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?
1) observations of the region would always show the features like the red spot of Jupiter, rings of Saturn longer, clearer. because they linger longer., like a tire lingers longer on the road, where thread speed and road speed are zero.
2) since , seeing the Yarkovsky effect as accelerated, there is twice as much absorption of solar energy because of the longer exposure on the day day, and twice the retention of solar energy on the night, the re-radiation-loss side. Solar energy capture important and enhanced because it is only 1/25 of our's at Jupiter and 1% at Saturn. All the sunny surface experience a lingering effect, form zero at the poles to max at the equator, making the most of what little there is.
3) The spinning enhancement of the Yarkovsky effect, augmented as it is, through the longer greater heating, contributes to maintain the high spin rate (10 hour days).
4) having a greater temperature gradient than normal (with less synchronized velocities) , energises the weather patterns. ( Solar ray absorption goes from nominal at the poles* to max at the equator). because: The synchronized velocities change the local distribution pattern of absorption of solar energy. *Apart from the common detrimental tilt and angle of incidence effect there.
Weather patterns are energetic, stable on Jupiter, seemingly relying on stable sources of energy . possibly like these zero velocity local situations.
If doubt this effect, imagine the extremes, retrograde rotation (~venus) or ~0 effective rotation (Uranus)
No part of the tire lingers longer than any other part.
The yarkovsky effect is vanishingly small for a planet
I might be wrong, but of the moving car, only the thread of the tire ***in contact with the road** is always in a zero velocity situation with respect to the stationary ground, the Earth*
because the tire circumference travels backward in relation to the vehicle at the speed that the car moves forward, in a blur. The condition of the road, solar heated for example, is transferred only to the thread, and no other part, creating an additional discreet energy gradient between the tire circumference and the rest of the car.
***Equivalent is the area on Jupiter that has a rotational velocity equal to its orbital velocity .** the radiation from the point source, the sun, space*.
true but is acting for 5 Billion years, in 10,11 hour cycles ;-- mouse milk,perhaps, but persistently present, accumulating.
if there is, as suggested by the correct tire example above, a band of velocities' enhanced solar energy, circling near the equators and therefore a greater temperature gradient from equator to poles, the constancy of that focussed solar heat should cause special conditions, in the atmosphere, or the near space of these two neighbourly planets.
A Hawaien - type hotspot another , perhaps better candidate as sustainer of the Big Red though. but:
Big Red always is coming to a near halt in space , sun-direction* though, just like the tire thread in road contact, standing or moving. (while the poles move on, in a blur, steadily. )
Try Big Red, not BS.
PS(not BS): have you thought of the fact that the Yarkovsky effect is much more effective on gas giants or gas dwarfs than smaller rocks?
True but so what.
That is nice but what does that have to do with what you are talking about.
What proof do you have that heat is accumulating? Is your conjecture that the solar radiation absorbed by a planet is greater than the amount of heat that is radiated from the planet?
What are 'special conditions' are you talking about? Never mind I am not really interested. Solar heating will cause a gradient from the equator to the pole, that is rather obvious, but again, so what.
Sounds like a horrible analogy to me.
No it doesn't. What an absurd thing to say. The speed of rotation is constant.
It is all bullshit. If you find astronomy interesting why don't you take a course or 2 at a community college. That seems like a much better use of your time than posting absurd conjectures on a science forum.
to you perhaps.
Just posing interesting questions, and after all, science allows us to pose better questions, particularly whenever there are correlations like these here.
1 ) opposing but equal velocities, on the sunny sides of Jupiter and Saturn
2) stable features, weather patterns and rings in both! and nowhere else.(or?) question:
is there a causation with this common factor?
of course the rate of rotation is constant, but the Jupiter orbital velocity at the poles is ~13 km/sec, and the velocity of a point on its equator is ~ 13 km/s the other way. so, At midday, that point has stopped, does not move, not with respect to Jupiter, but with respect to "fixed" space.
Think of a camera aimed across a road that takes a clear picture of the markings of a tire, which is stationary with respect to the asphalt, but which picture shows the rest of the car as a blur.
A nail on the road, or police spike strip would easily penetrate such a zero velocity tire, but be deflected, bounce of the rest off the vehicle going at 100 mph, or definitely away from the top of the wheel, which is going going at 200 mph forward. in other words:
There is something special about the impact possible at the zero velocity area, constant rotation notwithstanding.
That special effect could be related to the similar characteristic of on both planets: stable features.
yes. The Yarkovsky effect would play out at different rates across a huge surface with an accentuated absorption gradient due to the zero velocity situation. The equatorial regions of both Jupiter and Saturn could absorb more, and with long term thermal equilibrium would have to disperse more energy into their atmospheres rather than re-radiating out. This is different compared to the inner planets, who have negligible differences between their polar and daytime vR and vO ratios.
Yarkovsky effects accumulating? of course! the energy absorbed and converted in the peculiar Yarkovsky mechanism is still present in the planets and counting. It is not all re-radiated, that is the point. On Jupiter and Saturn more is retainable.
I like the surf in Hawaii, and it is comforting to think that Jupiter too has a deep hotspot below, that generates glorious surface features. Giving you a hint too, that the zero/velocity impact is not the sole card to explain Big Red.
Yes that is understood, but in the leading up to the equal speed, "touching instant", there is a gradual, 2 1/2 hour long deceleration of the sidereal motion of a given point, like the Red Spot, to come to a lingering, not instantaneous, halt at perihelion, followed by an acceleration toward sunset. There the point moves at orbital velocity (like also the poles). On the night side, the opposites occurs, The red spot accelerates from sundown to nearly twice the orbital (sidereal) speed at the aphelion moment, to then decelerate to "normal" at sunup. (point leading into the orbit)
This differs from our situation and diurnal warming, because the apparent (sidereal) movement of the sun across the Earth surface is not so much affected by our greater orbit/rotation speed ratio. ~28/1 not 1/1 as on Jupiter, Saturn.
Solar energy driven weather is from great to catastrophic on Earth, how much more drastic in situations should it be on Jupiter, where the exposure gradients are doubled from morning to noon, and equator to poles ( apart from angle of incidence and the coriolis effect). At a given heights, the warming of Jupiter's atmosphere is equal from the Sun and the interior. Like the solar driven Hurricanes on Earth, The Red Spot's center is cooler than the surroundings.
The warming is not an effect on one point. There is one point after another going around on that ball, seemingly rolling on an invisible orbital pathway.
No, but a marker on the surface of Jupiter, near the equator, like a Big Red Spot, from a sidereal POV, would come to a near standstill at its perihelion, and accelerate to twice Orbital Speed at aphelion.
There would be a steeper solar energy absorption gradient from equator to poles, and sunup and sunset. Possibly
Resulting in the "banding" we see in Jupiter's atmosphere.
Ditto Saturn, banding extending out from the equator not horizontally, but vertically.
alternate theories, or future mainstream?
The Yarkovsky effect on steroids.
Not interested. I have no idea why your silliness is permitted in the science section.
Yes, that is true on planet Earth, where the orbital velocity is ~ 30 times greater than the subtracting rotational velocity, or:
The added orbital velocity of ~ 1 kms adds only 3% to the sidereal speed at night. The Jupiter/Saturn situation is totally different, exposure time varying by 50%. Graphs to grasp that shortly.
Yes, it would be silly to attach importance to the instantaneous meeting, touching of abstract lines in space, the orbits of Jupiter,Saturn with the movement of points on their equator circumference, but there is more to it this time. time. exposure time.
I might deserve a better title than "your silliness" how about "your highly awareness"? It turns out this thread is about time also, this time its exposure time. will doublepost graphs shortly.
Sorry I wasn't clearer. I wasn't calling you names, i was saying your ideas are silly. They are little more than numerology.
sorry, agreed, but, I could not resist seeing a friendly Freudian slip angle to your post.
If one does not know the numbers, one does not understand the physics. I only like to highlight the numbers, the first step, the physics connection might follow, one day. it is just a question of time and c.
You do not appear to know physics or astronomy, but that doesn't seem to hinder your wild flights of fantasy. This is exceedingly boring. I respond to your questions to me since that seems only right, but it is wasted effort. I am putting you on ignore so that you do not feel the necessity to respond to any of my older post. Do not expect me to respond to any of your post - I won't see them.
Separate names with a comma.