Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by nebel, Jul 31, 2017.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It would not helping me much to answer my own questions, but coming back to the car-wheel on the road lines analogy. would a bullet aimed at the tire near the ground, where the thread is stationary not have the best penetrating chance? , like a spike strip? would not a photograph of that car, or a galloping horse, a sprinter, not show the ground - touching parts clearer, longer, more effectively exposed than the blurry rest of the vehicle, mover?
There must be special effects to the distinct areas of such planets that experience repeated maximum exposure, compared to those progressing at normal and double rates. although overall a given area would not receive more of the emanations of the sun. or?
glad the topic has not been moved to alternate or trash yet.
I see that you have dismissed (or possible not understood) the responses from Janus58 and James R.
At least you are consistent.
When it comes to astronomy (studying heavenly bodies) I am very visual, but computer illiterate,so to help me I asked for the animations of post 13 to be made visible, clickable. Obviously your counterarguments have not allowed me to understand fully why my idea is wrong, and my comparisons have not been addressed in detail. why they are not applicable or faulty. hopefully some others will benefit from this unravelling quandary.
At what radial distance from the center of Jupiter and Saturn are you, or your sources, measuring this speed of rotation? And at what point in the orbit are you measuring orbital velocity?
My guess is that some kind of averages are being used. And if so, there is an immediate factor: the capture of material by the growing planet would involve matching the speed of the incoming material to that of the orbiting planet.
It seems reasonable to me, imagining the process of capture, that material accreting unto an orbiting gas giant planet would be brought up or down to the orbital speed, on average, and that this would be more likely if the orbital speeds of stuff and planet matched fairly closely in the first place - the bending of the path of the accreting stuff would then involve incorporating stuff traveling at near-orbital speed, and converting that speed to rotational speed. Make sense?
Thank you, sounds like a reasonable theory of the origin of this similarity, have you seen any links as to the effects vs situations where the two velocities vary?
It is good you suggested the averaging out of these velocities where these planets "touch" their environment, because it was suggested before that only at one precise point would the planet touch it at zero speed. at a time.
As to the accretion scenarios, it certainly makes sense for these central planets, but in others, Earth, Neptune, the zero velocity matches do not hold.
It leaves the suggestion of mine, that these relatively quiet areas are conducive to building stable structures, near and far. or?
Separate names with a comma.