Alpha Centauri has a planet
granite stone
magma and magma is not chemical. In the same way some of the larger
planets may have a pull on our sun's mantle giving us solar
radiation. Since the sun spins every 6 days the spin travels through
the pull on the sun's mantle, energy, huge amounts of it, is given
off. If all stars are suns, you could say each star has planet
pulling on each sun's mantle.
Google Tidal Forces Io and lots come up from NASA.
Jon Riley
Toronto
Yousuf Khan
Uh, where do I start?
First the Moon and Earth's mantle. What you're talking about is tidal
heating. Typically tidal heating is more pronounced when a larger body
tugs on a smaller body, with a big size ratio between them. Your example
of the tidal forces on Saturn's moon, Io, is an example of that. Saturn
pulls on Io's crust and mantle and heats it up, but Io's tidal forces on
Saturn are puny by comparison. Similarly the Moon's tidal forces on
Earth are puny, and don't cause much heating in its mantle or anywhere
else. Earth's tidal forces on the Moon are much more substantial, but
still not substantial enough to create volcanism on the Moon. Most of
Earth's heating comes internally from its own nuclear fission core.
Earth's iron core is suffused with large quantities of uranium.
The Sun doesn't have a mantle. A mantle is a layer within a solid planet
between the crust and the core of that planet. What one might call a
mantle for the Sun would be its convection layer. The Sun doesn't have a
crust or a mantle, but it does have a core. The core of the Sun is where
nuclear fusion takes place, just like the core of the Earth is where
nuclear fission takes place. The nuclear fuel at the core is the main
source of heat for stars and planets.
Yousuf Khan
BradGuth
Our moon contributes 2e20 N/sec, at least some of which causes tidal
heating.
~ BG
BradGuth
> granite stone wrote:
> > I read an article that the moon's force on the mantle might give us
> > magma and magma is not chemical. In the same way some of the larger
> > planets may have a pull on our sun's mantle giving us solar
> > radiation. Since the sun spins every 6 days the spin travels through
> > the pull on the sun's mantle, energy, huge amounts of it, is given
> > off. If all stars are suns, you could say each star has planet
> > pulling on each sun's mantle.
>
> > Google Tidal Forces Io and lots come up from NASA.
>
> Uh, where do I start?
>
> First the Moon and Earth's mantle. What you're talking about is tidal
> heating. Typically tidal heating is more pronounced when a larger body
> tugs on a smaller body, with a big size ratio between them.
Our moon contributes 2e20 N/sec. (that's only 55.5e12 KW)
> Your example
> of the tidal forces on Saturn's moon, Io, is an example of that. Saturn
> pulls on Io's crust and mantle and heats it up, but Io's tidal forces on
> Saturn are puny by comparison. Similarly the Moon's tidal forces on
> Earth are puny, and don't cause much heating in its mantle or anywhere
> else. Earth's tidal forces on the Moon are much more substantial, but
> still not substantial enough to create volcanism on the Moon. Most of
> Earth's heating comes internally from its own nuclear fission core.
> Earth's iron core is suffused with large quantities of uranium.
Make that include thorium.
Greg Neill
> granite stone wrote:
>> I read an article that the moon's force on the mantle might give us
>> magma and magma is not chemical. In the same way some of the larger
>> planets may have a pull on our sun's mantle giving us solar
>> radiation. Since the sun spins every 6 days the spin travels through
>> the pull on the sun's mantle, energy, huge amounts of it, is given
>> off. If all stars are suns, you could say each star has planet
>> pulling on each sun's mantle.
>>
>> Google Tidal Forces Io and lots come up from NASA.
>
> Uh, where do I start?
>
> First the Moon and Earth's mantle. What you're talking about is tidal
> heating. Typically tidal heating is more pronounced when a larger body
> tugs on a smaller body, with a big size ratio between them. Your example
> of the tidal forces on Saturn's moon, Io, is an example of that. Saturn
> pulls on Io's crust and mantle and heats it up, but Io's tidal forces on
> Saturn are puny by comparison. Similarly the Moon's tidal forces on
> Earth are puny, and don't cause much heating in its mantle or anywhere
> else. Earth's tidal forces on the Moon are much more substantial, but
> still not substantial enough to create volcanism on the Moon. Most of
> Earth's heating comes internally from its own nuclear fission core.
> Earth's iron core is suffused with large quantities of uranium.
Since the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth (one side always
faces the Earth), there's not much in the way of tidal heating
going on, as there is little flexure apart from the small amount
due to libration.
The Earth's core itself is unlikely to contain much in the way of
uranium or potassium, they being locked up in siderophobic
compounds distributed thoughout the rest of the bulk of the planet.
>
> The Sun doesn't have a mantle. A mantle is a layer within a solid planet
> between the crust and the core of that planet. What one might call a
> mantle for the Sun would be its convection layer. The Sun doesn't have a
> crust or a mantle, but it does have a core. The core of the Sun is where
> nuclear fusion takes place, just like the core of the Earth is where
> nuclear fission takes place. The nuclear fuel at the core is the main
> source of heat for stars and planets.
Consider also that the total mechanical energy available from the
orbits of all the planets is about 6 x 10^35 Joules. That's what
you could extract if every planet's orbit were to decay due to
tidal friction in the Sun and end up falling in. The Sun produces
about 1.2 x 10^34 Joules/year of energy, so using up all of the
planet's energies would power the Sun for less than 50 years.
granite stone
The reason volcanism is not on the moon is that the moon does not
rotate with reference to earth. And it would have to rotate at a high
speed too.
Anders Eklöf
> granite stone wrote:
> > I read an article that the moon's force on the mantle might give us
> > magma and magma is not chemical. In the same way some of the larger
> > planets may have a pull on our sun's mantle giving us solar
> > radiation. Since the sun spins every 6 days the spin travels through
> > the pull on the sun's mantle, energy, huge amounts of it, is given
> > off. If all stars are suns, you could say each star has planet
> > pulling on each sun's mantle.
> >
> > Google Tidal Forces Io and lots come up from NASA.
You fail to notice, that the energy from tidal heating can be anything
from considerable (like Jupiter's effect on Io), over negligible (Moon's
effect on Earth) to ridiculous (*any* other body's effect on our Sun).
> Uh, where do I start?
>
> First the Moon and Earth's mantle. What you're talking about is tidal
> heating. Typically tidal heating is more pronounced when a larger body
> tugs on a smaller body, with a big size ratio between them. Your example
> of the tidal forces on Saturn's moon, Io, is an example of that. Saturn
> pulls on Io's crust and mantle and heats it up, but Io's tidal forces on
> Saturn are puny by comparison. Similarly the Moon's tidal forces on
> Earth are puny, and don't cause much heating in its mantle or anywhere
> else. Earth's tidal forces on the Moon are much more substantial, but
> still not substantial enough to create volcanism on the Moon. Most of
> Earth's heating comes internally from its own nuclear fission core.
> Earth's iron core is suffused with large quantities of uranium.
No - it's not fission. Uranium - as well as thorium and potassium
generate heat through radioactive decay, which is not the same as
fission. Fission is one kind of radioactive decay, but it's very rare in
nature, including Earth's core - unless you count alpha decay as
fission. Also, U, Th and K are not only present in the core, but
throughout the planet, though the heavier elements may be more
concentrated in the core.
> The Sun doesn't have a mantle. A mantle is a layer within a solid planet
> between the crust and the core of that planet. What one might call a
> mantle for the Sun would be its convection layer. The Sun doesn't have a
> crust or a mantle, but it does have a core. The core of the Sun is where
> nuclear fusion takes place, just like the core of the Earth is where
> nuclear fission takes place. The nuclear fuel at the core is the main
> source of heat for stars and planets.
>
> Yousuf Khan
As I said there fisson is negligible - the fraction is much less than
0.1% of the radioactive decay energy. And the decay takes place
throughout the planet.
There has been one known occurance of natural fission, not in the core,
but in ore deposits in Gabon, around 2 billion years ago. Google
"fission reactor Oklo" to read more about this.
Probably the radition disaster in Tjeljabinsk, Russia was also a result
of a spontaneous fission reaction, though hardly natural, as it took
place in a nuclear waste deposit.
--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour
Androcles
""Anders Ekl�f"" <andekl_no@saaf_spam.se> wrote in message
news:1j9cdkd.1xboxk76dq1b9N%andekl_no@saaf_spam.se...
> Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> granite stone wrote:
>> > I read an article that the moon's force on the mantle might give us
>> > magma and magma is not chemical. In the same way some of the larger
>> > planets may have a pull on our sun's mantle giving us solar
>> > radiation. Since the sun spins every 6 days the spin travels through
>> > the pull on the sun's mantle, energy, huge amounts of it, is given
>> > off. If all stars are suns, you could say each star has planet
>> > pulling on each sun's mantle.
>> >
>> > Google Tidal Forces Io and lots come up from NASA.
>
> You fail to notice, that the energy from tidal heating can be anything
> from considerable (like Jupiter's effect on Io), over negligible (Moon's
> effect on Earth) to ridiculous (*any* other body's effect on our Sun).
You fail to notice that the energy from tidal heating can be anything
from considerable (like Jupiter's effect on Io), to VERY
CONSIDERABLE (Moon's effect on Earth, causing vulcanism
and earthquakes). Just because the water moves doesn't mean the
crust does not. This is EXACTLY the same process as Jupiter's
effect on Io.
Odysseus
andekl_no@saaf_spam.se (Anders Ekl�f) wrote:
<snip>
>
> No - it's not fission. Uranium - as well as thorium and potassium
> generate heat through radioactive decay, which is not the same as
> fission. Fission is one kind of radioactive decay, but it's very rare in
> nature, including Earth's core - unless you count alpha decay as
> fission. Also, U, Th and K are not only present in the core, but
> throughout the planet, though the heavier elements may be more
> concentrated in the core.
_Quirks & Quarks_ had an item this week about the possibility that
bacteria-concentrated U-235 formed small nuclear piles during the early
stages of Earth's transition to an aerobic environment. "Hot" isotopes
would have been much more abundant back then.
See <http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/09-10/qq-2009-11-14.html>, near
the bottom of the page; includes a link to the paper.
--
Odysseus
BradGuth
> ""Anders Eklöf"" <andekl_no@saaf_spam.se> wrote in message
That's 100% correct.
Our Selene/moon is by far the most considerable influence upon its
planet Earth, than any other planet/moon ratio. 2e20 N/sec of
interactive tidal force has been directly heating Earth to its core
for quite some time (at least for the past 12,600 some odd years).
~ BG
John Polasek
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 17, 1:03�pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>> ""Anders Ekl�f"" <andekl_no@saaf_spam.se> wrote in message
What are Newtons/second in "2e20 N/sec"?
The moon grips us with approximately 1/30,000th of a gee. it's hard to
see how this "interactive tidal force has been directly heating earth
to its core" as you say.
Tides in the ocean are cumulative affects, but those on the core are
not, are they?
John Polasek
Androcles
"John Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dqr8g5549n1b1iemc...@4ax.com...
Racing car drivers deliberately heat their tyres before and during a
race. How do they do that? By flexing them.
Its hard NOT to see how this "interactive tidal force has been
directly heating earth to its core" unless you are an idiot who knows
nothing about friction.
Seems to me the crust is damned good heat insulator or my tootsies
would be toasted from molten rock.
Temperatures in the mantle are cumulative affects, but those in the
ocean are not, are they?
John Polasek
Such heating, if it occurs all, would be governed by a simple
first-order differential equation, characterized by a leakage time
constant probably in the nature of several hours. Since the Moon comes
around every 28 days, the residual heat gain would be truly
negligible.
John Polasek
Androcles
Bwhahahahahaha!
Is that why there two high tides a day, fuckwit?
Honestly, how anyone can be as stupid and ignorant of basic facts
as you is too incredible to be believable...
John Polasek
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>Is that why there two high tides a day?
>
>Honestly, how anyone can be as stupid and ignorant of basic facts
>as you is too incredible to be believable...
I slipped up forgetting about the Earth's rotation. But the principle
is unchanged. The mantle time constant is short, no more than an hour,
and there will be negligent accumulation of heat. 1 hour, 12 hrs, 8%
remains of the 1/30,000 of a gee.
In the absence of other documentation, I suggest a simple experiment.
Suspend a mass from a spring and monitor its deflection, to see if it
becomes lighter when the moon passes over head. If the deflection
dx/x = .0003, then the principle is proved, and you should be ready
for phase 2: monitoring the motion of actual dirt.
After that--your big paper.
John Polasek
>
Androcles
But a tyre is only flat at the bottom, right?
> In the absence of other documentation, I suggest a simple experiment.
> Suspend a mass from a spring and monitor its deflection, to see if it
> becomes lighter when the moon passes over head. If the deflection
> dx/x = .0003, then the principle is proved, and you should be ready
> for phase 2: monitoring the motion of actual dirt.
> After that--your big paper.
We can do better than that, we can measure the heat produced
in a column of water 6 metres high.
http://my.fit.edu/~swood/images/Turbine2.gif
http://www.tidalenergyltd.com/
Of course such schemes get funded better if the public are kept
scared shitless of global warming.
What was it you wanted? 1/30,000 of a volume of well-insulated
magma 6 metres high * area of Earth.
Area of a sphere = 4 piR^2 and R = 12 756.2 km
That's err...976323830640000 / 30,000 = 32,544,127,688 cubic
metres of rock on the move every 12 hours with the crust floating
on it and occasionally venting some heat into the ocean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c-kGM-Iz_I
After that--your big padded cell.
John Polasek
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
I watched the moviettes but they did not present any evidence that the
Earth's surface generated any heat. I read somewhere that it's due to
fusion.
I see you are not above cooking the books; R = 6300 km not 12,000.
Anyway, you better doublecheck the units in 2E20 N/sec. It looks to me
like a previously unknown combination--leading to--who knows?
>
John Polasek
>
Androcles
I read somewhere that the Easter Bunny lays chocolate eggs.
> I see you are not above cooking the books; R = 6300 km not 12,000.
Fair enough, you are correct on that point. I hate the metric system.
8,000,000,000 cubic metres of rock on the move every 12 hours with
the crust floating on it and occasionally venting some heat into the ocean
and the occasional volcano letting rip. And since Polasek can't see it, it
doesn't happen. There must be some other mythical cause for all that
heat such as stable nuclear fusion, even if Io is doing the same thing
and Luna has slowed to keep the same face toward the Earth and has
since cooled. A tyre is only flat on the bottom.
> Anyway, you better doublecheck the units in 2E20 N/sec. It looks to me
> like a previously unknown combination--leading to--who knows?
Not my number. See Guth for that one.
Dr J R Stockton
18 Nov 2009 17:13:08, John Polasek <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> posted:
>The moon grips us with approximately 1/30,000th of a gee.
The moon grips us with approximately 1/300,000th of a gee?
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Anders Eklöf
No. You completely lack sense of proportions.
As others have pointed out here, Moon's tidal energy is negligible
compared to the energy from internal heating caused by radioactive
decay. Jahn Polasek can do the math for you...
Besides I was discussing heating - not volcanism, but then again, Moon's
tidal force is negligible also compared to plate tectonics, which is
also powered by the radioactive decay inside Earth.
However, Moon's tidal forces can *trigger* eathquakes at riptide, but
the tension that cause the quakes are built up by plate tectonics.
Besides, *any* tidal effect from the Moon is much stronger in the crust
than in the core.
Androcles
No. You fail to notice that the energy from tidal heating can be anything
from considerable (like Jupiter's effect on Io).
No. You completely lack sense of any sort.
No.
No.
No.
Fuck off.
Anders Eklöf
Likewise.
You are not worth the effort.
Androcles
You fail to notice you completely lack sense.
Yousuf Khan
> Racing car drivers deliberately heat their tyres before and during a
> race. How do they do that? By flexing them.
> Its hard NOT to see how this "interactive tidal force has been
> directly heating earth to its core" unless you are an idiot who knows
> nothing about friction.
> Seems to me the crust is damned good heat insulator or my tootsies
> would be toasted from molten rock.
> Temperatures in the mantle are cumulative affects, but those in the
> ocean are not, are they?
Depends on what type of racing cars you're talking about, and what type
of tires. If you're talking about top-fuel drag racing with those
incredibily oversized balloon tires, then yes there is enough surface
there that flexing them heats them to a certain degree. Most of the
heating still comes from friction from the road surface though, when
they do burn outs.
Other types of racing, such as Formula 1, hardly any flexure there.
Yousuf Khan
Androcles
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b073a0a$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
deliberately snaking side-to-side?
Here's a better example. Go outside and feel the tyres on an
ordinary car that has recently been driven for a mile or more.
They'll be warm. They are only flat at the bottom, though.
Yousuf Khan
>> Other types of racing, such as Formula 1, hardly any flexure there.
>>
> You haven't seen F1 drivers have a warm-up lap before the race,
> deliberately snaking side-to-side?
> Here's a better example. Go outside and feel the tyres on an
> ordinary car that has recently been driven for a mile or more.
> They'll be warm. They are only flat at the bottom, though.
Yes, but they aren't building heat up in those tires by flexure during
those maneuvers. They are simply loading each side of tires down on the
road. There is a bit of flex, for sure, but the majority of the heat
comes from road friction.
Yousuf Khan
Androcles
In your dreams. Wheels were invented to eliminate road friction
in the forward direction and retain it laterally.
Here's a very simple experiment and an easy proof:
Get a wire coat hanger or similar steel rod and start flexing it as
rapidly as you can until it breaks. You'll burn your thumbs before
it does.
It doesn't take a scientist to know that happens, any experienced
metal worker is aware of it.
Earth's mantle is hot because the Moon flexes the crust, plate
tectonics is driven by the Moon.
YKhan
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > those maneuvers. They are simply loading each side of tires down on the
> > road. There is a bit of flex, for sure, but the majority of the heat comes
> > from road friction.
>
> In your dreams. Wheels were invented to eliminate road friction
> in the forward direction and retain it laterally.
Exactly my point, when the F1 racers flick from side to side, they are
loading the tires down laterally, thus building up lateral friction
from the road surface on those tires.
And to be technically accurate, wheels and tires don't eliminate
friction in forward or transverse direction, otherwise cars would
never be able able to brake. Nor would they be able to startup for
that matter as they wouldn't be able to accelerate either, since their
wheels would just spin-out due to the lack of friction.
> Here's a very simple experiment and an easy proof:
> Get a wire coat hanger or similar steel rod and start flexing it as
> rapidly as you can until it breaks. You'll burn your thumbs before
> it does.
Yes, yes, that's all very interesting but the amount of heat built up
by flexing depends on the stiffness of the material. Rubber is
definitely less stiff than metal wire.
> It doesn't take a scientist to know that happens, any experienced
> metal worker is aware of it.
> Earth's mantle is hot because the Moon flexes the crust, plate
> tectonics is driven by the Moon.
Then why isn't there plate tectonics on the Moon too? Oh yes, because
it has tidally locked to the Earth. Then why isn't plate tectonics any
less now than in the past, when the Moon was much closer to the Earth?
Yousuf Khan
Androcles
"YKhan" <yjk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a6e165c-7ed7-4bb9...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 21, 8:07 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Yes, but they aren't building heat up in those tires by flexure during
> > those maneuvers. They are simply loading each side of tires down on the
> > road. There is a bit of flex, for sure, but the majority of the heat
> > comes
> > from road friction.
>
> In your dreams. Wheels were invented to eliminate road friction
> in the forward direction and retain it laterally.
Exactly my point, when the F1 racers flick from side to side, they are
loading the tires down laterally, thus building up lateral friction
from the road surface on those tires.
=============================================
In your dreams. There is no frictional heating unless one surface
slides over another. F1 drivers are loading the tyre walls by flexing
them because they are speed limited in the warm-up lap, the
safety car is out.
=============================================
And to be technically accurate, wheels and tires don't eliminate
friction in forward or transverse direction, otherwise cars would
never be able able to brake.
=======================================
In your dreams. A tyre lifts off the surface of the road vertically.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cycloid.html
To be technically accurate, no frictional heating takes place!
=======================================
Nor would they be able to startup for
that matter as they wouldn't be able to accelerate either, since their
wheels would just spin-out due to the lack of friction.
=======================================
Do you always talk out of your arse?
=======================================
> Here's a very simple experiment and an easy proof:
> Get a wire coat hanger or similar steel rod and start flexing it as
> rapidly as you can until it breaks. You'll burn your thumbs before
> it does.
Yes, yes, that's all very interesting but the amount of heat built up
by flexing depends on the stiffness of the material. Rubber is
definitely less stiff than metal wire.
==========================================
No no, that is all very uninteresting but all you are arguing is the amount,
rock is definitely stiffer than either rubber or steel.
That doesn't change the principle; flexing produces heat.
==========================================
> It doesn't take a scientist to know that happens, any experienced
> metal worker is aware of it.
> Earth's mantle is hot because the Moon flexes the crust, plate
> tectonics is driven by the Moon.
Then why isn't there plate tectonics on the Moon too? Oh yes, because
it has tidally locked to the Earth.
============================================
Well done. You scored 10 out of 10 for answering your own
question correctly. And if you examine lunar impact craters
you'll see the old ones have flat bottoms instead of being bowl-
shaped. Molten rock has backfilled them and the sidewalls have
collapsed.
http://tinyurl.com/yewvwrj (Pythagoras)
http://tinyurl.com/yaxrq9j
You can estimate the relative age of a crater by the number of smaller
impacts in its floor. The foreground crater has a curved floor and a
sharp rim, few smaller impact craters within it, the larger craters to
the left and ahead have collapsed walls, ill-defined rims, flat floors
and multiple smaller impact craters. There is clear evidence of
ancient tectonic movement on the Moon from the rifts:
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/img/20080520_kaguya_01l.jpg
============================================
Then why isn't plate tectonics any
less now than in the past, when the Moon was much closer to the Earth?
=============================================
Why do you assume plate movement has always been constant?
It is less now than in the past when the rotation of the Earth was
faster, but how would you date it? Tree rings?
If you want to deal in science you'd better stop making stupid
assumptions and use reason instead of bigotry.
granite stone
satelite that has a high spin(1 day), Earth and Io, has volcanism.
The sun has a high spin for its size, 6 days. Mercury although small
gives the sun a bulge on the skin of the Sun and doing so the Sun's
skin moves up and down and releases heat and light to Earth. I would
say each Star in the sky has a planet warping the Star all to be
dicovered.
Greg Neill
Are you implying that Mercury's tidal effects on the Sun
is what powers the Sun's emissions? Really?
Yousuf Khan
So why aren't those stars that have Hot Jupiters orbiting them closer
than Mercury orbits the Sun, much hotter than the Sun? They have much
more massive bodies that are much closer, thus their tidal effects would
be much greater, yet they are not any hotter than the Sun.
In fact, the hottest stars, the blue and white stars are are likely not
to have any planets around them, as they would've blown away any dust
rings that formed near them when they were born.
Yousuf Khan
granite stone
Yes Mercury pulls the skin of the Sun. A Spring high tide on Earth is
when the Sun, Moon line up and pull Earth to give higher tides. If
the Sun can gives us a tide than Mercury must influence the Sun's
surface.
Greg Neill
Sure, Mercury will raise a teeny tiny tidal bulge on the
Sun. But the Sun is gaseous and there's not much in the
way of friction for the bulge to dissipate heat.
Even so, the total energy represented by Mercury in orbit
about the Sun, the sum of the potential energy due to its
position in the Sun's gravitational field and its kinetic
energy do to its orbital speed, is just over 1.13 x 10^33
Joules. The Sun puts out energy at a rate of about
3.83 x 10^26 Joules per second. At that burn rate the
total conversion of all of Mercury's mechanical energy
(and hence dropping it into the Sun) would power the Sun's
output for just over one month.
The Sun's been shining for at least a month now, and yet
Mercury is still in orbit. So much for your theory.