The suns gravitational torque on earth gives 1.4 TW power production
David Jonsson
According to Wikipedia the flow of heat to the Earth surface is 42 TW.
30 TW is explained as fission, 3.75 is due to losses from tidal
movement from the moon. I have found that 1.4 TW can be found from the
torque from gravity on Earth. I calculated this in 2005. Is anyone
interested in how I made the calculations? it is based on the
assumption that changes of gravity moves with the speed of light.
David
Hiroshi
You supposition is seriously flawed.
The heat loss is not evenly distributed across the Earths's surface.
Rather, heat flows upwards in vortexes. Most of the heat is reabsorbed
by the interaction of the vortex and the infrastructure boundaries.
Very few of the heat vortexes get anywhere near the surface of the
planet. We would know about it otherwise.
Light doesn't penetrate past the surface of the Earth, so your idea
that the light effects gravity inside the Earth is just plain silly.
--
don findlay
Hiroshi wrote:
> David Jonsson wrote:
>
> > According to Wikipedia the flow of heat to the Earth surface is 42 TW.
> > 30 TW is explained as fission, 3.75 is due to losses from tidal
> > movement from the moon. I have found that 1.4 TW can be found from the
> > torque from gravity on Earth. I calculated this in 2005. Is anyone
> > interested in how I made the calculations? it is based on the
> > assumption that changes of gravity moves with the speed of light.
> >
>
> You supposition is seriously flawed.
>
> The heat loss is not evenly distributed across the Earths's surface.
> Rather, heat flows upwards in vortexes. Most of the heat is reabsorbed
> by the interaction of the vortex and the infrastructure boundaries.
> Very few of the heat vortexes get anywhere near the surface of the
> planet. We would know about it otherwise.
That's right. ... It's negative heat we're interested in on this
forum, ...in the form of cooling, .. 'coz it drives plate tectonics -
by 'crustal implosion' ... in the form of sinking slabs, ..like
whales sink to the ocean floor stirring up mud muddy muddy
waters, ..so nobdy's nose nose whazgoin' on.
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/cornflakes.html>
>
> Light doesn't penetrate past the surface of the Earth, so your idea
> that the light effects gravity inside the Earth is just plain silly.
(Dunno about that. Duzzennyone?) (know what gravity is, ... and how
it works, ..that can affect galactic composure across billions of
spokkies - (or is it trekkies?).
>
>
>
>
>
> --
David Jonsson
> Hiroshi wrote:
> > David Jonsson wrote:
>
> > > According to Wikipedia the flow of heat to theEarthsurface is 42TW.
> > > movement from the moon. I have found that1.4TWcan be found from the
> > > interested in how I made the calculations? it is based on the
> > > assumption that changes of gravity moves with the speed of light.
>
> > You supposition is seriously flawed.
>
> > The heat loss is not evenly distributed across the Earths's surface.
> > Rather, heat flows upwards in vortexes. Most of the heat is reabsorbed
> > by the interaction of the vortex and the infrastructure boundaries.
> > Very few of the heat vortexes get anywhere near the surface of the
> > planet. We would know about it otherwise.
>
> That's right. ... It's negative heat we're interested in on this
> forum, ...in the form of cooling, .. 'coz it drives plate tectonics -
> by 'crustal implosion' ... in the form of sinking slabs, ..like
> whales sink to the ocean floor stirring up mud muddy muddy
> waters, ..so nobdy's nose nose whazgoin' on.
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/cornflakes.html>
>
>
>
> > that the light effects gravity inside theEarthis just plain silly.
>
> (Dunno about that. Duzzennyone?) (know what gravity is, ... and how
> it works, ..that can affect galactic composure across billions of
> spokkies - (or is it trekkies?).
The calculation is just power = torque*angular speed. Nothing says
that this temperature has to be located evenly on the surface. I
assume it is converted as viscous heating in the Earth interior
instead of altering the rotation speed. It would be possible to
calculate the viscous damping but the problem seems to be that
viscosity is so varied in the magma, according to
http://www.geo.ua.edu/volcanology/lecture_notes_files/controls_on_magma_viscos.html
. A factor of difference of 10^10.
It is somewhat similar to the Roche limit forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roche_limit_(top_view).PNG . Closer
parts want to rotate faster than outer parts, causing a torque on the
body.
David
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
Don,
Problem there too, no heat is send to us. Minus 55° C at the bottom
of the Troposphere at the Equator & Minus 75°C at the top.
If there was some heat out there coming to us, it would be felt the
more the closer to the Sun ...
Obviously NO HEAT coming or at least under that form.
... and what is this gravitational torque you are taking about,
Dave ? All know that 's inertia propelling the Earth round ( as well
as other spinning celestial bodies)
Are you an Heretic ?
jpturcaud
David Jonsson
Heretic? I think the case of gravity retardation is a justified debate
issue. Laplace calculated that it cannot take place at anywhere near
the speed of light because that would make planetary orbits unstable.
(He should have calculated not on point masses but on distributed
masses. That can make a difference.) On the other hand Gerber used
retarded gravity in 1898 to calculate the rotation of the perihelion
of Mercury with the same analytical result as Einstein 17 years later.
Several modern issues in the universe use speed of light retardation
of gravity to explain pulsar motion. Even a Nobel price has been
awarded on speed of light retarded gravity.
So, back to the issue. I had been thinking about this issue for
several years before I managed to calculate it in September 2005. Then
the effect seemed too small but now since effects twice this is being
considered maybe it will be considered anyway. The end result is that
the effect is 1/7 of the total unexplained heat production in Earth.
When I calculate the same thing for the fields from the moon the power
becomes too big, 20 times the observed output from Earth.
Something is apparently wrong. Here is the calcultation anyway. I hope
someone can help me to find the error.
_*A method to determine the gravitational torque between two
astronomical bodies.*_
_Introduction_
A planets' rotation around its axis is a mystery since this motion in
combination with tidal effects causes a lot of viscous heat production
in the planet slowing it down. Despite this the planets continue to
rotate. Lets see if the gravitational torque can explain why.
Gravitational torque can contribute to a planets rotation around its
own axis.
_Calculation of the torque_
One way to calculate the torque is to view how the position of the sun
changes as gravity is experienced in the front compared to the back of
the planet. Assume that gravity moves at the speed of light, as many
say. There are calculations as far back as Laplace against this
showing gravity moves several orders of magnitudes faster than the
speed of light. The problem with these calculations is that they
consider planets as point masses and not distributed masses. Such
calculations are therefore ignored.
This small difference in experiencing the field of the Sun will cause
a small tangential force on earth.
o Earth at t1, the field of the Sun
is experienced on the night side of earth
O Sun o Earth at t0, the suns position is
experienced in the Earth centre
o Earth at t-1, the sun is
experienced at the day side
or as seen from a non rotating frame on Earth.
O Sun at t-1
O Sun at t0 o Earth
O Sun at t1
Exaggerated view of the motion of Earth relative the sun.
The torque on Earth is the same in a vertical plane through it
parallel to the motion of the planet.
Some parameters
R = distance between Sun and Earth
r = distance from Earths center
ft = tangential force on Earth
fs = Suns force on Earth
D = displacement of Sun seen from non rotating frame on Earth.
vs = Earths speed relative the Sun
te = time elapsed since gravity passed Earths center = r/c
re = Earths radius
ft is proportional to D/R so
ft/fs = D/R (1)
The displacement D is determined by Earth and Suns relative speed and
the time in takes gravity to pass Earth so
D=vs*te=vs/c*r (2)
(2) in (1) makes
ft=fs*vs*te/R=fs*vs/c*r/R
Suns force fs on a an element dm of Earth mass
dfs=G Ms dm / R²
and the tangential component
dft =G Ms dm / R² *vs/c*r/R = vs/c r G Ms dm / R³
Earths mass per unit length
dm/dr = rho pi (re²-r²)
The torque is
T = r ft
dT = r dft = r vs/c r G Ms dm / R³ = r² vs/c G Ms rho pi (re² - r²)
dr / R³
T= vs/c G Ms rho pi / R³ integral (r = -re to re) r² (re² - r²) dr =
T= vs/c G Ms rho pi / R³ (r = -re to re of) (re² r³/3 - r^5/5) =
T= 4 vs/c G Ms rho pi / R³ re^5/15
The power that the torque gives rise to is P = T * omega where omega
is the angular velocity of Earth around its axis. Lets calculate it to
see if it corresponds with the observed value of Earths heat
production 0.08 W/m² equal to 42 terawatt. Less than 8.25 TW of the
total 42 TW is unexplained. 30 TW is due to radioactive decay and 3.75
due to tidal effects in the oceans. The torque is supposed to be
counter balanced by viscous deformation of the globe. Since the
deformation of the globe is mainly due to tidal forces from the moon
most of the remaining viscous heat production in the Earth interior is
likely caused by the moon rather than the sun.
The rotational speed omega for Earth in radians per seconds is 2 pi /
86400.
For earth P = T omega =
4*10^8/365/86400/3/10^8*6.7*10^-11*2*10^30*5515*3.14/(1.5*10^11)^3*
(6.3*10^6)^5/15*2*3.14/86400
= 1.4*10^12 watt = 1 400 gigawatt
One part of 7 of the remaining 8.25 TW can thus be explained with
retarded gravity.
The formula
P = 4/15 v/c G M rho pi re^5/R^5 omega
is general and can be applied to the moons retarded gravity on Earth
as well. Other bodies should have a marginal effect on Earth.
Pmoon = 4/15*1000/3/10^8*6.7*10^-11*7.347*10^225515*3.1416/384405000^3*
(6.3*10^6)^5*2* pi / 86400 = 9.6 * 10^14 watts
way too high, 22 higher than the observed. The calculation for the
moon has to take into consideration the earths rotation around its own
axis. It is 465 m/s at the equator which is approximately half that of
the moon orbit speed lowering the effect to around the half. Still the
effect is too high. There is apparently no such effect, unless it is
counteracted by some other effect.