Jupiter to spit out new planet on July 4?

The core is believed to as much as 20,000 to 30,000 degrees, not 50,000.

I see, so the pressure was sufficient to make hydrogen metallic, but not hot enough to heat the core? Clever.

What happened to the 50,000 you stated earlier? And how does a plasma exist at those pressures? The core is currently believed to be "slushy" and one and half times the diameter of Earth but with 10-30 times more mass - strange description of plasma.

So what's the insulator between the metallic hydrogen and the core? And shouldn't the pressure that's making the hydrogen metallic also cause heating? Increased pressure at constant volume causes heating... And a superconductor is not an insulator, that's why it's not called a super insulator.

The metallic hydrogen is liquid. Liquid has the extremely strange property that you can't make tunnels in it...

Which will then heat whatever is outside the superconductor, passing some heat back to the superconductor, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You do know the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit scales? I'm used to thinking in Fahrenheit, which you might be able to tell because I can spell it correctly.

If you visualize a ball of hydrogen condensing from cold interstellar hydrogen, for a long time it will radiate its heat away faster than it heats up. It will stay cold, very cold, and by the time it develops enough pressure to heat up by gravitational collapse, it will be many miles thick with metallic hydrogen.

An interface boundary that gradually increases in temperature toward the core. There are several tricks here. Depending on how clean the material is in the core, it will shade much of its own radiant energy from the metallic hydrogen mantle, slowing the transfer of heat. Superconductors reflect all electromagnetic waves of a wavelength longer than a certain value. They even tend to repel charged plasmas the same way. Much of the energy can't reach the inner surface of the mantle even in a perfectly transparent medium.

It is because the superconductor conducts so well. All of the heat spreads out through its volume and radiates away from the outside.

Vortex, Oli. Vortex.

Outside of the mantle you have winds moving at the speed of sound. They are quite cold. Once the superconductor is established, you have a setup that works as if there is no thermal barrier between the inside of the mantle and the outside of the mantle. The small amount of heat that the inside receives is transferred to the outside. The outside is also larger than the inside, so its effective temperature is lower than the inside.

The trouble we have here is that you are now arguing against a mainstream claim, that Jupiter's core runs possibly as hot as 30,000 C, which is 54,000 degrees F, and at least 20,000 degrees C, which is 36,000 degrees F. The mainstream also claims that this core is surrounded by a mantle made up of metallic hydrogen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do I think?

Jupiter won't spit out any planets, or at least anytime soon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Written by another easily dismissable source.

Rules for skeptical essays:

Talk down to the audience.

The writer is always right.

It is OK to dismiss any source of information when you are a skeptic, for example, someone who uses historical information uses "myths."

It is OK to use the sources that you have dismissed to prove your side of the case, for example, histories allegedly show something different from the claim that you are working to dismiss.

As a skeptic you never have to withdraw any claim that you make no matter how soundly it has been disproven.

The other side has to withdraw all claims if you find anything that seems to say otherwise, no matter how much of its material is proven beyond doubt.

If the other side calls you names, they are jerks.

If you call the other side names, you are a hero.

 

I'm sorry, but you have not explained how the energy which lifts planetary sized masses out of Jupiter's gravity well is dispersed. If you lift a mass the size of a planet out of the gravity well of another planet, you are literally accelerating the mass of that planet against gravity. That process would take energy; that energy will be emitted as waste heat. Have you ever seen a rocket take off? Imagine the rocket that would lift a whole planet against Jupiter's 2.5 gee.

The energy expended to lift a Venus sized planet out of Jupiter's gravity well would be about 10e33 joules (assuming a perfectly efficient process- very unlikely), all of which would be emitted as waste heat. This is more energy than the sun emits in 70 hours; if a planet were 'spit' out of Jupiter's gravity well the process of acceleration would presumably take around about an hour or so. Jupiter would shine seventy times as bright as the Sun, and the waste heat would be emitted as very short wavelength UVs; the ecology of Earth would be devastated, and the moons of Jupiter would sublime.

 

Ebacurum, your claim is fantastic in itself. A big flash of light? You have got to be kidding.

 

Which gives some idea of the level of knowledge involved here... I give up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He is actually advancing your theory.

 

You're not going to get a big flash of light like Ebacurum describes from a mass of rapidly cooling gases. By the time they reach the surface they will have decompressed and cooled a lot, so you won't get a lot of incandescense from the heat either.

 

What trumps eyewitness testimony? Almost anything. Eyewitness testimony is one of the most unreliable of all forms of evidence. Please refer to a thread on this topic initiated by SkinWalker.

 

Yes, your handwaving trumps eyewitness evidence.

Trouble is, you have placed yourself in a position where eyewitness testimony may not be used to confirm your position either.

 

Illuminati media censoring TWO unprecedented events in Earth's shield, Jupiter (July 4, 2006)
Google news Results 1 - 10 of about 45 for jupiter red spot

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=jupiter red spot&scoring=d

Only one article found in the illuminati mass media, the title does not include the Jupiter word and the article has no mention that
- what took place on February 24, 2006 is an unprecedented event,
- what is expected to happen July 4, 2006, is an unprecedented event,


CNN:
Jovian storms prepare for showdown, June 7
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/06/05/jupiter.storms/

 

What happened on February 24, 2006?

 

Pleasant to read someone has proposed fission as a mechanism for planet production.

and this mechanism also applies to moon production.

Of course the Sun is the mother of all the Solar System

I expect Jupiter will lose some of the positive charged metals of it's core and spew a new moon soon, but july 4th is a little optomistic.

But judging by the altitude of the giant red spot, I expect a new moon will be released sometime in the next 100 years.

all IMO

I will add this

""you have not explained how the energy which lifts planetary sized masses out of Jupiter's gravity well is dispersed""

electric charge, the core of the Sun, (or planet) gains positive charge and once this charge build up is too great there is an expulsion.

 

Ah, of course. How silly of us, we didn't even think that the Illuminati controlled the planets.

Ah, two of sciforums greatest nutters show up in the same thread. Of course, he may have been studying and realised the errors of his past theories.

Tell me URI, where does the positive charge come from?

 

Oh, great. URI is back. There is no reason to stick around any longer.

 

I am not relying on eyewitness testimony to substantiate or confirm my position. Why should I do anything so foolish? (Before answering please check the definition of eyewitness testimony. That will help avoid a long, fruitless and unpleasant debate.)

 

The only reason anyone asked how that energy was dispersed was to play to the audience. It is not an honest objection. The model is of a planet-sized mass being ejected from Jupiter by expanding gases. No "flash of light" is necessary. Those gases transfer momentum the normal way and are cooling as they do so. When they add a specious rule to the hypothesis to try to kill it, it's a good sign that they are after killing the hypothesis at all costs and aren't trying for any kind of accuracy or honesty.

 

Metakron, I don't think that Eburacum45 was being underhanded, but rather, he (she?) was suggesting that the energy expended in expelling a Venus-sized mass from Jupiter's gravity well is unlikely to have been 'used' with 100% efficiency, and that even a small loss as heat would have been spectacular. I can't help but agree with him.

Metakron, I'd like to summarize my understanding of your proposal for clarification. Please point out where I have misunderstood or misrepresented you.

Okay, so...

At some point in the last 4000 years, a stream of matter of at least 1 Venus mass was ejected from Jupiter. This happened because meteorological effects or an impact penetrated to Jupiter's depths, allowing hot material to expand and escape. I don't know the physics to describe this event, so I can only say that it feels like an absurd idea.

The stream of hot matter, shot into the inner solar system, crossed the orbits of Mars and Earth. Although both planets avoided any catastrophic impacts, Mars' atmosphere was pulled off by one or more close passes of proto-Venus. Earth, meanwhile, suffered nothing more than a temporary climatic change, which was manifested only as an alleged increase in the populations of certain pest species.

Then, over an unspecified period of time, Venus's orbit was circularized - possibly due to as-yet-undefined differences in the way the laws of orbital dynamics act on gases and unconsolidated solids. During this period, Mars and Earth continued to evade impact by any significant piece of debris. Also during this period, Venus underwent compositional fractionation, such that the planet now has a fairly Earth-like composition and structure. The planet also gave up much of its internal heat, allowing a basaltic surface to solidify. Despite the geological similarity, outgassing during this process produced an atmosphere which is distinctly un-Earthlike, lacking as it does water and nitrogen. The continued accretion of residual debris cratered Venus's surface, but only with large pieces, since small impact craters are absent.

Metakron, you seem to be suggesting that the low eccentricity of Venus's orbit is evidence of that planet's youth. In which case you also seem to be suggesting that planets are born with highly eccentric orbits which rapidly circularise, only to increase in eccentricity gradually over the planet's subsequent history. Do you have a reason as to why this might be the case?