts from the Sun. Venus is 4+3=7. The Earth 4+6=10. Mars 4+12=16. Now comes a gap in this so orderly progression. After Mars there follows a space of 4+24=28 parts, in which no planet has yet been seen. Can one believe that the Founder of the universe had left this space empty? Certainly not. From here we come to the distance of Jupiter by 4+48=52 parts, and finally to that of Saturn by 4+96=100 parts."
This seems to suggest that there was once a small planet closer to the Sun to Mercury.
This could finally account for the massive impact collision that would be needed to create the Comets and asteroids that affected the Earth during the Late Heavy Bombardment Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment
Why does this guy not have negative feedback yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law
"This latter point seems in particular to follow from the astonishing relation which the known six planets observe in their distances from the Sun. Let the distance from the Sun to Saturn be taken as 100, then Mercury is separated by 4 such parts from the Sun. Venus is 4+3=7. The Earth 4+6=10. Mars 4+12=16. Now comes a gap in this so orderly progression. After Mars there follows a space of 4+24=28 parts, in which no planet has yet been seen. Can one believe that the Founder of the universe had left this space empty? Certainly not. From here we come to the distance of Jupiter by 4+48=52 parts, and finally to that of Saturn by 4+96=100 parts."
This seems to suggest that there was once a small planet closer to the Sun to Mercury.
This could finally account for the massive impact collision that would be needed to create the Comets and asteroids that affected the Earth during the Late Heavy Bombardment Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment
Why does this guy not have negative feedback yet?
QUOTE (gocrew+Nov 5 2011, 12:36 AM)
Why does this guy not have negative feedback yet?
I'm asking myself the very opposite; "when is someone going to give me some positive feedback?"
The point I was trying to make in this thread is to contrast the opinions that say a planetesimal hit Mercury, and you immediately assume it came from further out, but there is plenty of space for planetesimals to form between Mercury and the Sun as well.
But the second view never seems to get mentioned, yet to me it seems more likely as planets closer in would have higher orbital velocity and hence susceptible to aberrations and the full force of the solar radiation.
I'm asking myself the very opposite; "when is someone going to give me some positive feedback?"
The point I was trying to make in this thread is to contrast the opinions that say a planetesimal hit Mercury, and you immediately assume it came from further out, but there is plenty of space for planetesimals to form between Mercury and the Sun as well.
But the second view never seems to get mentioned, yet to me it seems more likely as planets closer in would have higher orbital velocity and hence susceptible to aberrations and the full force of the solar radiation.
The feedback system is not operational.
QUOTE (AlexG+Nov 5 2011, 01:07 AM)
The feedback system is not operational.
Well you know me a bit better. Do I deserve negative fed back? Haven't I always put up scientific and valid logical arguments to support my theories!
Well you know me a bit better. Do I deserve negative fed back? Haven't I always put up scientific and valid logical arguments to support my theories!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 4 2011, 09:20 PM)
Well you know me a bit better. Do I deserve negative fed back?
Yes.
No.
Yes.
QUOTE
Haven't I always put up scientific and valid logical arguments to support my theories!
No.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 5 2011, 01:24 AM)
Yes.
No.
Have many arguments have you won against me yet? None!
No.
Have many arguments have you won against me yet? None!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 4 2011, 09:31 PM)
Have many arguments have you won against me yet? None!
What arguments? You mean the times where you say something idiotic and I give you the facts?
What arguments? You mean the times where you say something idiotic and I give you the facts?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 5 2011, 02:40 AM)
What arguments? You mean the times where you say something idiotic and I give you the facts?
Well do you agree or disagree? What would you say to defend your view?
"... if a planetesimal hit Mercury, do you immediately assume it came from further out?
[Yet there is plenty of space for planetesimals to form between Mercury and the Sun as well.
But the second view never seems to get mentioned, yet to me it seems more likely as planets closer in would have higher orbital velocity and hence susceptible to aberrations and the full force of the solar radiation. ]
Well do you agree or disagree? What would you say to defend your view?
"... if a planetesimal hit Mercury, do you immediately assume it came from further out?
[Yet there is plenty of space for planetesimals to form between Mercury and the Sun as well.
But the second view never seems to get mentioned, yet to me it seems more likely as planets closer in would have higher orbital velocity and hence susceptible to aberrations and the full force of the solar radiation. ]
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 4 2011, 10:46 PM)
"... if a planetesimal hit Mercury, do you immediately assume it came from further out?
No. Such a body could have easily formed in one of the Lagrangian points.
No. Such a body could have easily formed in one of the Lagrangian points.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 5 2011, 04:02 AM)
No. Such a body could have easily formed in one of the Lagrangian points.
Have you ever used those "Lagrangian point" words in a sentence ever before?
As I understand those points are in the same orbital distance from the Sun but 60 degrees ahead or behind in the orbit. for some reason there is a region of lower gravitational pull at that point. So if that is the case why did it whack into Venus and not just become a moon?
Have you ever used those "Lagrangian point" words in a sentence ever before?
As I understand those points are in the same orbital distance from the Sun but 60 degrees ahead or behind in the orbit. for some reason there is a region of lower gravitational pull at that point. So if that is the case why did it whack into Venus and not just become a moon?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 5 2011, 12:51 AM)
As I understand those points are in the same orbital distance from the Sun but 60 degrees ahead or behind in the orbit. for some reason there is a region of lower gravitational pull at that point. So if that is the case why did it whack into Venus and not just become a moon?
Small planets are probably not capable of capturing moon-sized objects unless they are on the lower scale, like Phobos and Deimos around Mars. Earth's moon is theorized to have been formed from debris cast off by a collision with an object wich formed in one of Earth's Lagrangian points, since Earth doesn't have the mass to capture an object of that size.
For a satellite capture to work, the conditions have to be just right to avoid a collision but still result in a stable orbit. Jupiter makes it look easy because it has a very large "target" which objects can hit and still get into a stable orbit.
When we're dealing with an object formed in the same orbit as the planet in question, collision is the most likely result.
Small planets are probably not capable of capturing moon-sized objects unless they are on the lower scale, like Phobos and Deimos around Mars. Earth's moon is theorized to have been formed from debris cast off by a collision with an object wich formed in one of Earth's Lagrangian points, since Earth doesn't have the mass to capture an object of that size.
For a satellite capture to work, the conditions have to be just right to avoid a collision but still result in a stable orbit. Jupiter makes it look easy because it has a very large "target" which objects can hit and still get into a stable orbit.
When we're dealing with an object formed in the same orbit as the planet in question, collision is the most likely result.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 5 2011, 02:39 PM)
Small planets are probably not capable of capturing moon-sized objects unless they are on the lower scale, like Phobos and Deimos around Mars. Earth's moon is theorized to have been formed from debris cast off by a collision with an object which formed in one of Earth's Lagrangian points, since Earth doesn't have the mass to capture an object of that size.
For a satellite capture to work, the conditions have to be just right to avoid a collision but still result in a stable orbit. Jupiter makes it look easy because it has a very large "target" which objects can hit and still get into a stable orbit.
When we're dealing with an object formed in the same orbit as the planet in question, collision is the most likely result.
You have made some statements here that I have not read before. Are you making them up or tell me how do you come by them?
You are well aware of my hypothesis that extra volatile mass was available on the Early Earth. So with masses between 2 - 50 Earth masses that must surely have sufficient mass!
And as you say a larger planet works best. I favour the Moon Capture Theory myself.
You are well aware of my hypothesis that extra volatile mass was available on the Early Earth. So with masses between 2 - 50 Earth masses that must surely have sufficient mass!
And as you say a larger planet works best. I favour the Moon Capture Theory myself.
When we're dealing with an object formed in the same orbit as the planet in question, collision is the most likely result.
I generally agree with this statement for that is the basis of my planet building hypothesis, i.e. that the planetesimals forming in the torus attract and collide with each other.
For a satellite capture to work, the conditions have to be just right to avoid a collision but still result in a stable orbit. Jupiter makes it look easy because it has a very large "target" which objects can hit and still get into a stable orbit.
When we're dealing with an object formed in the same orbit as the planet in question, collision is the most likely result.
You have made some statements here that I have not read before. Are you making them up or tell me how do you come by them?
QUOTE
Small planets are probably not capable of capturing moon-sized objects unless they are on the lower scale, ....... since Earth doesn't have the mass to capture an object of that size.
You are well aware of my hypothesis that extra volatile mass was available on the Early Earth. So with masses between 2 - 50 Earth masses that must surely have sufficient mass!
And as you say a larger planet works best. I favour the Moon Capture Theory myself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Small planets are probably not capable of capturing moon-sized objects unless they are on the lower scale, ....... since Earth doesn't have the mass to capture an object of that size. |
You are well aware of my hypothesis that extra volatile mass was available on the Early Earth. So with masses between 2 - 50 Earth masses that must surely have sufficient mass!
And as you say a larger planet works best. I favour the Moon Capture Theory myself.
When we're dealing with an object formed in the same orbit as the planet in question, collision is the most likely result.
I generally agree with this statement for that is the basis of my planet building hypothesis, i.e. that the planetesimals forming in the torus attract and collide with each other.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 5 2011, 11:05 AM)
You have made some statements here that I have not read before. Are you making them up or tell me how do you come by them?
Reading books and articles, taking classes, etc.
Except the moon has the same material composition as the Earth's upper layers (the moon doesn't contain the high quantities of metals that exist at the Earth's core), which implies that the moon wasn't captured from another part of the solar system.
Also, the moon's orbit is precisely keyed to the mass of the Earth. If the Earth was (as you say) 30x bigger, the moon would have to orbit faster and further out. If the Earth was to suddenly gain 30x its current mass, the moon would collide with it fairly quickly.
Yet another thing to keep in mind, we have observed many extrasolar gas giants orbiting their parent stars much more closely than jupiter does, implying that solar wind isn't powerful enough to cause catastrophic mass reduction.
Except the moon has the same material composition as the Earth's upper layers (the moon doesn't contain the high quantities of metals that exist at the Earth's core), which implies that the moon wasn't captured from another part of the solar system.
Also, the moon's orbit is precisely keyed to the mass of the Earth. If the Earth was (as you say) 30x bigger, the moon would have to orbit faster and further out. If the Earth was to suddenly gain 30x its current mass, the moon would collide with it fairly quickly.
Yet another thing to keep in mind, we have observed many extrasolar gas giants orbiting their parent stars much more closely than jupiter does, implying that solar wind isn't powerful enough to cause catastrophic mass reduction.
I generally agree with this statement for that is the basis of my planet building hypothesis, i.e. that the planetesimals forming in the torus attract and collide with each other.
I'm glad that something so obvious made it into your "hypothesis."
Reading books and articles, taking classes, etc.
QUOTE
You are well aware of my hypothesis that extra volatile mass was available on the Early Earth. So with masses between 2 - 50 Earth masses that must surely have sufficient mass!
And as you say a larger planet works best. I favour the Moon Capture Theory myself.
And as you say a larger planet works best. I favour the Moon Capture Theory myself.
Except the moon has the same material composition as the Earth's upper layers (the moon doesn't contain the high quantities of metals that exist at the Earth's core), which implies that the moon wasn't captured from another part of the solar system.
Also, the moon's orbit is precisely keyed to the mass of the Earth. If the Earth was (as you say) 30x bigger, the moon would have to orbit faster and further out. If the Earth was to suddenly gain 30x its current mass, the moon would collide with it fairly quickly.
Yet another thing to keep in mind, we have observed many extrasolar gas giants orbiting their parent stars much more closely than jupiter does, implying that solar wind isn't powerful enough to cause catastrophic mass reduction.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are well aware of my hypothesis that extra volatile mass was available on the Early Earth. So with masses between 2 - 50 Earth masses that must surely have sufficient mass! And as you say a larger planet works best. I favour the Moon Capture Theory myself. |
Except the moon has the same material composition as the Earth's upper layers (the moon doesn't contain the high quantities of metals that exist at the Earth's core), which implies that the moon wasn't captured from another part of the solar system.
Also, the moon's orbit is precisely keyed to the mass of the Earth. If the Earth was (as you say) 30x bigger, the moon would have to orbit faster and further out. If the Earth was to suddenly gain 30x its current mass, the moon would collide with it fairly quickly.
Yet another thing to keep in mind, we have observed many extrasolar gas giants orbiting their parent stars much more closely than jupiter does, implying that solar wind isn't powerful enough to cause catastrophic mass reduction.
I generally agree with this statement for that is the basis of my planet building hypothesis, i.e. that the planetesimals forming in the torus attract and collide with each other.
I'm glad that something so obvious made it into your "hypothesis."
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 5 2011, 04:45 PM)
Reading books and articles, taking classes, etc.
Except the moon has the same material composition as the Earth's upper layers (the moon doesn't contain the high quantities of metals that exist at the Earth's core), which implies that the moon wasn't captured from another part of the solar system.
Also, the moon's orbit is precisely keyed to the mass of the Earth. If the Earth was (as you say) 30x bigger, the moon would have to orbit faster and further out. If the Earth was to suddenly gain 30x its current mass, the moon would collide with it fairly quickly.
Yet another thing to keep in mind, we have observed many extrasolar gas giants orbiting their parent stars much more closely than Jupiter does, implying that solar wind isn't powerful enough to cause catastrophic mass reduction.
I'm glad that something so obvious made it into your "hypothesis."
Thanks FBM, you replied to me without running me down for once, all your arguments were "scientific" for a change. I liked that but you have obviously made it harder to reply quickly.
This business about the Moon being keyed precisely to the Earth's orbit, is fascinating and worthy of checking, for I don't think it is that precise and allows for a gradual change to the masses and velocities of either body (within Escape velocity of course)
The recent finding of Gas Giant planets closer in to Suns has to be explained. Remember we are looking at space in a point in time. We can see them as gas giant now but what will they be like in 3.5 billion years time. So there is this change and it could be rapid or slow it is hard to say precisely but if you noted on the Mercury thread I showed that land plant and animals only appeared about 440 million years ago.
So that could be another point on the time graph the oceans covered every bit of land before that.
So I am thinking the loss of material is slow but progressive.
What got me thinking along this way was looking at the early type of land animals and flying reptiles and it was impossible for some of them to operate in the low pressure atmosphere there is today.
Sudden loss of atmospheric pressure could be part of the demise of the dinosaurs.
Except the moon has the same material composition as the Earth's upper layers (the moon doesn't contain the high quantities of metals that exist at the Earth's core), which implies that the moon wasn't captured from another part of the solar system.
Also, the moon's orbit is precisely keyed to the mass of the Earth. If the Earth was (as you say) 30x bigger, the moon would have to orbit faster and further out. If the Earth was to suddenly gain 30x its current mass, the moon would collide with it fairly quickly.
Yet another thing to keep in mind, we have observed many extrasolar gas giants orbiting their parent stars much more closely than Jupiter does, implying that solar wind isn't powerful enough to cause catastrophic mass reduction.
I'm glad that something so obvious made it into your "hypothesis."
Thanks FBM, you replied to me without running me down for once, all your arguments were "scientific" for a change. I liked that but you have obviously made it harder to reply quickly.
This business about the Moon being keyed precisely to the Earth's orbit, is fascinating and worthy of checking, for I don't think it is that precise and allows for a gradual change to the masses and velocities of either body (within Escape velocity of course)
The recent finding of Gas Giant planets closer in to Suns has to be explained. Remember we are looking at space in a point in time. We can see them as gas giant now but what will they be like in 3.5 billion years time. So there is this change and it could be rapid or slow it is hard to say precisely but if you noted on the Mercury thread I showed that land plant and animals only appeared about 440 million years ago.
So that could be another point on the time graph the oceans covered every bit of land before that.
So I am thinking the loss of material is slow but progressive.
What got me thinking along this way was looking at the early type of land animals and flying reptiles and it was impossible for some of them to operate in the low pressure atmosphere there is today.
Sudden loss of atmospheric pressure could be part of the demise of the dinosaurs.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 5 2011, 03:33 PM)
We can see them as gas giant now but what will they be like in 3.5 billion years time.
So I am thinking the loss of material is slow but progressive.
It's one thing if you're actually talking about a Hydrogen envelope getting depleted by the sun (the Earth isn't big enough to hold onto free hydrogen, but whatever), but you're talking about 29 Earth masses of WATER going missing, and you think it happened AFTER life arrived. That's complete nonsense.
For one, light doesn't even penetrate more than a couple miles into the ocean, so any life would be hanging out on the surface (the earliest life used photosynthesis), and you think Solar wind ripped off 29 Earth masses of water? How did life survive that one?
That's one hell of an assumption, and that's actually demonstrably wrong. Volcanic eruptions that occur under water leave very different geological traces than those that erupt on the surface.
That's one hell of an assumption, and that's actually demonstrably wrong. Volcanic eruptions that occur under water leave very different geological traces than those that erupt on the surface.
What got me thinking along this way was looking at the early type of land animals and flying reptiles and it was impossible for some of them to operate in the low pressure atmosphere there is today.
Another completely incorrect assumption.
So I am thinking the loss of material is slow but progressive.
It's one thing if you're actually talking about a Hydrogen envelope getting depleted by the sun (the Earth isn't big enough to hold onto free hydrogen, but whatever), but you're talking about 29 Earth masses of WATER going missing, and you think it happened AFTER life arrived. That's complete nonsense.
For one, light doesn't even penetrate more than a couple miles into the ocean, so any life would be hanging out on the surface (the earliest life used photosynthesis), and you think Solar wind ripped off 29 Earth masses of water? How did life survive that one?
QUOTE
So there is this change and it could be rapid or slow it is hard to say precisely but if you noted on the Mercury thread I showed that land plant and animals only appeared about 440 million years ago.
So that could be another point on the time graph the oceans covered every bit of land before that.
So that could be another point on the time graph the oceans covered every bit of land before that.
That's one hell of an assumption, and that's actually demonstrably wrong. Volcanic eruptions that occur under water leave very different geological traces than those that erupt on the surface.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So there is this change and it could be rapid or slow it is hard to say precisely but if you noted on the Mercury thread I showed that land plant and animals only appeared about 440 million years ago. So that could be another point on the time graph the oceans covered every bit of land before that. |
That's one hell of an assumption, and that's actually demonstrably wrong. Volcanic eruptions that occur under water leave very different geological traces than those that erupt on the surface.
What got me thinking along this way was looking at the early type of land animals and flying reptiles and it was impossible for some of them to operate in the low pressure atmosphere there is today.
Another completely incorrect assumption.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 5 2011, 09:33 PM)
It's one thing if you're actually talking about a Hydrogen envelope getting depleted by the sun (the Earth isn't big enough to hold onto free hydrogen, but whatever), but you're talking about 29 Earth masses of WATER going missing, and you think it happened AFTER life arrived. That's complete nonsense.
For one, light doesn't even penetrate more than a couple miles into the ocean, so any life would be hanging out on the surface (the earliest life used photosynthesis), and you think Solar wind ripped off 29 Earth masses of water? How did life survive that one?
That's one hell of an assumption, and that's actually demonstrably wrong. Volcanic eruptions that occur under water leave very different geological traces than those that erupt on the surface.
Another completely incorrect assumption.
Note it will not only be water but the entire gambit of volatiles that were in the protoplanetary disc.
At least 27 Earth masses are wafted off into space over the 4.5 billion years. Can it be done? That is where we need to apply the maths which we have not even delved into yet.
Sometime during that stage but no later than 3.7 billion years ago life arrived.
There are plenty of living organism quite at home in an ocean of liquids. The loss of material happens at the extreme of the atmosphere, which also would be very dense so there is plenty of protection available.
Do you know which examples in particular you are thinking of? It is worth looking into though.
Do you know which examples in particular you are thinking of? It is worth looking into though.
Robittybob: What got me thinking along this way was looking at the early type of land animals and flying reptiles and it was impossible for some of them to operate in the low pressure atmosphere there is today. - Your reply:
Another completely incorrect assumption.
Well this is something that will need sorting but remember I'm the veterinarian so will probably understand animal anatomy and physiology better than you, but we'll see.
expansion vs. contraction, vs rebound effect.
Planetary expansion, or inflation occurs when induction, from other larger, or more massive bodies, with a higher electrical pressure. they influence these planets by there own mass gravity. A type of flux energy. you may say neutrinos, or core heating.
contraction, or dilation after periods of induction occur, give cause for a relaxation period, and the lowering of the gravity type flux described. This could be seen as if i blow up a balloon by heat alone, then allow it to cool over time.
In mars case, if it had a solid interior, inductions may expand the planet, butt to a smaller degree then if the planet already possess a hot or molten interior.
a rebound effect can be viewed as a heavy weight upon the crust, causing the crust in that location to rebound under pressure, once the weight is removed.
when a rebound effect happens on earth, after the influencing inductive mass, pulls away.
the compression caused by a type of casimir effect, due to localized flux type heating, or the expansion mechanism of the inductive force.
a layer, or boundary were gas, and molten material once was would leave a void, after the secondary massive object has pulled away far enough from the planet.
very similar to a rebound effect due to the crust, and the weight of the material there of.
This is simply fukin nonsense.
For one, light doesn't even penetrate more than a couple miles into the ocean, so any life would be hanging out on the surface (the earliest life used photosynthesis), and you think Solar wind ripped off 29 Earth masses of water? How did life survive that one?
That's one hell of an assumption, and that's actually demonstrably wrong. Volcanic eruptions that occur under water leave very different geological traces than those that erupt on the surface.
Another completely incorrect assumption.
Note it will not only be water but the entire gambit of volatiles that were in the protoplanetary disc.
At least 27 Earth masses are wafted off into space over the 4.5 billion years. Can it be done? That is where we need to apply the maths which we have not even delved into yet.
Sometime during that stage but no later than 3.7 billion years ago life arrived.
There are plenty of living organism quite at home in an ocean of liquids. The loss of material happens at the extreme of the atmosphere, which also would be very dense so there is plenty of protection available.
QUOTE
Volcanic eruptions that occur under water leave very different geological traces than those that erupt on the surface.
Do you know which examples in particular you are thinking of? It is worth looking into though.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Volcanic eruptions that occur under water leave very different geological traces than those that erupt on the surface. |
Do you know which examples in particular you are thinking of? It is worth looking into though.
Robittybob: What got me thinking along this way was looking at the early type of land animals and flying reptiles and it was impossible for some of them to operate in the low pressure atmosphere there is today. - Your reply:
Another completely incorrect assumption.
Well this is something that will need sorting but remember I'm the veterinarian so will probably understand animal anatomy and physiology better than you, but we'll see.
What about this idea?
Ever heard of Archimedes? Melt the ice of the Antarctic would the land mass float upward and the ocean floors would correspondingly sink. So instead of sea levels really rising you would have the small islands in the middle of the oceans suffering from sinking instead.
Ever heard of Archimedes? Melt the ice of the Antarctic would the land mass float upward and the ocean floors would correspondingly sink. So instead of sea levels really rising you would have the small islands in the middle of the oceans suffering from sinking instead.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 6 2011, 08:13 AM)
What about this idea?
Ever heard of Archimedes? Melt the ice of the Antarctic would the land mass float upward and the ocean floors would correspondingly sink. So instead of sea levels really rising you would have the small islands in the middle of the oceans suffering from sinking instead.
If the ice sheet is a couple of miles thick I can't see Antarctica popping up a couple of miles out of the sea! No, that would not happen for ice with a density of 1 will have only minimal effect of displacing land with a density of 4.
But the sinking of the small islands in the Pacific does seem to be a real concern to the people living there.
Ever heard of Archimedes? Melt the ice of the Antarctic would the land mass float upward and the ocean floors would correspondingly sink. So instead of sea levels really rising you would have the small islands in the middle of the oceans suffering from sinking instead.
If the ice sheet is a couple of miles thick I can't see Antarctica popping up a couple of miles out of the sea! No, that would not happen for ice with a density of 1 will have only minimal effect of displacing land with a density of 4.
But the sinking of the small islands in the Pacific does seem to be a real concern to the people living there.
There were some recent photos of Mars on NZ TV. The surface effects looked like a mild version of the Expanding Earth. These cracks in the crust are where they say water existed for a while. As I was thinking if this represents the degree of compression that Mars suffered it would seem that Early Mars never had an enormous atmosphere as did Early Earth in my planet building hypothesis.
Does anyone have a link to Mars showing what looks like tectonic plates splitting the crust of Mars?
Does anyone have a link to Mars showing what looks like tectonic plates splitting the crust of Mars?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 8 2011, 08:08 AM)
There were some recent photos of Mars on NZ TV. The surface effects looked like a mild version of the Expanding Earth. These cracks in the crust are where they say water existed for a while. As I was thinking if this represents the degree of compression that Mars suffered it would seem that Early Mars never had an enormous atmosphere as did Early Earth in my planet building hypothesis.
Does anyone have a link to Mars showing what looks like tectonic plates splitting the crust of Mars?
Photos of the surface of Mars showing possible expansion cracks.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/trans...-pictures14.htm
Photos 4, 6, and 7 of that series are helpful.
I was also told that volcanic activity on Mars could have also reduced the internal expansion pressure.
We will see if there are revealing photos of this too.
Does anyone have a link to Mars showing what looks like tectonic plates splitting the crust of Mars?
Photos of the surface of Mars showing possible expansion cracks.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/trans...-pictures14.htm
Photos 4, 6, and 7 of that series are helpful.
I was also told that volcanic activity on Mars could have also reduced the internal expansion pressure.
We will see if there are revealing photos of this too.
"Volcanoes on Mars"
thanks to http://www.universetoday.com/14837/volcanoes-on-mars/
"Olympus Mons is a shield volcano on Mars and it is the largest volcano in the Solar System. Located in the Tharsis region of the planet along with three other large volcanoes, Olympus Mons measures an incredible 27 km in height and is 3 times taller than Mount Everest. It is about 500 km in diameter. The mountain was formed from a single hotspot that flowed for thousands, if not millions, of years. The lack of plate tectonics that allowed this unhindered flow also prevented massive pressure buildups that would have blown the top off of the volcano, decreasing its overall height. "
So the external pressure is removed and the internal pressure produces a crack in the crust and is relieved by the pouring out of the molten larva for millions of years.
Much of the gas released by the volcanoes also has been lost to space.
thanks to http://www.universetoday.com/14837/volcanoes-on-mars/
"Olympus Mons is a shield volcano on Mars and it is the largest volcano in the Solar System. Located in the Tharsis region of the planet along with three other large volcanoes, Olympus Mons measures an incredible 27 km in height and is 3 times taller than Mount Everest. It is about 500 km in diameter. The mountain was formed from a single hotspot that flowed for thousands, if not millions, of years. The lack of plate tectonics that allowed this unhindered flow also prevented massive pressure buildups that would have blown the top off of the volcano, decreasing its overall height. "
So the external pressure is removed and the internal pressure produces a crack in the crust and is relieved by the pouring out of the molten larva for millions of years.
Much of the gas released by the volcanoes also has been lost to space.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 6 2011, 03:39 PM)
If the ice sheet is a couple of miles thick I can't see Antarctica popping up a couple of miles out of the sea!
expansion vs. contraction, vs rebound effect.
Planetary expansion, or inflation occurs when induction, from other larger, or more massive bodies, with a higher electrical pressure. they influence these planets by there own mass gravity. A type of flux energy. you may say neutrinos, or core heating.
contraction, or dilation after periods of induction occur, give cause for a relaxation period, and the lowering of the gravity type flux described. This could be seen as if i blow up a balloon by heat alone, then allow it to cool over time.
In mars case, if it had a solid interior, inductions may expand the planet, butt to a smaller degree then if the planet already possess a hot or molten interior.
a rebound effect can be viewed as a heavy weight upon the crust, causing the crust in that location to rebound under pressure, once the weight is removed.
when a rebound effect happens on earth, after the influencing inductive mass, pulls away.
the compression caused by a type of casimir effect, due to localized flux type heating, or the expansion mechanism of the inductive force.
a layer, or boundary were gas, and molten material once was would leave a void, after the secondary massive object has pulled away far enough from the planet.
very similar to a rebound effect due to the crust, and the weight of the material there of.
expansion vs. contraction, vs rebound effect.
Planetary expansion, or inflation occurs when induction, from other larger, or more massive bodies, with a higher electrical pressure. they influence these planets by there own mass gravity. A type of flux energy. you may say neutrinos, or core heating.
contraction, or dilation after periods of induction occur, give cause for a relaxation period, and the lowering of the gravity type flux described. This could be seen as if i blow up a balloon by heat alone, then allow it to cool over time.
In mars case, if it had a solid interior, inductions may expand the planet, butt to a smaller degree then if the planet already possess a hot or molten interior.
a rebound effect can be viewed as a heavy weight upon the crust, causing the crust in that location to rebound under pressure, once the weight is removed.
when a rebound effect happens on earth, after the influencing inductive mass, pulls away.
the compression caused by a type of casimir effect, due to localized flux type heating, or the expansion mechanism of the inductive force.
a layer, or boundary were gas, and molten material once was would leave a void, after the secondary massive object has pulled away far enough from the planet.
very similar to a rebound effect due to the crust, and the weight of the material there of.
Your science is so different I struggle to understand it.
Can you say if the Sun is affecting the Earth other than through gravity and radiation?
Just one or two pertinent sentences please. to start me off.
Can you say if the Sun is affecting the Earth other than through gravity and radiation?
Just one or two pertinent sentences please. to start me off.
QUOTE (Rubberball+Nov 12 2011, 01:23 PM)
expansion vs. contraction, vs rebound effect.
Planetary expansion, or inflation occurs when induction, from other larger, or more massive bodies, with a higher electrical pressure. they influence these planets by there own mass gravity. A type of flux energy. you may say neutrinos, or core heating.
contraction, or dilation after periods of induction occur, give cause for a relaxation period, and the lowering of the gravity type flux described. This could be seen as if i blow up a balloon by heat alone, then allow it to cool over time.
In mars case, if it had a solid interior, inductions may expand the planet, butt to a smaller degree then if the planet already possess a hot or molten interior.
a rebound effect can be viewed as a heavy weight upon the crust, causing the crust in that location to rebound under pressure, once the weight is removed.
when a rebound effect happens on earth, after the influencing inductive mass, pulls away.
the compression caused by a type of casimir effect, due to localized flux type heating, or the expansion mechanism of the inductive force.
a layer, or boundary were gas, and molten material once was would leave a void, after the secondary massive object has pulled away far enough from the planet.
very similar to a rebound effect due to the crust, and the weight of the material there of.
This is simply fukin nonsense.
Somehow we have to keep every statement positive for negativity will be turning "Newbies" away.
sorry, I am dyslectic.
The sun is effecting the earth though gravity, and radiation.
There are also other forces effecting the earth, and the surroundings.
spin momentum, localized inductions, including the sun, magnetic fields, the earths ionosphere itself, and then the interactions of them all.
the sun may also cause core heating by overloading the ionosphere, causing a spark to be transferred to the earth. Like a lay-den jar.
one other factor, the removal of oil from the earth will cause the entire magnetic field, and atmosphere to be lost.
Why you may ask? the earth is a transformer, it must isolate the charge within the core.
no oil to insulate the high potential difference between the earth, and cold space, the more leakage of earths generated atmosphere. or magnetic field, or potential charge.
The sun is effecting the earth though gravity, and radiation.
There are also other forces effecting the earth, and the surroundings.
spin momentum, localized inductions, including the sun, magnetic fields, the earths ionosphere itself, and then the interactions of them all.
the sun may also cause core heating by overloading the ionosphere, causing a spark to be transferred to the earth. Like a lay-den jar.
one other factor, the removal of oil from the earth will cause the entire magnetic field, and atmosphere to be lost.
Why you may ask? the earth is a transformer, it must isolate the charge within the core.
no oil to insulate the high potential difference between the earth, and cold space, the more leakage of earths generated atmosphere. or magnetic field, or potential charge.
QUOTE (Rubberball+Nov 12 2011, 08:51 PM)
sorry, I am dyslectic.
The sun is effecting the earth though gravity, and radiation.
There are also other forces effecting the earth, and the surroundings.
spin momentum, localized inductions, including the sun, magnetic fields, the earths ionosphere itself, and then the interactions of them all.
the sun may also cause core heating by overloading the ionosphere, causing a spark to be transferred to the earth. Like a lay-den jar.
one other factor, the removal of oil from the earth will cause the entire magnetic field, and atmosphere to be lost.
Why you may ask? the earth is a transformer, it must isolate the charge within the core.
no oil to insulate the high potential difference between the earth, and cold space, the more leakage of earths generated atmosphere. or magnetic field, or potential charge.
Well as far as I know if the oil was there for insulation there would need to be one hell of lot more oil.
The sun is effecting the earth though gravity, and radiation.
There are also other forces effecting the earth, and the surroundings.
spin momentum, localized inductions, including the sun, magnetic fields, the earths ionosphere itself, and then the interactions of them all.
the sun may also cause core heating by overloading the ionosphere, causing a spark to be transferred to the earth. Like a lay-den jar.
one other factor, the removal of oil from the earth will cause the entire magnetic field, and atmosphere to be lost.
Why you may ask? the earth is a transformer, it must isolate the charge within the core.
no oil to insulate the high potential difference between the earth, and cold space, the more leakage of earths generated atmosphere. or magnetic field, or potential charge.
Well as far as I know if the oil was there for insulation there would need to be one hell of lot more oil.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 12 2011, 08:57 PM)
Well as far as I know if the oil was there for insulation there would need to be one hell of lot more oil.
how many millions or billions of barrels have been taken away from the transformer in the last 100 years.
billions and billions, each barrel has 55 gallons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/16/2...to-find-new-oi/
why will earth struggle to maintain its own magnetic field? Not because of the increase or decrease of Co2, or ozone.
how many millions or billions of barrels have been taken away from the transformer in the last 100 years.
billions and billions, each barrel has 55 gallons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/16/2...to-find-new-oi/
why will earth struggle to maintain its own magnetic field? Not because of the increase or decrease of Co2, or ozone.
QUOTE (Rubberball+Nov 12 2011, 09:00 PM)
how many millions or billions of barrels have been taken away from the transformer in the last 100 years.
billions and billions, each barrel has 55 gallons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/16/2...to-find-new-oi/
why will earth struggle to maintain its own magnetic field? Not because of the increase or decrease of Co2, or ozone.
If the earth was person the oil being extracted in the very external layer of skin. It is nowhere near where the magnetic field originates.
billions and billions, each barrel has 55 gallons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/16/2...to-find-new-oi/
why will earth struggle to maintain its own magnetic field? Not because of the increase or decrease of Co2, or ozone.
If the earth was person the oil being extracted in the very external layer of skin. It is nowhere near where the magnetic field originates.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 12 2011, 11:30 PM)
If the earth was person the oil being extracted in the very external layer of skin. It is nowhere near where the magnetic field originates.
Its ok to disagree.
if the future of your planet was at stake, would you be so fast to make the assumption that it didn't matter at all?
Its ok to disagree.
if the future of your planet was at stake, would you be so fast to make the assumption that it didn't matter at all?
QUOTE (Rubberball+Nov 12 2011, 11:48 PM)
Its ok to disagree.
if the future of your planet was at stake, would you be so fast to make the assumption that it didn't matter at all?
I not saying I don't care regarding the planet. I am convinced of global warning so they do need to find the alternative energy source but that is a slow conversion.
I'm a bit tired to really communicate sorry. Back later.
if the future of your planet was at stake, would you be so fast to make the assumption that it didn't matter at all?
I not saying I don't care regarding the planet. I am convinced of global warning so they do need to find the alternative energy source but that is a slow conversion.
I'm a bit tired to really communicate sorry. Back later.
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.