Jupiter to spit out new planet on July 4?

The latest on the new red spot on Jupiter, unofficially named "Red Jr" is that the two spots may merge. I am speculating that when the two get close enough they will merge, forming a much larger cyclone, and that Jupiter's mantle may rupture, allowing the planet to disgorge the heavier materials in its core. Some of the theories are that the core runs 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit. An off the cuff idea would be that the Red Spot might function like an Earthly cyclone. A massive downdraft gets started then when the cyclone gets enough energy going, it sucks whatever is loose up into it. If the cyclone isn't strong enough the material just cools and falls back in. We're pretty sure it isn't doing it now, or not in quantities that are easy to see. If core is exposed, it will be a cataclysmic kind of event, an explosive release of hot materials that will continue until the core shrinks a little, then cut off abruptly. I hope that we can get a good look at it if it does happen. Yes, I am well aware of the fact that it will take one hell of a cyclone to allow that to happen. I am also aware of the fact that I have no good way handy to predict how big such a storm has to be. This is what I think of as an entertaining and plausible speculation, that when the two storms merge, they might produce such results. Both are damn big and the "mantle" of Jupiter is a fluid. Something that big almost has to have a vortex tens of thousands of miles deep and there are astronomers who already think that the Red Spot vortex extends down into the core. It's an almost meaningless distinction when you are talking about a twirling region of lower pressure that is still going to be several times the density of iron.

I personally believe that the ancient people of the Earth did see Venus come out of Jupiter. Proving or disproving Velikovsky's theories about the exact physical processes is superfluous. Corroborating eyewitness testimony is all-important. Even if the witnesses are from several thousand years ago and some of them were less able than others to provide good detail, if you have hundreds of writings and hand-drawn pictures to compare, the picture is likely to become pretty accurate and reliable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If Venus is a new addition to our system, why is it's orbit the most stable of any planet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe it's because Venus is the new addition. I'm not at all sure that we can prove one way or the other. Maybe the tidal forces on a planet that is still forming force it to assume a circular orbit.

Like I said, I can't really use science to prove or disprove something that millions of humans witnessed and a number of them put into written history. Thinking that I could would itself be a form of scientific quackery. Someone saw exactly what Velikovsky described. It's really hard to use any sort of after the fact evidence or calculations to prove for certain one way or the other. The evidence for recent origin includes eyewitness accounts of when it left Jupiter and when it settled down into its current orbit. They also include the fact that up until that time the brightest planet in the sky was not seen and cataloged. There is a time in human history before and after the planet Venus was described as even existing, and the other planets, even Mercury, were listed.

I am saying that something big could happen when the two spots merge. It's too bad that this is going to happen too soon for someone to write a novel or produce a movie. I hope that it's not going to happen anyway because all my favorite things are on this planet and they might get messed up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I doubt it. If the spots merge, why would their strength be added to each other? If a 200mph hurricane meets another 200mph hurricane, it would just form a bigger 200mph hurricane. Actually, the resulting turbulence would probably mean that both get slowed down.

 

Yup.

 

Venus is most certainly not a new addition. And no "millions of people" did not see it. Venus does not have a circular orbit. It has a stable orbit.

 

Speculation: Adding the two vortices to each other may cause their energy to exceed some threshold that allows the weakening of the mantle to become an actual puncture. Then it will feed on the difference between the internal heat and the relative cold of the outside, much like an Earthly hurricane.

We don't know what would actually happen, of course. This is speculation based on plausible mechanisms using known scientific principles. Cold fluids fall through hot fluids. Hot fluids spout up through the middle of the vortex when that vortex penetrates the fluids surrounding the core. For all I know the thing could have a form of peristalsis that lets it eject material every once in a while. Then you get asteroids and ice comets whose orbits intersect that of Jupiter.

 

Velikovsky dug up the relevant histories and gave references. Millions of people saw an object come out of Jupiter that, at least according to eyewitness testimony, became Venus. What trumps eyewitness testimony? Derision, disbelief, calculations based on a Jupiter that we know now does not exist. The hot core of Jupiter is established science now but was quite a leap in 1950.

A hot Venus cannot be caused by the thick cloud cover. That cloud cover is far too thick and reflective to allow any heat to reach the ground. The heat has to be internal.

Venus's orbital eccentricity is 0.00677323, making its orbit the most nearly perfectly circular of all the planets. Would this be because it is old or new? Orbital perturbations can be accumulative and it takes time for them to accumulate. Maybe the loose aggregate of hot rock and gases has a natural tendency to assume a nearly circular orbit that more solid planets or more condensed planets do not have.

Still, it's the eyewitness testimony that makes me believe. Scientists are really prone to using history to prove assertions when they agree with the history. We have a body of historical testimony that they dismiss because they see the witnessed events as impossible.

 

He was not a nut and he was not debunked.

Someone show me where anyone proved any of his historical research inaccurate.

The easiest thing there should be to debunk is the claim that there are records that show a time when Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn could be seen but Venus was nowhere in the sky. Someone show me where this claim was proven wrong.

 

On July 5th, we will have no doubt that this was pure BS. I can wait.

 

I already have no doubt that this is pure bullshit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh really?

Got any sources to cite?

 

"Worlds in Collision" by Immanuel Velikovsky.

 

Wrong: for example in Hull in the UK about 15-20 years ago there were over 4000 reports of UFOs sent in to the police in less than an hour - it turned out to be the light-show for the opening of a new shopping centre reflecting off the clouds.
The opening and the light show were announced a week in advance, the "UFO" reports were in the paper for nearly a week afterwards, along with the explanation. But it didn't stop people belatedly ringing with their "mysterious sighting" stories....
The only thing more stupid than someone who jumps to conclusions at unexplained phenomena is someone who reaches that same conclusion after it's been thoroughly explained.

 

Metakron, roughly how long do you think Venus took to get from Jupiter to its current orbit?

 

Not relevant how long it took for Venus to get where it is. I had thought that good debunkers would have addressed the issue of whether Venus had been seen in the sky through all of recorded history, outside of that period that it spends lost in the Sun's glare. Did Velikovsky falsify historical references? There should have been something that all debunkers could point their fingers towards, specifically, instead of just saying "taint so." Now if the historical record doesn't say any of that above happened, I will believe that. I think that the detractors are saying that Velikovsky is wrong because it could not have happened. They are not saying that Velikovsky is wrong because his history was inaccurate.

One simple impossibility is the idea that Venus was in its present orbit and not seen by humans who could see Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

Another thing that I think is physically impossible is for Venus to be as hot as it is due to the greenhouse effect. The cloud-tops reflect too much heat. They work like an outer skin that intercepts all solar radiation and re-radiates the heat away. The surface of Venus should be cold like nuclear winter, not hot like magma. Every time we get just a bit of particulates in the atmosphere from a volcano, as has been observed repeatedly, global temperatures drop sharply. It gets cold. It is possible to get a year without summer, which was observed in 1816. Place a uniform white blanket of clouds around the Earth, you will have a deep and icy winter year-round. Place a white blanket of clouds over Kansas and you get an August where the highs are in the 60s (Fahrenheit) and the lows are in the 40s and maybe even the 30s, and this is during an otherwise somewhat normal summer.

This report makes the claim that the Tambora eruption of 1815 released enough sulfuric acid to block enough solar heat from reaching the Earth's surface to heat it. What are Venus's clouds made of again?

 

Metakron, although some sulphuric acid is present in Venus's atmosphere, the vast bulk of that great soup is carbon dioxide, which, the last time I checked, is a pretty potent greenhouse gas. Why are you bringing particulates into the subject? I've never heard of these being significant in Venus's atmosphere. The cloud-tops are reflective, but they do not intercept "all solar radiation." Rather, I think about 20% reaches the ground (but don't quote me).

I don't understand why you imagine that a powerful cyclone would throw mass away from Jupiter. The planet is held together by gravity, not by external pressure. Also, Venus has a similar density to that of the Earth, and its surface appears to largely basaltic. Therefore, it's fair to say that Venus and Earth are compositionally similar. So then you seem to be suggesting that on a historical timescale, Venus has been ejected from Jupiter, migrated into the inner solar system (how the hell did Earth survive that?!), undergone internal chemical differentiation and frozen.

I must say that I'm having trouble reconciling your writing style (which seems intelligent) with your subject matter (which seems ill-thought-out at best).

 

Laika, why do you perceive my subject matter as ill-thought-out? Ask yourself. This is not a place that is terribly formal, so putting a string of notions up is quite appropriate in my opinion.

The idea that Jupiter could open up due to a vortex is one that is not even very testable by mathematics. Plausible scenarios involve the fact that Jupiter must be made entirely of fluid types of matter. It's damn hot inside. It is an extremely energetic planet with its equator that rotates at about 27,000 mph, which is well below escape velocity but is a tremendous amount of angular momentum. Its moons are massive, numerous, and close, causing a lot of tidal stresses and vortexes. It has a lot of electricity flying about in an extremely dense plasma in the core, making the reactions in the core analagous to the those on the surface of the sun. Such a setup is a completely unpredictable kind of engine that has few known characteristics. We know that it is big, heavy, hot, energetic, contains an unknown amount of materials suitable for making planets, conducts some fusion in the core, and is hot enough to keep all elements and compounds in a vapor state in the core, where the heavier elements will sink down to. Even metallic hydrogen is not dense enough to float even the lower density rocky asteroids.

Why I think that a vortex could suck matter out of Jupiter's core is because a vortex is a heat engine that creates itself out of the surrounding fluids like metallic hydrogen, gases, and plasma. The more heat, like a hot spot like we observe on Earth, the more powerful the vortex becomes. We can speculate that for various reasons that a hot spot can form near the surface of the core, accumulate enough heavier elements to become a planet-size mass, heat up by tidal friction (all friction is collisions between molecules, BTW), get larger and hotter, and eventually burn a hole through the mantle. The reason that Jupiter has so many moons is because it gives birth to them. I suppose they don't believe anymore that the Earth gave birth to the moon because the moon is a lot older, but then again, if the Earth spit out the moon while it was still liquid, the moon, having one sixteenth the surface area and about one eightieth of the mass would cool much faster so its solid rocks would be older. If the Earth reliquified for any reason and the moon didn't, same thing.

One very odd and incredibly convenient fact is that if the mantle (outer core, whatever) of Jupiter is made of metallic hydrogen, and if metallic hydrogen really is superconductive, then the core of Jupiter is contained inside a nearly perfect reflector of electromagnetic waves up to the infrared, so that any radio frequency emissions are contained and concentrated in the core, keeping a lot of energy in. Energy that reaches this mantle and heats it up dissipates very quickly, but most energy doesn't reach it. How would we know if even gravity gets through it? At that rate the metallic hydrogen can be extremely cold and the core extremely hot. If the plasma near the mantle, which will tend to be repelled by superconductive material, has a temperature gradiant of a degree per meter, a very thin shell can keep a very effective barrier between hot and cold. This shell will also be penetrable by a large enough mass of heavier elements. Hot material in direct contact with the shell (mantle) would burn right through.

 

Your notions appear ill-thought-out because they are. It is one thing to fantasise about enormous energies inside planets bursting forth new worlds a la Velikovski; it is quite another to work out the scale of the energies involved, and working out the consequences of such energies being unleashed.
If Jupiter were to 'spit' out a new planet, this event would need the almost instantaneous unleashing of enough energy to lift a planet sized mass from the core of Jupiter into interplanetary space. I understand that would require the total energy emitted by the Sun for a number of years to be unleashed within the space of less than an hour, in the relatively small location of the planet sized mass itself.

Jupiter would shine briefly as bright as a supernova, killing all life on Earth.
If this had happened thousands of years ago to form Venus, Venus would be in a wildly eccentric orbit and still be molten; all life on Earth would be dead. All the ice on the moons of Jupiter would have evaporated.

So as a theory it is a non-starter.