Earthquakes of the month
Pertti Koivisto
09.04.2008 Australia Loyalty 7.2
Some of the most powerful earthquakes of the month. Earthquake rate
was considerably increasing in the last month. Here 19 above 6 Richter
scale.
09.04.2008 Australia Loyalty 6.3
09.04.2008 Austarlia Loyalty 6.0
12.04.2008 Australia Macquery island 7.1
14.04.2008 Etelä_Amerikka Sanwich 6.0
15.04.2008 Guatemala rannikko 6.2
15.04.2008 Aleutit Alaska 6.3
16.04.2008 Aleutit Alaska 6.5
16.04.2008 Aleutit Alaska 6.6
15.04.2008 Tonga 6.4
18.04.2008 Fiji 6.4
19.04.2008 Kepualan Indonesia 6.0
19.04.2008 Loyalty Australia 6.0
19.04.2008 Kepualan Indonesia 6.0
23.04.2008 Taiwan 6.0
25.04.2008 Keski-Atlantti 6.5
26.04.2008 Auckland Uusi-Seelanti 6.1
28.04.2008 Etelä-Sandwich saaret 6.0
28.04.2008 Vanuatu 6.2
28.04.2008 Loyalty 6.0
Ilmari Tamminen
The most powerful earthquake in human written history happened in
China in 12.05.2008. Tens of thousands of moderate to great quakes
followed. Practically whole China was earthquake area.
The scale of earthquake was put 12.3 Richter scale by seismologists
and being greatest ever been measured by accurate
modern equipment. It happened only about three years after last top in
Indonesia in the day of boxing in 2004.
Nothing was learned from the quake and nothing was done to prevent
human catastrophy. The IQ level of politicians is very low too low.
In Sichuan destruction area there lives about 100 million people and
nearby areas about 200 million more.
Whole cities are wiped out. Dams have been also holes and great
floods are a fearful possibility in metropolitan areas like Shangahai.
Why teachings of alban Agnes Boxheau in Calcutta have left unnoticed
by the world ?
http://users.utu.fi/pertkoiv/
David Williams
-> China in 12.05.2008. Tens of thousands of moderate to great quakes
-> followed. Practically whole China was earthquake area.
The earthquake was measured at 8.0 on the Richter scale. (Initially, it
was estimated at 7.8.) Earthquakes of 9.0 and above have been recorded
in Chile and Alaska. The Richter scale is logarithmic. Each unit
represents a factor of 10 in the energy of the earthquake. So the
Chilean and Alaskan events were at least ten times more energetic than
this Chinese earthquake.
-> Nothing was learned from the quake and nothing was done to prevent
-> human catastrophy. The IQ level of politicians is very low too low.
It has little to do with politicians, and more to do with population
increase and the adoption of modern methods of construction.
Traditionally, in that area, buildings were constructed of bamboo. They
were flexible, and did not collapse in earthquakes. The adoption of
materials like brick and concrete has made the buildings much more
dangerous.
-> Why teachings of alban Agnes Boxheau in Calcutta have left unnoticed
-> by the world ?
What has Calcutta got to do with it?
Incidentally, my girlfriend used to live in the area where the
earthquake happened. Members of her family went as volunteers to help
with rescue efforts, and have described to her by phone what they saw.
I can confidently claim to know a lot more about it than you apparently
do.
dow
Nick Cramer
> The earthquake was measured at 8.0 on the Richter scale. (Initially, it
> was estimated at 7.8.) Earthquakes of 9.0 and above have been recorded
> in Chile and Alaska. The Richter scale is logarithmic. Each unit
> represents a factor of 10 in the energy of the earthquake. So the
> Chilean and Alaskan events were at least ten times more energetic than
> this Chinese earthquake.
>
> What has Calcutta got to do with it?
>
> Incidentally, my girlfriend used to live in the area where the
> earthquake happened. Members of her family went as volunteers to help
> with rescue efforts, and have described to her by phone what they saw.
> I can confidently claim to know a lot more about it than you apparently
> do.
Thanks, David. I'm glad your girlfriends family were able to get in and
help. Were any of her family, who still lived there, injured.
At least China recognizes the need for international assistance. Their
reasons are secondary, as far as I'm concerned.
BTW I have long thought that the use of deciRichters would make the numbers
more meaningful to the general population, just as deciBels do. 100 dBA
(acuestic) is damn loud! Thus a 7.8 on the Richter scale would be 78 dR.
Comment?
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
I've known US vets who served as far back as the Spanish American War. They
are all my heroes! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not
forgotten. Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~
David Williams
-> help. Were any of her family, who still lived there, injured.
-> At least China recognizes the need for international assistance. Their
-> reasons are secondary, as far as I'm concerned.
-> BTW I have long thought that the use of deciRichters would make the numbers
-> more meaningful to the general population, just as deciBels do. 100 dBA
-> (acuestic) is damn loud! Thus a 7.8 on the Richter scale would be 78 dR.
-> Comment?
All the volunteers who went in to help have returned home safely - at
least, all the ones my girlfriend knows. There are almost certainly
people she knew when she lived there who were still there when the
earthquake happened. What has happened to them, we don't yet know. It
may take months for news to circulate throught the network of friends.
One aspect of the situation which seems to be little appreciated here
is the danger of floods caused by landslides. When the biq quake
happened, a lot of landlides slid into rivers and dammed them. Of
course, these dams are not strong, and almost certainly in the next few
weeks some of them will be washed away, releasing floods. Major
evacuations of areas downstream of these dams are taking place. This is
a quite different problem from the one of the man-made dams that were
damaged, and which are now being repaired as fast as possible.
The Chinese response to this emergency has clearly been immensely
better than what is happening in Burma, and even what happened in New
Orleans a few years ago. As you say, the motives don't matter. What is
being done is what counts.
Incidentally, my girlfriend's relatives have been urging us *not* to go
to China this summer - which we had been vaguely planning to do before
the earthquake occured. The transportation systems, trains, planes,
etc., are loaded to capacity with traffic concerned with the relief
effort, and the last thing they want is foreigners taking up space for
no good purpose.
As for decirichters, I guess anyone is free to use them if they want.
But we are already used to the scale that essentially goes from 0 to
10, so why change? Also, measuring earthquakes is a lot less precise
than measuring sound levels. Sounds can be measured to a fraction of a
decibel, but estimates of earthquakes are often uncertain in the second
digit. The important thing to realize is that the scale is logarithmic.
dow
Nick Cramer
>
[ . . . ]
> One aspect of the situation which seems to be little appreciated here
> is the danger of floods caused by landslides. When the biq quake
> happened, a lot of landlides slid into rivers and dammed them. Of
> course, these dams are not strong, and almost certainly in the next few
> weeks some of them will be washed away, releasing floods. Major
> evacuations of areas downstream of these dams are taking place. This is
> a quite different problem from the one of the man-made dams that were
> damaged, and which are now being repaired as fast as possible.
That, and possible damage to nuclear power plants and similar sites.
> The Chinese response to this emergency has clearly been immensely
> better than what is happening in Burma, and even what happened in New
> Orleans a few years ago. As you say, the motives don't matter. What is
> being done is what counts.
The situation in Burma is tragic, and being compounded by the paranoid
attitude of the government. Again, motives don't matter.
> Incidentally, my girlfriend's relatives have been urging us *not* to go
> to China this summer - which we had been vaguely planning to do before
> the earthquake occured. The transportation systems, trains, planes,
> etc., are loaded to capacity with traffic concerned with the relief
> effort, and the last thing they want is foreigners taking up space for
> no good purpose.
That sounds like good, well reasoned advice. I don't think the Olympic
Games should be boycotted. The athletes should have the individual right
choose to go or not go.
David Williams
Maybe. Paranoid fantasies don't help. No doubt, people around the world
are "sniffing" the air to see if there are any traces of stuff that
might have leaked out of a reactor. So far, I have heard nothing of the
sort.
The Chinese-language newspapers here in Toronto are reporting today
that seismologists warned of the earthquake more than two weeks before
it happened, but their warnings were not heeded. If true, this raises
issues about whether it would have been irresponsible to order a
massive evacuation on the basis of warnings that might not be reliable,
or whether ignoring the warnings was in itself irresponsible. Of
course, we know by hindsight which course of action would have been the
better, but the people who had to make the decision didn't have this
knowledge. Their decision turned out to be wrong, but was it the wrong
decision to take?
I suppose we can vaguely claim that this stuff is "sci.planetary", but
if and when Phoenix lands on Sunday, I guess this newsgroup will get a
lot busier with really relevant stuff.
dow
Ken S. Tucker
We at Conception Dynamics have calculated the equivalent of
80 megatons of TNT energy is delivered into the Earth's
lithosphere per day, via tidal effects on average.
However, the tidal effect is sinsodial, with maxs occuring at
high tide (full moon), and Neap tides occuring at 1/4 phase.
The last Chinese quake occurred precisely at Neap tide.
Each fault is subject to shift via differing inputs.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
David Williams
Well, approximately. Yes. I was going to point this out to you at some
appropriate time! It seems doubtful that this earthquake had anything
to do with tidal stress.
dow
David Williams
-> 80 megatons of TNT energy is delivered into the Earth's
-> lithosphere per day, via tidal effects on average.
-> However, the tidal effect is sinsodial, with maxs occuring at
-> high tide (full moon), and Neap tides occuring at 1/4 phase.
-> The last Chinese quake occurred precisely at Neap tide.
-> Regards
-> Ken S. Tucker
One of Ken's eccentricities is a habit of expressing non-explosive
energies in megatons. I guess the "mega" prefix makes it sound
impressive.
A megaton of TNT releases something like 4e15 joules when it explodes.
Sunlight arriving at the earth has a power of about a kilowatt per
square metre. So the power that the earth intercepts is about
pi x r^2 x 1000 or 3.14 x (6.4e6)^2 x 1000 or 1.3e17 watts. In Ken's
notation, that's about 30 megatons *per second*. So the total tidal
energy expended in a day is matched by the energy of sunlight that
arrives in less than three seconds. The tidal component is a pretty
small fraction of the earth's energy budget.
There is a statistical correlation between the occurrences of large
earthquakes and the tides. Quakes happen more frequently at "spring"
tides, when the moon is new or full, than at "neap" tides, when the
moon is at a quarter phase. But the correlation is not strong. Plenty
of earthquakes defy it, including the recent Chinese one.
dow
Pertti Koivisto
Be grateful that your girlfriend is alive. Earthquakes are not new
phenomenon. First historically recorded quake is
in Genesis (1 Moses 18-19). Very few americans have read that and I
guess you to go to library nearby or book shop
in your town and ask the shopkeeper for the book named Bible. In
Google serach He or she can perhaps get the knowledege where you can
find book. With very good luck you can read the verses of first
earhquake recorded.
I can tell much about geology of that area. Area is situated between
Jordan and Israel and forms tributary of river Jordan.
In that area is the most deepest natural point on earth. In oceans
near japan there are however deeper points but
excluding seas, Dead sea is deepest. It must be a huge unimaginable
explosion, when dead sea was born.
My friend girl came from Tel Avin a few weeks ago and said that in
South Lebanon there was huge earthquake and my friend felt tremor in
Tel aviv and Jerusalem 500 km distant.
Incedent went unnoticed by media.
Jews in Israel are right in their vision in the beginning of the
messianic area. About 20 years ago launch of the coming of the
anointed of the God, the king of kings, and king of peace, the king of
knowledge was launched by hassidists.
Very few christians are right because they don't know the existence
of the book named the Bible.
http://users.utu.fi/pertkoiv/
David Williams
-> phenomenon. First historically recorded quake is
-> in Genesis (1 Moses 18-19). Very few americans have read that and I
-> guess you to go to library nearby or book shop
-> in your town and ask the shopkeeper for the book named Bible. In
-> Google serach He or she can perhaps get the knowledege where you can
-> find book. With very good luck you can read the verses of first
-> earhquake recorded.
Don't insult me with biblical drivel.
You're right, though, in saying that earthquakes have happened more or
less throughout the earth's history. They're a consequence of plate
tectonics, which has shaped our planet's surface. Along the boundaries
between plates, and in areas where one plate is being subducted beneath
another (as is happening under Sichuan, China), earthquakes are common
and can be severe.
The strongest I have ever experienced was Richter 5.5, in Valparaiso,
Chile, a few years ago. It happened in the early morning, and almost
threw me out of my hotel bed. I pulled on some clothes and rushed
downstairs, only to find the other guests calmly eating breakfast.
Richter 5.5 is nothing there. The strongest earthquake ever recorded
was Richter 9.5, i.e. 10,000 times stronger, and happened in that same
area, in about 1960.
dow
Ken S. Tucker
> -> We at Conception Dynamics have calculated the equivalent of
> -> 80 megatons of TNT energy is delivered into the Earth's
> -> lithosphere per day, via tidal effects on average.
> -> However, the tidal effect is sinsodial, with maxs occuring at
> -> high tide (full moon), and Neap tides occuring at 1/4 phase.
>
> -> The last Chinese quake occurred precisely at Neap tide.
>
> -> Each fault is subject to shift via differing inputs.
> -> Regards
> -> Ken S. Tucker
>
> One of Ken's eccentricities is a habit of expressing non-explosive
> energies in megatons. I guess the "mega" prefix makes it sound
> impressive.
>
> A megaton of TNT releases something like 4e15 joules when it explodes.
> Sunlight arriving at the earth has a power of about a kilowatt per
> square metre. So the power that the earth intercepts is about
> pi x r^2 x 1000 or 3.14 x (6.4e6)^2 x 1000 or 1.3e17 watts.
Dave, your theory that sunlight causes earthquakes
has been descredited by the study of surface of Venus,
where no Venusquakes have been evident for 1/2 billion
years.
Dave ,you really must study modern astronomy.
Incidently Venus does not have a moon to provide
the tidal energy to circulate the mantle.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
[snip]
David Williams
-> has been descredited by the study of surface of Venus,
-> where no Venusquakes have been evident for 1/2 billion
-> years.
-> Dave ,you really must study modern astronomy.
-> Incidently Venus does not have a moon to provide
-> the tidal energy to circulate the mantle.
-> Ken S. Tucker
vicinity of Venus is approximately the same as the gradient in the
moon's gravity at Earth. So Venus is subjected to about the same tidal
stress as Earth is. But, since Venus rotates much more slowly than
Earth, the *strain* in the surface (i.e. its deformation) caused by the
tidal force is likely to be greater in Venus than Earth.
Have you been observing Venus for 1/2 billion years? If not, how do you
know that no Venus-quakes have happened in that time? Spacecraft have
landed on Venus, but none has survived for more than an hour or so. So
observations of whether or not Venus's surface is subject to tremors
are essentially non-existent.
Anyway, I never stated or implied that earthquakes are caused by
sunlight. What I said was that the tidal energy dissipated in the earth
represents a negligible fraction of its total energy budget, most of
which is due to sunlight.
Incidentally, almost all of the tidal energy goes into stirring
seawater.
dow
Ken S. Tucker
> -> Dave, your theory that sunlight causes earthquakes
> -> has been descredited by the study of surface of Venus,
> -> where no Venusquakes have been evident for 1/2 billion
> -> years.
> -> Dave ,you really must study modern astronomy.
> -> Incidently Venus does not have a moon to provide
> -> the tidal energy to circulate the mantle.
> -> Regards
> -> Ken S. Tucker
>
> Do the math yourself. The tidal gradient of the sun's gravity in the
> vicinity of Venus is approximately the same as the gradient in the
> moon's gravity at Earth. So Venus is subjected to about the same tidal
> stress as Earth is. But, since Venus rotates much more slowly than
> Earth, the *strain* in the surface (i.e. its deformation) caused by the
> tidal force is likely to be greater in Venus than Earth.
No cuz power = d(energy)/d(time).
> Have you been observing Venus for 1/2 billion years? If not, how do you
> know that no Venus-quakes have happened in that time? Spacecraft have
> landed on Venus, but none has survived for more than an hour or so. So
> observations of whether or not Venus's surface is subject to tremors
> are essentially non-existent.
The Venus surface was mapped by radar.
> Anyway, I never stated or implied that earthquakes are caused by
> sunlight. What I said was that the tidal energy dissipated in the earth
> represents a negligible fraction of its total energy budget, most of
> which is due to sunlight.
Again NO, cuz the EMR in = EMR out,
thermodynamically the Earth may be treated as
having an albedo of zero at some given temperature.
> Incidentally, almost all of the tidal energy goes into stirring
> seawater.
Again NO, sea water is a ~ frictionless fluid.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
David Williams
-> > vicinity of Venus is approximately the same as the gradient in the
-> > moon's gravity at Earth. So Venus is subjected to about the same tidal
-> > stress as Earth is. But, since Venus rotates much more slowly than
-> > Earth, the *strain* in the surface (i.e. its deformation) caused by the
-> > tidal force is likely to be greater in Venus than Earth.
-> No cuz power = d(energy)/d(time).
I told you stuff about stresses and strains, not power.
-> > observations of whether or not Venus's surface is subject to tremors
-> > are essentially non-existent.
-> The Venus surface was mapped by radar.
Not with sufficient accuracy to detect tremors of the surface.
-> > Anyway, I never stated or implied that earthquakes are caused by
-> > sunlight. What I said was that the tidal energy dissipated in the earth
-> > represents a negligible fraction of its total energy budget, most of
-> > which is due to sunlight.
-> Again NO, cuz the EMR in = EMR out,
-> thermodynamically the Earth may be treated as
-> having an albedo of zero at some given temperature.
Approximately. But the light that is used, for example, by plants for
photosynthesis is simply absorbed and converted into chemical energy
that is stored indefinitely. That much EMR is *not* returned to space.
Likewise, light that is absorbed and used to power other processes is
not re-radiated. The quantity of solar power reaching the earth is so
immense, of the order of 10^17 watts, that even if only a tiny fraction
of it is absorbed, it can cause major effects.
However, I am not claiming that solar energy is the major cause of
earthquakes. They are caused by plate movements, which are powered by
convection within the earth, which is driven by heat escaping from it.
Part of that heat is primordial, left over from the earth's formation,
and part is produced by the decay of radioactive materials within the
earth. Solar and tidal energies have little to do with it.
-> > Incidentally, almost all of the tidal energy goes into stirring
-> > seawater.
-> Again NO, sea water is a ~ frictionless fluid.
-> Ken S. Tucker
When it is moved around by the tides, the viscosity causes heat to be
generated and dissipated. This is the main way in which the tidal
energy that is produced by the earth's rotation in the gravitational
gradients of the sun and moon is dissipated. Very little is dissipated
in the materials of the crust.
Do some homework!
dow
Ken S. Tucker
On May 26, 1:52 pm, david.willi...@bayman.org (David Williams) wrote:
> -> > Do the math yourself. The tidal gradient of the sun's gravity in the
> -> > vicinity of Venus is approximately the same as the gradient in the
> -> > moon's gravity at Earth. So Venus is subjected to about the same tidal
> -> > stress as Earth is. But, since Venus rotates much more slowly than
> -> > Earth, the *strain* in the surface (i.e. its deformation) caused by the
> -> > tidal force is likely to be greater in Venus than Earth.
>
> -> No cuz power = d(energy)/d(time).
>
> I told you stuff about stresses and strains, not power.
What' does power create?
> -> > observations of whether or not Venus's surface is subject to tremors
> -> > are essentially non-existent.
>
> -> The Venus surface was mapped by radar.
>
> Not with sufficient accuracy to detect tremors of the surface.
Read the reports.
> -> > Anyway, I never stated or implied that earthquakes are caused by
> -> > sunlight. What I said was that the tidal energy dissipated in the earth
> -> > represents a negligible fraction of its total energy budget, most of
> -> > which is due to sunlight.
>
> -> Again NO, cuz the EMR in = EMR out,
> -> thermodynamically the Earth may be treated as
> -> having an albedo of zero at some given temperature.
>
> Approximately. But the light that is used, for example, by plants for
> photosynthesis is simply absorbed and converted into chemical energy
> that is stored indefinitely. That much EMR is *not* returned to space.
> Likewise, light that is absorbed and used to power other processes is
> not re-radiated. The quantity of solar power reaching the earth is so
> immense, of the order of 10^17 watts, that even if only a tiny fraction
> of it is absorbed, it can cause major effects.
Maybe, create a theory.
> However, I am not claiming that solar energy is the major cause of
> earthquakes. They are caused by plate movements, which are powered by
> convection within the earth, which is driven by heat escaping from it.
> Part of that heat is primordial, left over from the earth's formation,
> and part is produced by the decay of radioactive materials within the
> earth. Solar and tidal energies have little to do with it.
Wrong again Dave, Venus is benign.
> -> > Incidentally, almost all of the tidal energy goes into stirring
> -> > seawater.
>
> -> Again NO, sea water is a ~ frictionless fluid.
> -> Regards
> -> Ken S. Tucker
>
> Sea water has viscosity, like all other liquids except "superfluids".
> When it is moved around by the tides, the viscosity causes heat to be
> generated and dissipated. This is the main way in which the tidal
> energy that is produced by the earth's rotation in the gravitational
> gradients of the sun and moon is dissipated. Very little is dissipated
> in the materials of the crust.
Wrong again Dave.
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Elvis has left the building.
David Williams
-> What' does power create?
Mass? You tell me what you want to hear.
-> Wrong again Dave, Venus is benign.
What the hell do you mean by that? It's sitting in the sky with a
cheshire-cat grin on its face, pouring blessings on everyone?
Venus is very little understood. There is a hypothesis that every now
and again the energy that is dissipated in it heats it up so much that
the entire planet melts. Then it cools again, and a new surface is
formed, with no craters, etc.. I'm not convinced of this, but a lot of
people take the idea seriously.
Like most people who have never lived near an ocean, you seem to think
that tides can exist only in the presence of a moon. Even on Earth, the
sun produces tides that are about 1/3 as high as the ones caused by the
moon. As they slip in and out of phase, the heights of tides vary by a
ratio of about 2:1 (4/3:2/3). At Venus, about 0.7 AU from the sun, the
sun's tidal gradient is about 0.7^-3, i.e. about 3 times greater than
it is at Earth, making it about the same as the moon's tidal gradient
here on Earth. If we moved Earth to Venus's orbit, and took away the
moon, the ocean tides would be about the same as they are now - until
the oceans boiled away, of course.
I think you are trying to say that Venus is not subjected to a tidal
gradient, and has no earthquakes, suggesting that earthquakes are
caused by tides. But Venus *is* subjected to a tidal gradient, and
whether or not it has earthquakes is not known. So no argument can be
made.
-> > Sea water has viscosity, like all other liquids except "superfluids".
-> > When it is moved around by the tides, the viscosity causes heat to be
-> > generated and dissipated. This is the main way in which the tidal
-> > energy that is produced by the earth's rotation in the gravitational
-> > gradients of the sun and moon is dissipated. Very little is dissipated
-> > in the materials of the crust.
-> Wrong again Dave.
-> Ken S. Tucker
-> PS: Elvis has left the building.
Wrong again, Ken. You're making a fool of yourself in public. Send me
private e-mails if you want to avoid the embarrassment.
dow
Ken S. Tucker
> -> > I told you stuff about stresses and strains, not power.
>
> -> What' does power create?
>
> Mass? You tell me what you want to hear.
Do you want to discuss power tidal induced?
> -> Wrong again Dave, Venus is benign.
>
> What the hell do you mean by that? It's sitting in the sky with a
> cheshire-cat grin on its face, pouring blessings on everyone?
>
> Venus is very little understood. There is a hypothesis that every now
> and again the energy that is dissipated in it heats it up so much that
> the entire planet melts. Then it cools again, and a new surface is
> formed, with no craters, etc.. I'm not convinced of this, but a lot of
> people take the idea seriously.
Crater studies of Venus indicate the surface has been
benign for 500,000,000 years, IOW's no evidence of
tectonics, read the studies.
> Like most people who have never lived near an ocean, you seem to think
> that tides can exist only in the presence of a moon. Even on Earth, the
> sun produces tides that are about 1/3 as high as the ones caused by the
> moon. As they slip in and out of phase, the heights of tides vary by a
> ratio of about 2:1 (4/3:2/3). At Venus, about 0.7 AU from the sun, the
> sun's tidal gradient is about 0.7^-3, i.e. about 3 times greater than
> it is at Earth, making it about the same as the moon's tidal gradient
> here on Earth. If we moved Earth to Venus's orbit, and took away the
> moon, the ocean tides would be about the same as they are now - until
> the oceans boiled away, of course.
You need to include centrifugal force and power into
the tidal calculation.
> I think you are trying to say that Venus is not subjected to a tidal
> gradient, and has no earthquakes, suggesting that earthquakes are
> caused by tides. But Venus *is* subjected to a tidal gradient, and
> whether or not it has earthquakes is not known. So no argument can be
> made.
Are talking about Venusquakes or Earthquakes?
> -> > Sea water has viscosity, like all other liquids except "superfluids".
> -> > When it is moved around by the tides, the viscosity causes heat to be
> -> > generated and dissipated. This is the main way in which the tidal
> -> > energy that is produced by the earth's rotation in the gravitational
> -> > gradients of the sun and moon is dissipated. Very little is dissipated
> -> > in the materials of the crust.
>
> -> Wrong again Dave.
> -> Ken S. Tucker
> -> PS: Elvis has left the building.
>
> Wrong again, Ken. You're making a fool of yourself in public. Send me
> private e-mails if you want to avoid the embarrassment.
You need to study the studies of Venus's surface,
particularily the Monte Carlo crater arrangement.
Dave, I'm afraid your knowledge is obsolete and
your physics on power needs refreshing.
By pontificating, you're saying "My mind is made up,
don't confuse my with the facts", that's not good
science.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
David Williams
-> Do you want to discuss power tidal induced?
Is that Reverse Polish Notation?
Sure. Tides dissipate power. It *very slightly* warms the oceans.
Hysteresis warms rocks that are flexed by tidal forces, but the
flexing of rocks is very slight.
-> > Venus is very little understood. There is a hypothesis that every now
-> > and again the energy that is dissipated in it heats it up so much that
-> > the entire planet melts. Then it cools again, and a new surface is
-> > formed, with no craters, etc.. I'm not convinced of this, but a lot of
-> > people take the idea seriously.
-> Crater studies of Venus indicate the surface has been
-> benign for 500,000,000 years, IOW's no evidence of
-> tectonics, read the studies.
I think you should look up the meaning of the word "benign".
The lack of craters on Venus's surface is the main evidence in favour
of the periodic-meltdown hypothesis. It suggests that the surface was
last molten only about 5e8 years ago, so any craters that existed
before then were erased. To produce the meltdowns, the hypothesis
suggests that a *lot* of heat is generated within Venus, more than
could plausibly be produced by tides. Radioactive decay in the core
might be enough. A massive collision 5e8 years ago is another
possibility.
But craters have nothing to do with earthquakes. The fact that
pre-existing craters appear to have been erased 5e8 years ago says
nothing about whether earthquakes occur on Venus now. All we can say is
that no *large* quakes, big enough to cause surface movements that
would have been detected by radar, have happened in the last 20 years
or so. Whether or not smaller quakes, say Richter 6 or less, occur is
completely unknown.
-> Are talking about Venusquakes or Earthquakes?
Call them Venusquakes if you wish. I'm not interested in quibbling
about words.
I still don't see what relevance Venus has to your contention that tides
are a major factor in producing earthquakes on Earth.
dow
Ken S. Tucker
> On May 26, 5:33 pm, david.willi...@bayman.org (David Williams) wrote:
>
> > -> > I told you stuff about stresses and strains, not power.
David Williams
-> > particularily the Monte Carlo crater arrangement.
-> > Dave, I'm afraid your knowledge is obsolete and
-> > your physics on power needs refreshing.
-> > By pontificating, you're saying "My mind is made up,
-> > don't confuse my with the facts", that's not good
-> > science.
-> > Ken S. Tucker
yourself.
Tell us why you think that Venus is relevant to your contention that
earthquakes on Earth are caused by tides, and why the "Monte Carlo"
arrangement of craters on its surface is important. Monte Carlo is a
place in Europe where there is a famous casino. Its name is sometimes
used as a picturesque synonym for "random". And there is an argument
that, since the craters on Venus show no discernable pattern, the
surface must be static, with no plate movements. Fine. So what?
This whole Venus thing is a complete red herring, which you have
dragged up because you have no evidence to support your argument about
earthquakes and tides.
Have another beer.
dow
P.S. For those who don't know, Ken and I have been friends for about
30 years. We can insult each other with impunity, with no real malice.
Ken S. Tucker
> -> > You need to study the studies of Venus's surface,
> -> > particularily the Monte Carlo crater arrangement.
> -> > Dave, I'm afraid your knowledge is obsolete and
> -> > your physics on power needs refreshing.
> -> > By pontificating, you're saying "My mind is made up,
> -> > don't confuse my with the facts", that's not good
> -> > science.
> -> > Regards
> -> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> You clearly have nothing new to say, so you are reduced to repeating
> yourself.
>
> Tell us why you think that Venus is relevant to your contention that
> earthquakes on Earth are caused by tides, and why the "Monte Carlo"
> arrangement of craters on its surface is important. Monte Carlo is a
> place in Europe where there is a famous casino. Its name is sometimes
> used as a picturesque synonym for "random". And there is an argument
> that, since the craters on Venus show no discernable pattern, the
> surface must be static, with no plate movements. Fine. So what?
Dave, it's taken since May 21st, (1 week) just for you to
discover Venus has NO PLATE TECTONICS!!!
It will take months for you to figure out WHY NOT!!!
> This whole Venus thing is a complete red herring, which you have
> dragged up because you have no evidence to support your argument about
> earthquakes and tides.
Then you don't need to know why.
> Have another beer.
Haven't had a beer since last summer.
> P.S. For those who don't know, Ken and I have been friends for about
> 30 years. We can insult each other with impunity, with no real malice.
Perhaps Dave, but your insults is not good science discussion,
and my time and patience is finite.
Ken
David Williams
-> Dave, it's taken since May 21st, (1 week) just for you to
-> discover Venus has NO PLATE TECTONICS!!!
-> It will take months for you to figure out WHY NOT!!!
Actually, I don't consider it proven that Venus has no plate tectonics. All the
data could be accounted for if there are small plates that don't last very
long. That would account for the paucity of craters and their random
distribution, without invoking a global melt-down.
But the fact remains, despite your attempts to mask it, that Venus is utterly
irrelevant to your earthquake hypothesis. It's a red herring.
Get back to earthquakes, and quit being tedious.
dow
Ken S. Tucker
> On 05/28/2008 1:49 PM, dynam...@vianet.on.ca wrote to All:
>
> -> Dave, it's taken since May 21st, (1 week) just for you to
> -> discover Venus has NO PLATE TECTONICS!!!
> -> It will take months for you to figure out WHY NOT!!!
Explain that.
Ken
PS: You Old Fart.
David Williams
-> > -> discover Venus has NO PLATE TECTONICS!!!
-> > -> It will take months for you to figure out WHY NOT!!!
-> Explain that.
-> Ken
-> PS: You Old Fart.
A little older than I was before May 21, which was my birthday.
But you wrote the above. You explain it.
There are good reasons why Venus *may not* have plate tectonics. Its
never lost most of its crustal material in a big collision, as Earth
did, so the crust is presumably a lot thicker and stronger than
Earth's, and less likely to be broken into plates. But that doesn't
explain the small number of craters.
Either we have to accept the meltdown hypothesis, or we must
hypothesize some other way in which the planet's surface is rapidly
renewed. (That's "rapidly" in cosmological terms, maybe taking hundreds
of millions of years, but not billions.) It seems plausible to me that
there *is* some kind of tectonic activity, but rather different from
that on Earth. If Venus's plates are small, maybe only a few hundred
kilometres in size, each bit of ground would spend only a short time on
the surface before being subducted and replaced by new ground appearing
at a spreading margin. And each plate would have few, if any, craters,
so there would be no obvious gradient of crater density from the oldest
part of the plate to the newest.
Magellan, Venus Express, etc., have managed to peer through the haze
and let us map the surface, but our knowledge of Venus is still very
sketchy. Maybe someday a probe will land there that is able to
withstand the temperature and pressure for a long time, so it can
observe any seismic activity, and so on. I hope I'm not too old to be
around then!
dow
Ken S. Tucker
> -> > -> Dave, it's taken since May 21st, (1 week) just for you to
> -> > -> discover Venus has NO PLATE TECTONICS!!!
> -> > -> It will take months for you to figure out WHY NOT!!!
>
> -> Explain that.
> -> Ken
> -> PS: You Old Fart.
>
> A little older than I was before May 21, which was my birthday.
Ok, I think I'll toast your mom for passing a big
head like you had as a baby....cheers!
> But you wrote the above. You explain it.
>
> There are good reasons why Venus *may not* have plate tectonics. Its
> never lost most of its crustal material in a big collision, as Earth
> did, so the crust is presumably a lot thicker and stronger than
> Earth's, and less likely to be broken into plates. But that doesn't
> explain the small number of craters.
IMO, I think that explanation is too complicated.
I'll use the Standard Solar System Evolution Theory.
Compared to Earth, Venus had more meteor bomb-
bardment, (~1/r^2) and more energetic (1/r), and
had more radial surface heating, all compared to
Earth. So when the Venusian crust finally hardened
500,000,000 years ago was in accord with SSSET.
> Either we have to accept the meltdown hypothesis, or we must
> hypothesize some other way in which the planet's surface is rapidly
> renewed. (That's "rapidly" in cosmological terms, maybe taking hundreds
> of millions of years, but not billions.) It seems plausible to me that
> there *is* some kind of tectonic activity, but rather different from
> that on Earth. If Venus's plates are small, maybe only a few hundred
> kilometres in size, each bit of ground would spend only a short time on
> the surface before being subducted and replaced by new ground appearing
> at a spreading margin.
Maybe, but there is no evidence of that conjecture.
> And each plate would have few, if any, craters,
> so there would be no obvious gradient of crater density from the oldest
> part of the plate to the newest.
Ok possible, but for all intents and purposes, Venus lacks
anthing like *CONTINENTAL TECTONICS* and Earth has.
> Magellan, Venus Express, etc., have managed to peer through the haze
> and let us map the surface, but our knowledge of Venus is still very
> sketchy. Maybe someday a probe will land there that is able to
> withstand the temperature and pressure for a long time, so it can
> observe any seismic activity, and so on. I hope I'm not too old to be
> around then!
> dow
Yeah, I'm off beer and on to Tang, it's the least sugared
juice I can find!
Ken
David Williams
-> head like you had as a baby....cheers!
How right you are. In fact, I still take extra-large sizes in hats.
-> I'll use the Standard Solar System Evolution Theory.
-> Compared to Earth, Venus had more meteor bomb-
-> bardment, (~1/r^2) and more energetic (1/r), and
-> had more radial surface heating, all compared to
-> Earth. So when the Venusian crust finally hardened
-> 500,000,000 years ago was in accord with SSSET.
How about Mercury, which has *lots* of craters, despite being only
about half as far from the sun as Venus?
-> Yeah, I'm off beer and on to Tang, it's the least sugared
-> juice I can find!
-> Ken
Less than pure OJ?
I drink very little juice nowadays. 1 gram of Vitamin C a day, as a
pill, is plenty.
dow
Nick Cramer
> -> Ok, I think I'll toast your mom for passing a big
> -> head like you had as a baby....cheers!
>
> How right you are. In fact, I still take extra-large sizes in hats.
>
> -> I'll use the Standard Solar System Evolution Theory.
> -> Compared to Earth, Venus had more meteor bomb-
> -> bardment, (~1/r^2) and more energetic (1/r), and
> -> had more radial surface heating, all compared to
> -> Earth. So when the Venusian crust finally hardened
> -> 500,000,000 years ago was in accord with SSSET.
>
> How about Mercury, which has *lots* of craters, despite being only
> about half as far from the sun as Venus?
>
> -> Yeah, I'm off beer and on to Tang, it's the least sugared
> -> juice I can find!
> Less than pure OJ?
>
> I drink very little juice nowadays. 1 gram of Vitamin C a day, as a
> pill, is plenty.
But a Screwdriver or Bloody Mary is so good! I have one about once a month,
as neither is diabetes friendly. ;-(
Ken S. Tucker
> david.willi...@bayman.org (David Williams) wrote:
...
> > -> Yeah, I'm off beer and on to Tang, it's the least sugared
> > -> juice I can find!
> > Less than pure OJ?
Don't know about sugar, but OJ is to acidic for me,
tho a glass everyonce in awhile is good.
> > I drink very little juice nowadays. 1 gram of Vitamin C a day, as a
> > pill, is plenty.
Well I don't eat breakfast or lunch, so sippin'
Tang gives a nice easy energy.
> But a Screwdriver or Bloody Mary is so good! I have one about once a month,
> as neither is diabetes friendly. ;-(
Yeah, I'm mid 50's, 6' , med frame and hold my weight
at ~180#, and put a splash of vodka in the Tang, tho I've
been known to put a splash of Tang in my vodka :-).
My hobby is building, which uses Skil saws, hammers
etc. which have irritating noises, so I dull the senses.
Ken
David Williams
-> etc. which have irritating noises, so I dull the senses.
-> Ken
Right. You don't want to feel pain when you chop off a hand.
dow
Ralph
Since Venus is smaller than Earth, and also reported less dense, how do you
get more bombardment, and more energy?
"Nick Cramer" <n_cram...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:20080529225914.877$e...@newsreader.com...
Ken S. Tucker
On May 30, 8:44 am, "Ralph" <aj...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> I'm curious on the Venus statements.
> Since Venus is smaller than Earth, and also reported less dense, how do you
> get more bombardment, and more energy?
I guess you're asking me, (good question :-).
The sun is a great gravitational attractor. Debris that infalls
into the sun, that goes through an imaginary surface shell at
r=2 , (surface Area=4*pi*(r=2)^2 = 16*pi) is the same debris
that goes through at r=1, (Surface Area = 4*pi), so the debris
infall "flux" is proportional to some constant / r^2.
Venus is ~0.7AU to the Sun than Earth (1 AU), so the debris
flux at Venus distance is 2x Earths.
The next factor is debris infall energy, which is proportional to
1/r. So at Venus the debris energy is 1.4x greater than at
Earth.
> >> -> I'll use the Standard Solar System Evolution Theory.
> >> -> Compared to Earth, Venus had more meteor bomb-
> >> -> bardment, (~1/r^2) and more energetic (1/r), and
> >> -> had more radial surface heating, all compared to
> >> -> Earth. So when the Venusian crust finally hardened
> >> -> 500,000,000 years ago was in accord with SSSET.
>
> >> How about Mercury, which has *lots* of craters, despite being only
> >> about half as far from the sun as Venus?
Well Dave you have ~6.25 the debris flux at Mercury (.4AU)
and an energy of x2.5 greater than at 1AU, of course you
know all that, (I'm singing to the choir).
Two factors that are intriguing me are:
1) The atmosphere of Venus attenuating Venites (that's
my word for meteorites hitting Venus), Venosphere density
evolution.
2) Solar System Evolution suggests heavier and therefore
more radioactive elements would tend to be more prevalent
in bodies closer to the Sun. Therefore, Venus should have
more radioactive heating in it's core than Earth. That effect
may have postponed the Venusian crust formation, together
with solar heating.
2a) Given that view of Venusian radioactive core heating,
it appears that does NOT contribute to major TECTONIC
PLATE motion.
2b) In view of (2a) we must look to the Moon for tectonic
plate movement instead of the supposed radioactivity of
the Earths core being causal.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
David Williams
-> I'm curious on the Venus statements.
->
-> Since Venus is smaller than Earth, and also reported less dense, how do you
-> get more bombardment, and more energy?
->
Closer to the sun, orbiting objects move faster, so collision speeds are
likely to be higher. This ignores the acceleration soon before impact as
gravity pulls the objects together.
Why he thinks there would be more bombardment is a mystery.
dow
David Williams
-> Hi Ralph, Dave and all.
->
-> On May 30, 8:44 am, "Ralph" <aj...@ncf.ca> wrote:
-> > I'm curious on the Venus statements.
-> > Since Venus is smaller than Earth, and also reported less dense, how
do you
-> > get more bombardment, and more energy?
->
-> I guess you're asking me, (good question :-).
-> The sun is a great gravitational attractor. Debris that infalls
-> into the sun, that goes through an imaginary surface shell at
-> r=2 , (surface Area=4*pi*(r=2)^2 = 16*pi) is the same debris
-> that goes through at r=1, (Surface Area = 4*pi), so the debris
-> infall "flux" is proportional to some constant / r^2.
->
-> Venus is ~0.7AU to the Sun than Earth (1 AU), so the debris
-> flux at Venus distance is 2x Earths.
You are considering only stuff that is falling radially into the sun. But
in reality, a lot of stuff (meteors, small asteroids, etc.) is in orbit
around the sun, and each object's orbit has a perihelion. So it is
possible, for example, for an object whose perihelion is between 0.7 and
1.0 AU from the sun to collide with Earth but impossible for it to collide
with Venus. This completely invalidates your calculation.
dow
Ken S. Tucker
> On 05/30/2008 12:42 PM, dynam...@vianet.on.ca wrote to All:
>
> -> Hi Ralph, Dave and all.
> ->
> -> On May 30, 8:44 am, "Ralph" <aj...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> -> > I'm curious on the Venus statements.
> -> > Since Venus is smaller than Earth, and also reported less dense, how
> do you
> -> > get more bombardment, and more energy?
> ->
> -> I guess you're asking me, (good question :-).
> -> The sun is a great gravitational attractor. Debris that infalls
> -> into the sun, that goes through an imaginary surface shell at
> -> r=2 , (surface Area=4*pi*(r=2)^2 = 16*pi) is the same debris
> -> that goes through at r=1, (Surface Area = 4*pi), so the debris
> -> infall "flux" is proportional to some constant / r^2.
> ->
> -> Venus is ~0.7AU to the Sun than Earth (1 AU), so the debris
> -> flux at Venus distance is 2x Earths.
>
> You are considering only stuff that is falling radially into the sun.
That's the standard assumption.
> But
> in reality, a lot of stuff (meteors, small asteroids, etc.) is in orbit
> around the sun,
Correct that's SSSET...duh.
>and each object's orbit has a perihelion. So it is
> possible, for example, for an object whose perihelion is between 0.7 and
> 1.0 AU from the sun to collide with Earth but impossible for it to collide
> with Venus. This completely invalidates your calculation.
> dow
You have -1 one star...(*), your rep is dying.
LOL, Dave, we in the "science BUSINESS" would
prefer to see real calculations as I am able to do.
It's called PUT-UP or SHUT THE UP, your bluff is
called!!!
Regards
Ken
PS: Dave, don't bring a knife to a gun-fight :-).
David Williams
-> 1) The atmosphere of Venus attenuating Venites (that's
-> my word for meteorites hitting Venus), Venosphere density
-> evolution.
Earth's atmosphere has a pressure equal to that of about 10 metres of
water or 3 metres of rock. So any rock that is much larger than 3
metres would be able to punch a hole through the atmosphere without
losing much of its energy, and strike the ground hard, making a crater.
Venus's atmosphere is about 100 times larger, so a rock would have to
be substantially greater than 300 metres in size to penetrate it. Any
asteroid bigger than that would hit the surface of Venus, and make a
crater.
-> 2) Solar System Evolution suggests heavier and therefore
-> more radioactive elements would tend to be more prevalent
-> in bodies closer to the Sun. Therefore, Venus should have
-> more radioactive heating in it's core than Earth. That effect
-> may have postponed the Venusian crust formation, together
-> with solar heating.
-> 2a) Given that view of Venusian radioactive core heating,
-> it appears that does NOT contribute to major TECTONIC
-> PLATE motion.
-> 2b) In view of (2a) we must look to the Moon for tectonic
-> plate movement instead of the supposed radioactivity of
-> the Earths core being causal.
-> Ken S. Tucker
that do, not all have high-melting-point compounds that might be
concentrated in planetary cores. Radon, for example, is a gas! And the
element that contributes the most to radioactive heating of the earth
is not uranium or radium, but potassium!
Seismometers were placed on the moon by the Apollo astronauts (and were
also taken there on unmanned craft), and operated for several years.
Moonquakes were detected, but appeared to be caused by events like
meteor impacts. No tectonics seems to be happening there.
Venus's mean density is substantially less than Earth's, which is taken
as evidence that Venus has more crustal material. The difference is
explained by Earth having suffered a large impact, which stripped off
much of the crust (and, incidentally, led to the formation of the
moon). The thicker crust on Venus is more difficult to break into
plates and move around.
At least, that's the most widely accepted hypothesis. But, really, we
have very little solid knowledge about Venus.
dow
David Williams
-> That's the standard assumption.
It is NOT!
Why do you think people spend so much time studying the paths of
asteroids that are in orbits that bring them very close to the earth?
Because they might collide with our planet, and do nasty things like
making craters where cities once were. These are *orbiting* objects,
not things that are falling into the sun with essentially zero
transverse velocities.
It is thought that Earth and other planets were formed by multiple
collisions of smaller *orbiting* objects, and that the craters that are
visible on many planets, etc., were left by the last few of these
collisions, which have still not entirely ceased.
Very, very few objects fall right into the sun. A few comets have been
observed to do so, but only a few. The meteors, etc., that are observed
entering the earth's atmosphere almost invariably have trajectories
that show they were in orbit around the sun before hitting the earth.
Your argument about frequencies of impacts is entirely fallacious.
-> You have -1 one star...(*), your rep is dying.
-> LOL, Dave, we in the "science BUSINESS" would
-> prefer to see real calculations as I am able to do.
-> It's called PUT-UP or SHUT THE UP, your bluff is
-> called!!!
-> Regards
-> Ken
-> PS: Dave, don't bring a knife to a gun-fight :-).
What "science BUSINESS" do you claim to be in. You spent 20 years or so
in the forests of northern Ontario, fantasizing about Relativity. Then
you moved to rural British Columbia, where you appear to be doing the
same. You have never graduated even high school, let alone a
university. You have taught yourself some tensor calculus, but
otherwise you are scientifically ignorant.
Your "gun" is a water pistol. Don't threaten people with it. They might
mistake it for a real gun, and shoot you.
dow
Ken S. Tucker
> -> > You are considering only stuff that is falling radially into the sun.
> -> That's the standard assumption.
> -> LOL, Dave, we in the "science BUSINESS" would
> -> prefer to see real calculations as I am able to do.
> -> It's called PUT-UP or SHUT THE UP, your bluff is
> -> called!!!
> -> Regards
> -> Ken
> -> PS: Dave, don't bring a knife to a gun-fight :-).
>
> What "science BUSINESS" do you claim to be in.
Dave, you won't understand, and don't need to know.
...
>You have never graduated even high school,
LOL, I was *invited* to attend a real university in gr.10,
free of charge, and was privately tutored by world class
profs.
You on the other hand, attended some 3rd rate college
that your daddy and mommy had to bribe to get you
accepted, and have accomplished nothing in 30 years.
Ken
PS: You brought a rubber dildo to a gunfight :-).
David Williams
-> that your daddy and mommy had to bribe to get you
-> accepted, and have accomplished nothing in 30 years.
-> Ken
I won a scholarship to Oxford University. If my parents had been poor,
I'd have studied there for free. Since they were well-off, they did
have to pay part of the cost, but only part.
-> LOL, I was *invited* to attend a real university in gr.10,
You should have accepted. Back then, you showed promise.
Enough of this.
dow
Ken S. Tucker
> -> You on the other hand, attended some 3rd rate college
> -> that your daddy and mommy had to bribe to get you
> -> accepted, and have accomplished nothing in 30 years.
> -> Ken
>
> I won a scholarship to Oxford University. If my parents had been poor,
> I'd have studied there for free. Since they were well-off, they did
> have to pay part of the cost, but only part.
Dave, some years back, you asked me, via email
to keep our personal relationship, beyond the groups
and I agreed, indeed you breeched that agreement,
however I'm happy to re-agree to it.
> -> LOL, I was *invited* to attend a real university in gr.10,
>
> You should have accepted. Back then, you showed promise.
Where I'm concerned, the early 70's was turmoil,
with the Space and Nuclear industries winding
down I was very well paid to contribute to electronics
instead, and that was productive.
> Enough of this.
Ok, Ralph asked a perfectly good question,
and I gave a 1st order approximation (O1),
and then you slam me with 2nd order effects
like hyperbolic orbits (O2), in some attempt
to discredit O1, well the fact that the Sun
formed proves O1 is physically effective, and
that's Standard Solar System Evolution Theory.
Anyway, I've got a new gedanken I'm formulating
that I'll post when I get all the eyes and tees
crossed.
Ken
David Williams
-> to keep our personal relationship, beyond the groups
-> and I agreed, indeed you breeched that agreement,
-> however I'm happy to re-agree to it.
Okay. Done. I think we were both guilty to some degree. Sorry if I
embarrassed you.
Back to astronomy...
-> Ok, Ralph asked a perfectly good question,
-> and I gave a 1st order approximation (O1),
-> and then you slam me with 2nd order effects
-> like hyperbolic orbits (O2), in some attempt
-> to discredit O1, well the fact that the Sun
-> formed proves O1 is physically effective, and
-> that's Standard Solar System Evolution Theory.
It's not "standard" among practicing astronomers!
Do you really think that the sun was formed by material falling
radially into it?! If so, where did the planets come from? And why is
the sun rotating, with its axis very nearly perpendicular to the
average plane of the planets' orbits?
No. The picture which is generally accepted about the formation of
solar systems, and which is well supported by observations of systems
that are in the process of forming, is that initially there is a
slowly-rotating cloud of gas and dust. For some reason - often a shock
wave caused by a supernova explosion - part of the cloud gets increased
density, and starts to collapse under its own gravity. As it shrinks,
its rate of rotation increases, to conserve angular momentum. At some
point, it is spinning fast enough that it starts to shed material from
its equator. This carries away some of the angular momentum, enabling
the main body to shink further, and shed more material. Angular
momentum is carried outward, partly by viscous friction and partly by
magnetic coupling. At some point the star is spinning slowly enough
that it stops shedding material, but it still loses angular momentum to
the disk around it by magnetic coupling, so the star's rotation slows
down and the disk expands outward. Eventually, the star is spinning
only very slowly (about once a month in the case of the sun), and the
disk extends far out into space, in the star's equatorial plane.
Instabilities appear in the disk, leading to local concentrations, and
the formation of small orbiting bodies. These collide with each other,
forming planets. So the planets are formed from material that is
*already* in orbit around the star.
Disks of material have been observed around many young stars, and some
of these show areas of concentration, where proto-planets are probably
being formed.
I have not mentioned hyperbolic orbits. All the material is in
elliptical orbits. And it is *not* moving radially.
dow
Ken S. Tucker
> -> Ok, Ralph asked a perfectly good question,
> -> and I gave a 1st order approximation (O1),
> -> and then you slam me with 2nd order effects
> -> like hyperbolic orbits (O2), in some attempt
> -> to discredit O1, well the fact that the Sun
> -> formed proves O1 is physically effective, and
> -> that's Standard Solar System Evolution Theory.
>
> It's not "standard" among practicing astronomers!
>
> Do you really think that the sun was formed by material falling
> radially into it?! If so, where did the planets come from? And why is
> the sun rotating, with its axis very nearly perpendicular to the
> average plane of the planets' orbits?
Every Orbit consists of 2 components O1 being radial,
and O2 being tangential in SSSET.
The O1 is obviously a required component to condense
the star, in your case the Sun.
A 2nd Order effect (O2) is the tangential component,
which renders the planetary system, in your case, the
solar systems planets.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Below David O. Williams uses magnetic coupling
forces to form a solar system. IMO, that's fringe, however,
with all due respect to DOW, and the Fe content of the
original premortial formation of the Solar System may
be important, so I'll keep an open mind.
David Williams
-> forces to form a solar system. IMO, that's fringe, however,
-> with all due respect to DOW, and the Fe content of the
-> original premortial formation of the Solar System may
-> be important, so I'll keep an open mind.
It's not at all fringe, and it doesn't depend on the presence of iron.
The sun produces intense magnetic fields. That's an observed fact. The
material of the disk would be electrically conductive - a plasma -
especially close to the sun. So, as the sun rotates, the rotating
magnetic fields would produce currents in the plasma, dragging it along
too.
*This* is standard stuff.
-> Every Orbit consists of 2 components O1 being radial,
-> and O2 being tangential in SSSET.
-> The O1 is obviously a required component to condense
-> the star, in your case the Sun.
The sun will condense itself, by gravity, so long as its rotation is
slowed down enough. The formation of the proto-planetary disk removes
angular momentum, and slows the sun's rotation, letting it condense.
dow