Jupiter's Orbital Velocity & Equatorial Velocity cancel?

I want to apologize to all readers of the above reply. Because:
of this Fact: No point of Jupiter , through it's rotation has it orbital speed totally cancelled. However,
if an on observer on a 'fixed' position measured the velocity at the poles, the leading and trailing edges she would see ~ 13.06 km/sec. The noontime value near the equator registers @~ 0.46 km/sec all the time, and the midnight equator value comes out @~ 25.66 km/sec always. so:

All fluid particles near Jupiter's equator in a way follow Write4U's curtate cycloid motion of post 343 , -- have for the longest time.

The resulting rapid and endlessly repeated changes in Gravity and Acceleration values, in these turbulent areas, small as they are, merit attention i.m.h.o.
 
beil said:
if an on observer on a 'fixed' position measured the velocity at the poles, the leading and trailing edges she would see ~ 13.06 km/sec. The noontime value near the equator registers @~ 0.46 km/sec all the time, and the midnight equator value comes out @~ 25.66 km/sec always. so:
Click to expand...
Particles are not "observers". They don't "see" absolute velocities. They are subject to relative velocities. Particles at the top and bottom of the GRS undergo the same accelerations, just in opposite directions.

This is a fun idea to consider, but it is not born out by what we observe.

Observational Evidence first. Theorizing second.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Particles are not "observers". They don't "see" absolute velocities. They are subject to relative velocities. Particles at the top and bottom of the GRS undergo the same accelerations, just in opposite directions.

This is a fun idea to consider, but it is not born out by what we observe.

Observational Evidence first. Theorizing second.
Click to expand...
But you can do it the other way round too: propose a hypothesis and then look to see if observation supports it.

What I don’t understand about beil ’s contention is what effect he or she thinks should result from the net orbital speed being periodically reduced to near zero. An object at zero orbital speed should, in the absence of other influences, start to accelerate under the sun’s gravity towards the sun. But since the gravity of Jupiter is thousands of times greater, surely this would in practice make bugger-all difference?
 
exchemist said:
But you can do it the other way round too: propose a hypothesis and then look to see if observation supports it.

What I don’t understand about beil ’s contention is what effect he or she thinks should result from the net orbital speed being periodically reduced to near zero. An object at zero orbital speed should, in the absence of other influences, start to accelerate under the sun’s gravity towards the sun. But since the gravity of Jupiter is thousands of times greater, surely this would in practice make bugger-all difference?
Click to expand...
What he fails to intuit is that the planet's shape is always in equilibrium with the forces on it.

The pull of the Sun, the rotation of the planet, the revolution about the Sun are always there, and always acting on every particle. They don't turn on and off. So the shape of the planet, and the shape of any given object (such as a storm) are always (at any given moment) a product of those forces.

If, for example, there were a sufficently large pull from the Sun, you don't need to examine that at a particulate scale, all you have to do is look at the bulk shape of the planet. Is it a prolate spheroid (football-shaped)? No? Then the sunward force isn't strong enough to have an effect. QED.

beil is overthinking the analysis and essentially double-dipping by looking for forces on individual particles instead of the whole system.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Particles are not "observers". They don't "see" absolute velocities. They are subject to relative velocities. Particles at the top and bottom of the GRS undergo the same accelerations, just in opposite directions.

This is a fun idea to consider, but it is not born out by what we observe.

Observational Evidence first. Theorizing second.
Click to expand...
DaveC426913 said:
What he fails to intuit is that the planet's shape is always in equilibrium with the forces on it.

The pull of the Sun, the rotation of the planet, the revolution about the Sun are always there, and always acting on every particle. They don't turn on and off. So the shape of the planet, and the shape of any given object (such as a storm) are always (at any given moment) a product of those forces.

If, for example, there were a sufficently large pull from the Sun, you don't need to examine that at a particulate scale, all you have to do is look at the bulk shape of the planet. Is it a prolate spheroid (football-shaped)? No? Then the sunward force isn't strong enough to have an effect. QED.

beil is overthinking the analysis and essentially double-dipping by looking for forces on individual particles instead of the whole system.
Click to expand...

DaveC426913 said:
Particles are not "observers". They don't "see" absolute velocities. They are subject to relative velocities. Particles at the top and bottom of the GRS undergo the same accelerations, just in opposite directions.

This is a fun idea to consider, but it is not born out by what we observe.

Observational Evidence first. Theorizing second.
Click to expand...
 
Agree, the shape is the result of all the forces including the perhaps minuscule ones that stem from the cancelling and adding of the 2 circling movements (revolution and spin). what does GRS mean please? Acceleration at midnight is caused by added centrifugal forces, --at noon by the unopposed solar gravity component, absence of the centrifugal lift, while local gravity keep acting on all.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Great Red Spot. That's what we're talking about, no?


And? Do we see this effect in Jupiters overall shape?
Click to expand...
yes, there is a striking difference between our cyclonic, corolis force - driven weather pattern, and
the overall banded arrangement on Jupiter.
this could reflect the gradient that exist by the matched Vo : Vr ratio, that really starts with zero at the poles and the leading and trailing areas, as seen also in the cycloid graph, The cancelling - doubling is not an 'on and off " happening only at noon and midnight, the effect is a gradient through all latitudes and time zones.
The real effect could only be seen by an off-on demonstration, presently beyond our capacity to stage.
 
exchemist said:
But you can do it the other way round too: propose a hypothesis and then look to see if observation supports it.

What I don’t understand about beil ’s contention is what effect he or she thinks should result from the net orbital speed being periodically reduced to near zero. An object at zero orbital speed should, in the absence of other influences, start to accelerate under the sun’s gravity towards the sun. But since the gravity of Jupiter is thousands of times greater, surely this would in practice make bugger-all difference?
Click to expand...
Yes, The differences between the sun so far and Jupiter's surface is enormous, but in the fluid, it is in stable balance, and the additional cancellation and doubling will act upon that balanced system, (The butterfly in the Amazon) scenario. so, as you said so well,
The constant repeating up and down pulses should have an effect, just on a slower scale the water tides have here on Earth.
 
beil said:
Yes, The differences between the sun so far and Jupiter's surface is enormous, but in the fluid, it is in stable balance, and the additional cancellation and doubling will act upon that balanced system, (The butterfly in the Amazon) scenario. so, as you said so well,
The constant repeating up and down pulses should have an effect, just on a slower scale the water tides have here on Earth.
Click to expand...
Essentially, all you are dealing with are tidal forces. Since tidal forces decrease by the cube of the distance from the primary and are directly proportional to the radius of the body they are acting on, it is a simple matter to roughly calculate them. Jupiter is ~ 5 times further from the Sun than the Earth and has ~11 times the radius, so 11/125 = a bit less than 1/11 the tidal force. And since the Solar tidal influence on the Earth is roughly 1/2 that of the Moon's, then the solar tidal forces acting on Jupiter are roughly 1/22 than Earth's Lunar tides. In fact, Io, which has just a bit more mass than our Moon, and orbits only about 10% further from Jupiter than our Moon does from us, would, over the much larger radius of Jupiter produce tidal forces on Jupiter over 8 times the magnitude of our lunar tides and thus ~176 times the solar ties on Jupiter.
 
Thank you J58.! What makes these predictable tides on Jupiter interesting is, that they are caused by the resultant velocities of the particles, and not the varying distances form the CG of the system, as here on Earth.
Their weakness can also be explained by the fact that the effect is based on the strength of the orbital centrifugal forces.
With a radius ~ 5 times that of the Earth's distance to the sun,
There is, on Jupiter's orbit, very little difference from a 'force-neutral' straight line. ( I think a previous s poster dealt with the small tangent angle). so,
as the Bard would say: "Much ado about nothing?" or ?
 
beil said:
DAVE : Here is a possible correlation from the smaller part of the cosmos, : the 'Einstein Haas ' effect
Click to expand...
No, that is just ordinary conservation of angular momentum and not in the least surprising. The analogy would be if a planet were to suddenly change the orientation of its axis of spin with respect to the orbital axis, then one would expect a change in orbital angular momentum. That's what happens in the Einstein de Haas effect.
 
Yes, as you said, and it must have happened in the past# either catastrophically or in the long term in places like the Uranus ~ 20 AU region.
But how does one account for the situation in the Earth- Moon and Mars region, where
The formula (V orbit: V rotation) x Radius yields the same value, The Earth /Moon distance ~ 300 000 km? and how about
Jupiter , Saturn, most of the mass of all planets, that rotate at the same speed as they orbit, ?
* hope it does not happen here again.
 
True , we can exist very well just with basics, but like Sir Isaac Newton looking for the shiny pebbles on the beach, so the un-accounted -for things might turn out to be the trigger for deeper insight, preparations for the next step. so, Nebel
just laid open the relationships of revolution and rotation, the distance at which they cancel, hoping for better trained minds to use the find.
the Brahe/ Keppler scenario.
 
beil said:
Yes, as you said, and it must have happened in the past# either catastrophically or in the long term in places like the Uranus ~ 20 AU region.
But how does one account for the situation in the Earth- Moon and Mars region, where
The formula (V orbit: V rotation) x Radius yields the same value, The Earth /Moon distance ~ 300 000 km? and how about
Jupiter , Saturn, most of the mass of all planets, that rotate at the same speed as they orbit, ?
* hope it does not happen here again.
Click to expand...
This seems muddled. A satellite that spins at the same rate as it orbits will present the same face towards the body it orbits. It is tidally locked to it. This is the case with the Earth’s moon. That is not true of jupiter or Saturn as they orbit the sun. What are you talking about?
 
EC if you would take the time to test the formula, you would see that your moon & satellite examples are only special cases of this Ro vs Rr relationships. The formula gives you the length of a 'spoke' that would extend to the point of pivot# to get the right movement vs rotation ratio. For the moon it is straight up from you to HMS Luna.
Jupiter , Saturn ' roll' positioned only slightly above their equator .(a short spoke)
Venus' pivot distance reaches almost to Mars.
This was all explained in the many posts.
Your moon example is clear, but
Why the earth with its 30 km/sec, and slow rotation also gives the Moon distance hints at something deeper, particularly because Mars also gives the same value. so, (V orbit: V rotation) x Body Radius
( perhaps that why we can have 5 minute, 5 hour eclipses. )
# Pivot is the point on the 'rim' that contact would occur with any 'surface' like the ecliptic.
Nebel never shy to roll out his cycloid analogies
 
beil said:
EC if you would take the time to test the formula, you would see that your moon & satellite examples are only special cases of this Ro vs Rr relationships. The formula gives you the length of a 'spoke' that would extend to the point of pivot# to get the right movement vs rotation ratio. For the moon it is straight up from you to HMS Luna.
Jupiter , Saturn ' roll' positioned only slightly above their equator .(a short spoke)
Venus' pivot distance reaches almost to Mars.
This was all explained in the many posts.
Your moon example is clear, but
Why the earth with its 30 km/sec, and slow rotation also gives the Moon distance hints at something deeper, particularly because Mars also gives the same value. so, (V orbit: V rotation) x Body Radius
( perhaps that why we can have 5 minute, 5 hour eclipses. )
# Pivot is the point on the 'rim' that contact would occur with any 'surface' like the ecliptic.
Nebel never shy to roll out his cycloid analogies
Click to expand...
Tidal locking is well understood and is not a special case of some crank numerology without backing in physics.

But, looking at your formula, for the Earth this would be 30/0.46 x 6365 = 415,108km. What does that signify to you?

And what do you mean by Mars having the same value? Which moon? There are two so it can't be true for both.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top