Does the rotation time of a planet affect its ablity to have an atmosphere. so higher rotation, more atmosphere? Also, if earth had no magnetic field, lots of the suns radiation would get in. Would the water filter out this radiation to make it possible for aquatic life to survive? Later T
To the best of our knowledge no. Mars has almost the same day length as us and Venus has around 36 hours I think. It has no measurable impact. The centripetal force imparted is inconsequential and the rate of solar heat transmission over the surface isn't really a big deal. If anything, higher rotation would mean less atmosphere through decreased escape velocity. Though on the other hand the countering effect of rotation over gravity might assist gases in escaping the mantle. Hell, I don't know. Flip a coin.
On the other hand, the denseness of an atmosphere does affect the rotation speed of a planet. and it can eventually cause a planet to rotate in the other direction...
Nm, Ive scraped the entire essay i was writing in favor of a new topic. Already completed it and sent it in. LAter T
Well no If it rotated really REALLY fast it could lose its atmosphere to centrifugal force. Also the strength of a planet magnetic field is affected by the spin… which can have effect on the how much atmosphere is lost to solar winds. But these effects are minimal. Look at Venus: it has a day of 56 earth days and no magnetic field yet it has a surface atmospheric pressure of 1400lb per sq. inch!
In case you're confused: The rotation rate of planet has nothing to do with the gravitational pull it exerts on the atmosphere or anything else. Gravity depends only on mass, and not at all on spin.
James R Is there nothing to the theory that the magnetic field is generated by the rotation of ferrous material within the planet? I was under the impression that they theory goes, Mars may have lost its atmosphere after it cooled so much that the sore stopped turning, no more magnetic field to keep out solar radiation, radiation blasts away the atmosphere...
Mars is much smaller in mass than Earth, so would have cooled off quicker, plus it's possible that Mars had an impact with something else, which may or may have not contributed to its death. If it was ever alive to begin with. Mars must have had some magnetism to begin with, since it seems to have residual magnetic spots on the surface. But yes, the leading theories point to our magnetism as being produced by the circulation of materials in the mantle, although I don't recall which layers.
James R Actually I was pointing out the connection between magnetic field and atmosphere. But now that you mention it, what about that Podkletnov chap's experiment with a disc of superconducting material suspended between some electromagnets? He reported that things weighed less above the disc.
Adam, Nobody has successfully duplicated Podkletnov's results. That suggests to me that they are a bit dodgy.
James R Well, at least NASA and Boeing are playing with the idea, spending money on it, trying to get something from it. And he is used as a reference by several at NASA. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2157975.stm http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/warpfaq.htm http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/possible.htm http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/WhitePaper.htm http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/faq.htm I would ask "Would NASA and Boeing be spending so much money on this guy's ideas if there was nothing in it?" But I already know the answer to that. NASA's spending is criminal.
