Re: Venus rotation
Sam Wormley
> The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
> Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
> 40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.
>
A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
of angular velocity. Or State the 360� rotation in earth days.
For the Earth, the angular velocity is 0.72921158553 � 10^-4 rad/s.
For the Earth, one rotation takes 0.997269566 days
For Venus, it is 2.99244922 � 10^-7 rad/s
For Venus, one rotation takes 243.0185 days
Ken S. Tucker
That's important (IMO) from the standpoint of extra-terrestrial
geologics (I should be corrected on that term) since Venus
would have very slight solar tidal input and has no tectonic
formations, unlike it's it's sister planet Earth.
This causes me to doubt the radioactive theory of mantle
convection within the Earth, and instead place the tectonic
effects on the tidal input of the moon and Sun, where Earth
is concerned.
There ya go Sammy.
Ken
Sam Wormley
If you were right, Ken, would you not expect to see some
correlation of plate velocity with patterns of the sun and
moon?
oriel36
> On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
> > Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
> > 40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.
>
> A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
> of angular velocity. Or State the 360 rotation in earth days.
>
Unless you really want to play games at a time when the horrific
situation has arisen insofar as our race now believes it can control
global temperature within a certain range (remember the lesson of the
Danish King Canute) for behind it all or at its core is this
intransigence which refuses to acknowledge that 15 degrees at the
Equator represents 1669.8 km and the rotation of the Earth through 15
degrees represents 1669.8 km per hour just as the slow 6.5 km per hour
rotation rate of Venus, a planet of similar size to the Earth, takes
243 days to rotate 360 degrees whereas the Earth takes just 24 hours
to rotate through its 40,075 km circumference.Turn a globe 15 degrees/
1669.8 km and you will eventually develop a distinct antipathy towards
'sidereal time' reasoning.
> For the Earth, the angular velocity is 0.72921158553 10^-4 rad/s.
> For the Earth, one rotation takes 0.997269566 days
>
> For Venus, it is 2.99244922 10^-7 rad/s
> For Venus, one rotation takes 243.0185 days
With the information of different latitudinal speeds I go on to
explain why twilight periods vary with latitude and the outlines of
planetary dynamics as the rotation of the viscous
interior,specifically the molten material in contact with the
crust,does not rotate as a single unit but in differential rotation
bands.
None of you stand a chance of explaining crustal evolution and motion
off the entire length of the Mid Atlantic Ridge with 'convection
cells' when differential rotation leaves its signature on the surface
crust in terms of orientation,fracture zones and symmetrical
generation of crust due to the lag/advance mechanism indicative of
rotational shear bands.
Venus does not have a spherical deviation worth considering or
tectonic activity while the Earth has both and much of this is
directly related to planetary rotation and maximum equatorial
speed,the great shame is not that differential rotation in the Earth's
interior is not accepted as a mechanism but even the possibility of
discussing the intimate link between the rotational dynamics of the
interior with surface crustal dynamics is out of bounds because people
refuse to accept the basic fact that the Earth rotates through 1669.8
km per hour at the equator,something that can be validated immediately
using a normal world globe -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/GEO_Globe.jpg
Now that the advantage of anonymous consensus has disappeared due to
the recent fraud involving climate,actual climate and geological
studies can commence for those who actually like these topics,the
difference is that now a closer bond is drawn between planetary
dynamics,planetary comparisons and what have you in expressing their
terrestrial effects.The correlation between planetary shape,rotational
speeds and geological effects is of course in its infancy just as
global climate is now only emerging in its true form from behind the
spectacle of a minor atmospheric gas,it only takes a bit of effort to
move from one side to the other and drop these unintelligent games
that you know I have no interest in.
oriel36
Mr genius iq,turn a globe through 15 degrees and the distance traveled
at the equator is 1669.8 km,at 60 degrees latitude the value is 836 km
per hour/15 degrees so that all know we are on a rotating sphere with
definite dimensions and rotational speeds.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/GEO_Globe.jpg
So,for all the hoopla you turn out to be worse than a flat Earther but
astronomy will do that to you if you do not respect its geometric
language.Maybe somebody else here will explain to you what Isaac was
really doing with absolute/relative space and time in terms of
observations/modelling based on an Ra/Dec framework,they will be the
first generation in centuries to actually be capable of geometrically
distinguishing what is correct and what is not instead of linguistic
dithering which Newton employed to obfuscate his untutored attempt to
hijack astronomy.
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 2, 7:38 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>> The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
>>> Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
>>> 40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.
>>
>> A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
>> of angular velocity. Or State the 360 rotation in earth days.
>>
Any first year student of physics learns to measure rotation in
terms of rotational velocity.
The tilt of that globe in direct sunlight can explain the
observed seasons once you realize that orientation of the tilt
with respect to the sun changes through one complete cycle every
265.25 days or so.
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>That's important (IMO) from the standpoint of extra-terrestrial
>geologics (I should be corrected on that term) since Venus
>would have very slight solar tidal input and has no tectonic
>formations, unlike it's it's sister planet Earth.
>This causes me to doubt the radioactive theory of mantle
>convection within the Earth, and instead place the tectonic
>effects on the tidal input of the moon and Sun, where Earth
>is concerned.
Well, I think that theory has been solidly demonstrated false, based on
basic energy calculations. Plate tectonics on Earth are largely believed
to be driven in large part by the presence of oceanic crust, which
doesn't exist on Venus. There is evidence that the crust of Venus has
been recently reformed, however, and that could significantly reduce the
amount of heat that can escape from the mantle. Without much heat loss,
you lose convection. This happens when you have radioactive heating in
the core, so the lack of convection really tells us nothing about the
source of internal heating.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
palsing
> The tilt of that globe in direct sunlight can explain the
> observed seasons once you realize that orientation of the tilt
> with respect to the sun changes through one complete cycle every
> 265.25 days or so.
Small typo there, should be 365.25...
\Paul
Ken S. Tucker
Hey there Sammy old boy, how ya doing, you like refs, so heres one,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091223133347.htm
"They found the strongest effect when the pull on the Earth from the
sun
and moon sheared the fault in the direction it normally breaks".
Of course there is much more...the Andes.
Best regards
Ken
Sam Wormley
Triggering minor quakes is one thing... influencing plate notion
should show up in the plate monitoring gps data.
Sam Wormley
Thanks Paul.
-Sam
oriel36
> On 1/2/10 2:25 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 7:38 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> >>> The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
> >>> Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
> >>> 40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.
>
> >> A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
> >> of angular velocity. Or State the 360 rotation in earth days.
>
> Any first year student of physics learns to measure rotation in
> terms of rotational velocity.
>
This is not a game nor is it an exercise in pulling teeth - 15 degrees
at the equator represents both 1 hour and 1669.8 km of geographical
separation making 24 hours and 40,075 km,the principles which form the
basis for the creation of modern watches by the actual inventor
himself (John Harrison) do no more than reaffirm it on page 90 and 91
-
http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q=remarks&f=false
That Venus rotates at a slow pace of 6.5 km per hour while the Earth
rotates at 1669.8 km per hour shows up as spherical deviation,plate
tectonics and all the other geological signatures such as earthquake
events on Earth and absent on Venus hence the mechanism for crustal
evolution and motion is the difference between an even rotational
gradient for the crust from equator to pole while the viscous
interior has an uneven gradient otherwise known as differential
rotation.
It is no surprise that the stationary Earth 'convection cell' idea
from another participant looks so unintelligent and while many could
easily get their head around the creation of the giant Mid Atlantic
Ridge using rotational shear bands,they cannot bring themselves to use
'convection cell' to generate that great geological feature -
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/acoustics/images/haru_atl_locs-big.jpg
The energies involved in causing the planet to deviate by 40 km from a
perfect sphere are many magnitudes greater than what is needed to
create and move the surface crust yet the common mechanism for both is
already observed as generalised rules for rotating celestial objects
in a viscous state,namely differential rotation.Venus is instructive
for its lack of spherical deviation and its lack of tectonic activity
but that means actually working with planetary comparisons of maximum
equatorial speeds,something none of you can do presently.
palsing
:... 15 degrees at the
> Equator represents 1669.8 km and the rotation of the Earth through 15
> degrees represents 1669.8 km per hour... the Earth takes just 24 hours
> to rotate through its 40,075 km circumference.Turn a globe 15 degrees/
> 1669.8 km and you will eventually develop a distinct antipathy towards
> 'sidereal time' reasoning.
Not really. The Earth's 15 degrees per hour and 360 degrees per 24
hours is only true WRT the sun, and we all know this. You don't know
this because you have no concept of frames of reference. The rest of
us do, so we are comfortable with the concepts of the solar day and
the sidereal day, which are really rather simple. My grandchildren
have no problem understanding these teachings.
> None of you stand a chance of explaining crustal evolution and motion
> off the entire length of the Mid Atlantic Ridge with 'convection
> cells' when differential rotation leaves its signature on the surface
> crust in terms of orientation,fracture zones and symmetrical
> generation of crust due to the lag/advance mechanism indicative of
> rotational shear bands.
Wrong again. Those aren't fracture zones or shear bands that you are
seeing on the sea floor on either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge, they
are striations generated by unequal amounts of magma flowing from the
ridge itself, and carried away from the ridge as the sea floor
spreads. Go back and take another look at that globe you referenced,
and look at the similar striations southeast of Africa and southwest
of India. They are not even close to being lined-up with the direction
of rotation, but there they are, they look EXACTLY like the MAR
markings that you so often refer to. Clearly, they have nothing to do
with Earth's rotation.
You can't leap to the conclusions that you do, just by looking at
pictures, you need some empirical evidence to back up your so-called
theories.
>...the great shame is not that differential rotation in the Earth's
> interior is not accepted as a mechanism but even the possibility of
> discussing the intimate link between the rotational dynamics of the
> interior with surface crustal dynamics is out of bounds...
We can discuss it all you want, but you need to come to the party with
actual facts and not just your childish impressions garnered from
photos or other graphical representations. I can find no evidence
anywhere on the internet that supports your claim of differential
rotation in the Earth's crust. In the interior, certainly, but not in
the crust.
You have a real problem accepting anything that anyone else
contributes here, unless it coincides exactly with your own thinking.
You are the most stubborn person here, and as far as I can tell, you
have learned absolutely nothing here from others, and that is a shame,
because there are many very intelligent people who can teach you a
lot, as they have taught me. Why ever do you stay?
\Paul
Quadibloc
> Venus is instructive
> for its lack of spherical deviation
The Moon's polar radius is 1,735.97 kilometers, while its equatorial
radius is slightly larger, at 1,738.14 kilometers. This is caused by
the Moon's slow rotation, once every 27 days or so.
http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/the-moon/radius-of-the-moon/
But wait, the Moon always keeps the same face turned to the Earth. By
your standards, that means it is not rotating.
John Savard
Ken S. Tucker
If I said it does Sam you'd send me out to get refs and then I'd get
a pile of homework, recall I dropped out of school in Gr.4 to get an
education ;-).
The gps data is ambiguous, but does 'suggest' relative motion of
continents and islands like Hawaii, to add tidal force moves the
ground up and down a foot or 2 a day.
The lateral measurements are in the centimeters/year range, so
yeah, the plates are being "pulled" about.
A complicating factor is the Earth is expanding from it's original
compaction, but the body of evidence suggests South America
was ripped off Africa, that's the so-called continental drift theory.
How's that Sammy old boy?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >That's important (IMO) from the standpoint of extra-terrestrial
> >geologics (I should be corrected on that term) since Venus
> >would have very slight solar tidal input and has no tectonic
> >formations, unlike it's it's sister planet Earth.
> >This causes me to doubt the radioactive theory of mantle
> >convection within the Earth, and instead place the tectonic
> >effects on the tidal input of the moon and Sun, where Earth
> >is concerned.
>
> Well, I think that theory has been solidly demonstrated false, based on
> basic energy calculations. Plate tectonics on Earth are largely believed
> to be driven in large part by the presence of oceanic crust, which
> doesn't exist on Venus. There is evidence that the crust of Venus has
> been recently reformed, however, and that could significantly reduce the
> amount of heat that can escape from the mantle. Without much heat loss,
> you lose convection. This happens when you have radioactive heating in
> the core, so the lack of convection really tells us nothing about the
> source of internal heating.
Chris, I read your post a couple of times, I guess your refering to
Power Factor?. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm dense...
Ken
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Chris, I read your post a couple of times, I guess your refering to
>Power Factor?. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm dense...
I don't know how to interpret "power factor" in this context. I don't
think that's what I'm talking about.
My point was that tidal heating of the Earth's interior can be ruled out
because we aren't extracting enough energy from the Moon to explain the
observed heating, and the lack of tectonics on Venus is explainable by a
lack of convection in the mantle, which is understood as a consequence
of a low thermal gradient. Radioactive heating doesn't automatically
require that convection will be present.
oriel36
For centuries it was speculated that the Earth's rotation influenced
its spherical deviation but not until observation of rotating
celestial compositions in a viscous state show differential rotation
could the details be inserted into our planet's feature,the difference
between the even rotational gradient of the crust between equatorial
and polar regions as opposed to the uneven rotational gradient of the
viscous interior in the driving force behind crust evolution/motion
and spherical deviation.
Earthquakes are an indirect way of letting people know that we are on
a rotating planet with a very dynamic interior governed by fluid
dynamics,hints which people see every time they watch the interior
composition erupt and unlike the treacle-like viscosity assigned for
moving crustal plates,the actual viscosity is far more
dynamic,something like seen in the following video -
It is this incredibly dynamic composition operating on a global scale
and as a function of planetary rotation that leaves its mark on the
great spherical deviation of the planet along with tectonic activity
and it requires the known rotational speeds at different latitudes
with the equator rotating 1669.8 km per hour and an entire equatorial
circumference in 24 hours.
The rotational speed at the equator of Venus is 6.5 km per hour while
Earth's is a magnificent 1669.8 km per hour yet none of you recognise
this basic fact and this is truly dismal given the implications for
geology and the link between planetary dynamics and its geological
effects.Judging by this new appeal to the Sun/Moon in matters of the
equatorial bulge or plate tectonics,it just goes to show how far these
numbskulls will go to ignore planetary dynamics and astronomy.
None of you like astronomy,you like the idea of calling yourselves
astronomers without the required intelligence to know just how wide
ranging astronomy is beyond a magnification exercise at night .As many
are now coming to realise,the attempt by a small group of people
calling themselves 'scientists' to dictate existence for everyone else
on the basis of a social agenda disguised as planetary concerns owes
its existence to that short period of time in the late 17th century
when the peer review process got going to rubberstamp the empirical
agenda begun by Newton at the expense of astronomy.I have known the
seriousness of it all from the original fraud which tried to reduce
planetary dynamics to a human and experimental level even as now many
people are coming to realise just how close to insanity a recent
empirical conclusion brought our race,not just the financial aspect
but how much these small group of people tried to dictate our
existence from what we eat,to where we live and any energy related
endeavor.
My answer to it is to provide something better than alarmist and
novelistic things and the link between planetary dynamics and geology
is just one of these things which will emerge from the ruins for
genuine people to pick up for it is a lively and exciting topic which
evokes real astonishment at the dynamics involved.
Quadibloc
> A complicating factor is the Earth is expanding from it's original
> compaction,
Not by much, if at all. There was an old expanding earth theory which
preceded plate tectonics, but that is no longer accepted; it did lay
some groundwork for recognizing that Wegener could be right after all.
John Savard
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 2, 1:38 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Triggering minor quakes is one thing... influencing plate notion
>> should show up in the plate monitoring gps data.
>
> If I said it does Sam you'd send me out to get refs and then I'd get
> a pile of homework, recall I dropped out of school in Gr.4 to get an
> education ;-).
> The gps data is ambiguous, but does 'suggest' relative motion of
> continents and islands like Hawaii, to add tidal force moves the
> ground up and down a foot or 2 a day.
Um... I think you mean 2 cm not 2 feet.
> The lateral measurements are in the centimeters/year range, so
> yeah, the plates are being "pulled" about.
> A complicating factor is the Earth is expanding from it's original
> compaction, but the body of evidence suggests South America
> was ripped off Africa, that's the so-called continental drift theory.
Er... a... I hadn't noticed that the earth was expanding at all,
even though tonnes of meteoric dust settles on the earth annually.
> How's that Sammy old boy?
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
:-)
Sam Wormley
>
> For centuries it was speculated that the Earth's rotation influenced
> its spherical deviation but not until observation of rotating
> celestial compositions in a viscous state show differential rotation
> could the details be inserted into our planet's feature,the difference
> between the even rotational gradient of the crust between equatorial
> and polar regions as opposed to the uneven rotational gradient of the
> viscous interior in the driving force behind crust evolution/motion
> and spherical deviation.
>
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html
http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html
"Tectonic motion for points around the world can be estimated from a
variety of space geodetic technologies (e.g., satellite laser ranging
(SLR), Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Global Positioning
System (GPS) among others)".
oriel36
> On 1/3/10 8:46 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
>
>
> > For centuries it was speculated that the Earth's rotation influenced
> > its spherical deviation but not until observation of rotating
> > celestial compositions in a viscous state show differential rotation
> > could the details be inserted into our planet's feature,the difference
> > between the even rotational gradient of the crust between equatorial
> > and polar regions as opposed to the uneven rotational gradient of the
> > viscous interior in the driving force behind crust evolution/motion
> > and spherical deviation.
>
>
> "Tectonic motion for points around the world can be estimated from a
> variety of space geodetic technologies (e.g., satellite laser ranging
> (SLR), Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Global Positioning
> System (GPS) among others)".
It is not possible to explain symmetrical crustal generation off the
entire length of the Mid Atlantic Ridge using 'convection cells',that
idea is so hideous that it is easy enough to dismiss but
differential rotation and the shear bands involved make is easy enough
to see how the viscous composition acts to create and move the surface
crust.
The websites you reference show only the motion of the plates and say
nothing about the cause of that movement whereas I point out that if
people draw from astronomical observations and the generalised rules
which govern the relationship between maximum equatorial speed and
spherical deviation in a rotating viscous composition,they will
discover the the same rotational mechanism which causes the Earth to
deviate from a perfect sphere also acts on the surface crust and
subsequently generates events such as eruptions and earthquakes.
To determine tectonic motion requires a very definite set of
dimensions such as 15 degrees of geographical separation at the
equator representing 1669.8 km so that the equator rotates at 15
degrees per hour or through 1669.8 km per hour.Whatever value you come
up with 'sidereal time' I would not care to know no more than I have
patience for people who can't make the leap to the link between
internal rotational dynamics and crustal dynamics.Even if that USGS
website muddies the water by admitting it does not known what causes
plate motion,the answer is pretty straightforward - until people come
to their senses and recognise the different latitudinal speeds
representative of rotation through 360 degrees in 24
hours,evolutionary geology will remain a wasteland.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/unanswered.html
Instead of dithering around and handwringing,these guys have to make
an attempt to link the generalised rules for a rotating celestial
viscous compositions and apply it to the Earth's interior,they already
do it in making stellar comparisons between maximum equatorial speeds
and spherical deviation so they have no excuse in not applying the
lessons to the Earth's viscous interior -
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604
The objections that a planet is not a star hardly counterbalances the
observations of the viscosity of erupting volcanoes and lava flows
which determine an energetic interior dynamic as opposed to the
treacle-like composition beloved on convectioneers.
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 3, 3:08 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.htmlhttp://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html
>>
>> "Tectonic motion for points around the world can be estimated from a
>> variety of space geodetic technologies (e.g., satellite laser ranging
>> (SLR), Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Global Positioning
>> System (GPS) among others)".
>
> It is not possible to explain symmetrical crustal generation off the
> entire length of the Mid Atlantic Ridge using 'convection cells',that
> idea is so hideous that it is easy enough to dismiss but
> differential rotation and the shear bands involved make is easy enough
> to see how the viscous composition acts to create and move the surface
> crust.
>
> The websites you reference show only the motion of the plates and say
> nothing about the cause of that movement...
That's right, Gerald, and there is a good reason for that. The
science is too young to say definitively what all the causes are!
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
> That's right, Gerald, and there is a good reason for that. The
> science is too young to say definitively what all the causes are!
Of course, many explanations provided by scientific investigation are
not "definitive"... which of course does not mean that the explanations
are bad ones, nor that they aren't substantially correct. The
explanation that convective processes are the primary driver of plate
movement is very well accepted, and is supported by an increasing volume
of data as research advances. (That there is convection in the core and
mantle is certain, as these have been directly observed.)
oriel36
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:22:32 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
Go ahead,demonstrate the use of 'convection cells' for creation of
crust either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge for those who know no
better -
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/842/60018786.JPG
As 'convection cells' require no association with the planetary
dynamic of rotation nor with planetary shape,I would no expect you to
understand the actual mechanism derived from daily rotation which
influences the orientation of the MAR,the generation of crust across
the entire length of the ridge ,the symmetrical and proportional
quantities of ocean crust off the ridge and the characteristic S
shape indicative of the lag/advance mechanism of differential
rotational shear bands.
You have an intense dislike of astronomy and a fondness for optics,I
suggest you retreat to lens caps and magnification equipment and leave
others to consider the link between planetary dynamics and geological
effects.
Chris L Peterson
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Go ahead,demonstrate the use of 'convection cells' for creation of
>crust either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge for those who know no
>better...
My comment wasn't directed at you, but rather to those with an
understanding and interest in science.
oriel36
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:31:12 -0800 (PST), oriel36
>
> >Go ahead,demonstrate the use of 'convection cells' for creation of
> >crust either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge for those who know no
> >better...
>
> My comment wasn't directed at you, but rather to those with an
> understanding and interest in science.
>
Your stationary Earth 'convection cell' comment is due to the fact
that you can't express the basic rotational fact that the Earth turns
through 15 degrees and 1669.8 km per hour at the equator hence you
can't have any interest in the geological effects of planetary
rotation and especially the mechanism which links the viscous interior
with the surface crust and the rotational signatures it leaves there.
Differential rotation is actually for people who can open their eyes
when they see lava flows and can grasp easily that a rotating
celestial composition in a molten/viscous state does not rotate as a
unit but in differential shear bands -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qR_xMXJoBM
Now that the alarmism and exotic novelties of empiricism are
fading,it is time for the new agenda of using modern imaging to
connect planetary dynamics with terrestrial effects in all spheres of
existence from geology to climate to biology and planetary history.
_________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
Maybe you and mr genius iq can battle it out over 'convection cells'
or the Sun/Moon as the driver of plate motion,the actual mechanism is
supplied by the Earth's rotation and the common link with planetary
shape.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 23:39:44 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >Chris, I read your post a couple of times, I guess your refering to
> >Power Factor?. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm dense...
>
> I don't know how to interpret "power factor" in this context. I don't
> think that's what I'm talking about.
Hmmm, consider a solid sphere with zero viscosity, tidal effects
cannot
heat it, next consider a sphere with infinite viscosity, such as a
fluidic
body has, again tidal affects cannot heat it. The transfer of power to
the
sphere requires a viscosity between 0 and oo, you know this same idea
from using 8 ohm speakers to match your sound amplifier, it's physics.
> My point was that tidal heating of the Earth's interior can be ruled out
> because we aren't extracting enough energy from the Moon to explain the
> observed heating, and the lack of tectonics on Venus is explainable by a
> lack of convection in the mantle, which is understood as a consequence
> of a low thermal gradient. Radioactive heating doesn't automatically
> require that convection will be present.
No, do the calculation for yourself, we get 70 megatons input each day
from the Moon, also go to your nearest volcano and take a Geiger
counter,
and tell us what you read.
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
Ahhh, we got H20, natural gas, oil, poring out of the Earth, but the
extent
of the density decrease, I don't know, I made that point for that
reason.
I figure Earth is expanding at 1 cm/century, but I can't prove that.
Ken
Sam Wormley
>
> Ahhh, we got H20, natural gas, oil, poring out of the Earth, but the extent
> of the density decrease, I don't know, I made that point for that reason.
> I figure Earth is expanding at 1 cm/century, but I can't prove that.
> Ken
All that "pours out of the earth" pretty much stays on the
earth except for some hydrogen and helium gas. The oceans
do contract and expand with temperature change.
I'd like to see your calculation for 1 cm/century ... If you
just pulled the number out of the air... that has no merit.
GPS monitoring is sensitive enough to measure the centimeter
or two tidal changes in the earth's crust, but offer no hint
of the earth as a whole expanding or contracting.
Sam Wormley
Agreed.
-Sam
Sam Wormley
>
> No, do the calculation for yourself, we get 70 megatons input each day
> from the Moon, also go to your nearest volcano and take a Geiger
> counter, and tell us what you read.
> Ken S. Tucker
70 megatons is in units of mass. What are you really trying to say,
Ken.
Ken S. Tucker
> On 1/3/10 12:26 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 1:38 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Triggering minor quakes is one thing... influencing plate notion
> >> should show up in the plate monitoring gps data.
>
> > If I said it does Sam you'd send me out to get refs and then I'd get
> > a pile of homework, recall I dropped out of school in Gr.4 to get an
> > education ;-).
> > The gps data is ambiguous, but does 'suggest' relative motion of
> > continents and islands like Hawaii, to add tidal force moves the
> > ground up and down a foot or 2 a day.
>
> Um... I think you mean 2 cm not 2 feet.
No, I wrote 2 feet, 1 foot on each side cuz the Moon/Sun tides
converts
the Earth into a ellipse via tidal force. I figure it's more, it's
very hard to
measure cuz the geodetical sats that do that are also affected by the
tidal geodetic increment.
Sam recall this little tidal tensor "R_abcd" x Earth diameter and
presume
the Earth is made of Jello. The Earth resembles a fluid.
> > The lateral measurements are in the centimeters/year range, so
> > yeah, the plates are being "pulled" about.
> > A complicating factor is the Earth is expanding from it's original
> > compaction, but the body of evidence suggests South America
> > was ripped off Africa, that's the so-called continental drift theory.
>
> Er... a... I hadn't noticed that the earth was expanding at all,
Well Sammy, you should get out more often.
> even though tonnes of meteoric dust settles on the earth annually.
Sam, when a volcano erupts a lot of liquid water is converted to
steam,
and steam has a lower density than water, therefore the Earth's
density
decreases, but we're not loosing too much mass (apart from boiling off
the upper atmosphere), hence the volume increases, but if you want
you can ignore sunamis that kill a 100,000 people and chalk that up
to 'bad luck', and forget about geological science, like all the rest.
> > How's that Sammy old boy?
> > Regards
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> :-)
:-)
oriel36
> On 1/3/10 10:44 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> That's right, Gerald, and there is a good reason for that. The
> >> science is too young to say definitively what all the causes are!
>
> > Of course, many explanations provided by scientific investigation are
> > not "definitive"... which of course does not mean that the explanations
> > are bad ones, nor that they aren't substantially correct. The
> > explanation that convective processes are the primary driver of plate
> > movement is very well accepted, and is supported by an increasing volume
> > of data as research advances. (That there is convection in the core and
> > mantle is certain, as these have been directly observed.)
> > _________________________________________________
>
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> >http://www.cloudbait.com
>
> Agreed.
> -Sam
The fact is that nobody can maintain a discussion on planetary
dynamics or any link between the rotating viscous interior and the
surface crust,they will talk expansion,Sun/moon effects,convections
cells and what have you but nothing close to the exciting link
between the material we see as lava , its rotation and how is shows up
in geological features and planetary shape as expected of a rotating
composition with an uneven rotational gradient from equator to poles.
People experiencing an earthquake in the Western USA are feeling the
ultimate effects of planetary rotation in a geological way,the motion
of the plates respond to the evolution of ocean crust which in turn is
created by the planet's interior rotational dynamics ,of course only
the dull and dismal would reach for a stationary Earth 'convection
cell' mechanism which is why the USGS now faces this handwringing and
self-inflicted dilemma if it tries to incorporate a rotational
mechanism for crustal dynamics and spherical deviation it must work on
latitudinal rotation rates for 1 deg/4 minutes of rotation and the
corresponding geological distances assigned to each latitude
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html
palsing
> The fact is that nobody can maintain a discussion on planetary
> dynamics or any link between the rotating viscous interior and the
> surface crust,they will talk expansion,Sun/moon effects,convections
> cells and what have you but nothing close to the exciting link
> between the material we see as lava , its rotation and how is shows up
> in geological features and planetary shape as expected of a rotating
> composition with an uneven rotational gradient from equator to poles.
>
> People experiencing an earthquake in the Western USA are feeling the
> ultimate effects of planetary rotation in a geological way,the motion
> of the plates respond to the evolution of ocean crust which in turn is
> created by the planet's interior rotational dynamics ,of course only
> the dull and dismal would reach for a stationary Earth 'convection
> cell' mechanism which is why the USGS now faces this handwringing and
> self-inflicted dilemma if it tries to incorporate a rotational
> mechanism for crustal dynamics and spherical deviation it must work on
> latitudinal rotation rates for 1 deg/4 minutes of rotation and the
> corresponding geological distances assigned to each latitude
>
> http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables...
Your childish approach to science is really wearing thin, you clearly
haven't the slightest clue about that of which you speak. Nada. Every
time you write anything I laugh out loud in wonder and amazement that
anyone could be so seriously wrong, and never have a clue, and never
learn anything new. You remain totally unteachable.
You are all alone with your theories, you have not found a single
professional who agrees with you on virtually any subject. Not one.
You reason, therefore, that you must be superior to literally all of
the great scientific minds of both the past and the present.
I'm positive that if you mistakenly entered the freeway via the off
ramp, instead of the on ramp, that you would instantly be convinced
that there were hundreds and hundreds of people driving the wrong
way...
There is a word for this behavior in the literature, and that word is
"Delusional"...
palsing
> ... when a volcano erupts a lot of liquid water is converted to
> steam,
> and steam has a lower density than water, therefore the Earth's
> density
> decreases...
You're kidding, right? You consider this a genius-quality statement?
I might argue that since the water has left the earth, and water has
less density than rock, that the density of the earth has therefore
increased, even though is now weighs less. Also, since steam has more
density than air, that the density of the overall atmosphere has also
increased, along with its now weighing more. I suspect that the
overall density of the earth AND its atmosphere remains in
equilibrium. My speculations might be wrong, but I'm sure they are
less wrong than yours.
All in all, you present a very weak argument... even a genius can be
wrong now and then...
Paul A
Sam Wormley
>
> Sam, when a volcano erupts a lot of liquid water is converted to steam,
> and steam has a lower density than water, therefore the Earth's density
> decreases, but we're not loosing too much mass (apart from boiling off
> the upper atmosphere), hence the volume increases, but if you want
> you can ignore sunamis that kill a 100,000 people and chalk that up
> to 'bad luck', and forget about geological science, like all the rest.
>
The steam condenses into what and falls in the ocean. The mass of the
earth and it's average density remain fairly constant. You should have
continued past the 4th grade... there was a lot of good basic stuff in
the very next grade... and right up through graduate school.
Quadibloc
> Your stationary Earth 'convection cell' comment
No one has attempted to claim that Coriolis forces are magically
absent in the Earth's mantle. They might be negligible due to the high
viscosity of the material there, but that is a different matter.
John Savard
Ken S. Tucker
> On Jan 3, 11:50 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > ... when a volcano erupts a lot of liquid water is converted to
> > steam,
> > and steam has a lower density than water, therefore the Earth's
> > density
> > decreases...
>
> You're kidding, right? You consider this a genius-quality statement?
Hey wife thinks I'm a dozy fruit-cake with nuts.
> I might argue that since the water has left the earth, and water has
> less density than rock, that the density of the earth has therefore
> increased, even though is now weighs less. Also, since steam has more
> density than air, that the density of the overall atmosphere has also
> increased, along with its now weighing more. I suspect that the
> overall density of the earth AND its atmosphere remains in
> equilibrium. My speculations might be wrong, but I'm sure they are
> less wrong than yours.
Have you studied steam, heres a table in a benign region of Temp and
Pressure
http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_steam.htm
Pressure at 100 miles deep (shallow really) is ~1 atm/10' ~ 50000
atm, or ~ 10^6 psi, I think steam is a gas so it's compressible.
What we do know are thermal vents in the ocean bottom, thousands
of them are adding water to the oceans.
Solids can be compacted, under pressure, that's how implosion
makes Pu bombs supercritical.
Maybe they don't really work that way.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
I wonder about a huge amount of methane that was trapped at Earth's
formation. I suppose that stuff (CH4) is liquid then expands to
become
CO2 + 2 H2O ongoing when oxidized in air, by lightning.
Recall our solar system has alot of methane, would you call that a
fossil fuel?
Ken
PS: I think I dropped out in Gr.1, that's when I started thinking for
myself,
most people never get off the conveyor belt, just eat the pablum.
Sam Wormley
> Recall our solar system has a lot of methane, would you call that's
> a fossil fuel?
We use methane in our home to heat water, cook with and heat
our home in the winter. Ours is a fossil fuel as opposed to
a renewable resource such as landfill gas or cow farts.
palsing
> Have you studied steam, heres a table in a benign region of Temp and
> Pressure...
No, I haven't specifically studied steam, as far as I recall, but I am
familiar with the concepts of different states at different pressures
and temperatures... but what does this have to do with steam that is
being released by volcanoes, which would then soon be at standard temp
and pressure?
> What we do know are thermal vents in the ocean bottom, thousands
> of them are adding water to the oceans.
> Solids can be compacted, under pressure, that's how implosion
> makes Pu bombs supercritical.
> Maybe they don't really work that way.
> Ken
Thermal vents add water to the ocean, but the ocean is just part of
the earth.What's the point here? Other vents at mid oceanic ridges
also add magma in the form of lava to the surface of the sea floor,
but at the same time portions of the sea floor disappear under
continental plates in an action known as subduction. It still seems to
me that the whole process is more-or-less at equilibrium at any given
time.
I'm not sure that I would compare the compaction of materials deep
within the earth to the fusion of materials in a bomb and expect to
come to any particular conclusion, these are very different
processes...
\Paul A
Thad Floryan
So what about the massive amounts of methane detected on Mars
and renewing itself continuously?
Is that fossil fuel, landfill gas, cow farts, or Martian belches?
Ken S. Tucker
I guess our friend Sammy will now find a ref to convince use that
the methane oceans on Titan are from dead dinosaurs, now you
know why I dropped out in Gr.1!
Ken
Sam Wormley
>
> So what about the massive amounts of methane detected on Mars
> and renewing itself continuously?
Massive amounts or trace amounts?
[ ] Martian volcanic activity
[ ] Martian biological activity
[ ] Martian source that will be a surprise for scientists
Sam Wormley
If you install antenna rotators that don't fail, you are probably
smart enough to know there are many sources of methane.
Sjouke Burry
Tiny Martian sand fleas.
Ken S. Tucker
Sammy me boy, we're currently sitting beside Alberta that pours
out $Billions of Natural Gas, you may be right, it could be fossil.
But something I find intriguing, is that all around the Canadian
Shield are huge petro fields.
The Shield is 2,3,4 billion years old made of granite maybe 10's
or 100's of miles thick, sitting like a cap over most of Canada,
that retains so much petro energy, it makes the Saudi's look
like a sissy pisser.
Within the Earth, CH4 fuses to form stuff like Heptane (C7H16)
and Octane, given heat, pressure and time. Drilling the Shield
is a bit pricey, but I figure it has a 1000x Saudi reserves.
That said, we're also pro-nuclear, solar, wind and hydro etc.
Love
Lynne & Ken
Thad Floryan
> On 1/3/10 10:00 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>> So what about the massive amounts of methane detected on Mars
>> and renewing itself continuously?
>
> Massive amounts or trace amounts?
Earth-based telescopes are detecting it and the claim has been made
its presence in Mars' atmosphere is being renewed since otherwise it'd
dissipate and disappear. That doesn't sound like "trace" to me.
> [ ] Martian volcanic activity
There appears to be no active volcanos presently on Mars per:
<http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/volcanoes/planet_volcano/mars/Overview.html>
<http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_vulcanism_041222.html>
<http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Mars_have_any_active_volcanoes>
<http://www.mahalo.com/answers/science-and-mathematics/does-mars-have-an-active-volcano>
<http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2692>
and the orbiting satellites.
>
> [ ] Martian biological activity
>
> [ ] Martian source that will be a surprise for scientists
Unfortunately neither of those two list items can be determined
until a full lab(s) is/are funded and landed/operated on Mars.
Thad Floryan
Hah hah! :-)
Who knows? There may be subterranean (hmmm, do we need a new word
for Mars?) life that won't be discovered until core drilling is
attempted. A Google search using "mars core drilling" brings up
some interesting projects and proposals, such as:
<http://isse.arc.nasa.gov/doc/StrategiesForDrillingOnMa%201.pdf>
<http://www.kipr.org/papers/marte-is05.pdf>
<http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/multimedia/images/2006/marsdrill.html>
<http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15157>
<http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15520058/AUTOMATED-CORE-SAMPLE-HANDLING-FOR-FUTURE-MARS-DRILL-MISSIONS>
<http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_drilling_000623.html>
Quadibloc
> Earth-based telescopes are detecting it and the claim has been made
> its presence in Mars' atmosphere is being renewed since otherwise it'd
> dissipate and disappear. That doesn't sound like "trace" to me.
By whom has this claim been made?
The Martian atmosphere consists chiefly of carbon dioxide. The carbon
dioxide isn't claimed to be in imminent danger of dissipating and
disappearing. Methane has a higher molecular weight than carbon
dioxide. Hence, if the carbon dioxide in Mars' atmosphere isn't going
anywhere fast, there's no pressing reason for the methane to be going
away faster.
If Mars had an _oxygen_ atmosphere, methane wouldn't last long because
it would burn up. But it doesn't, and so methane in Mars' atmosphere
could stay there for quite a while, it would seem to me.
John Savard
Thad Floryan
> On Jan 3, 11:20 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> Earth-based telescopes are detecting it and the claim has been made
>> its presence in Mars' atmosphere is being renewed since otherwise it'd
>> dissipate and disappear. That doesn't sound like "trace" to me.
>
> By whom has this claim been made?
By just about everyone doing any research concerning Mars.
A Google search using "mars methane" finds over 700,000 claims by
NASA, ESA, et al
The amount appearing in the atmosphere varies by season. You'll
find just the first page of Google results for the above-cited
search to be quite interesting.
BTW, many of those same URLs were cited here in SAA during 2009.
Quadibloc
> On 1/3/2010 11:32 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> > By whom has this claim been made?
>
> By just about everyone doing any research concerning Mars.
Ah, here we go:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/19/mars-methane-media-mess/
10 parts per billion - in Mars' extremely thin atmosphere. Admittedly,
it's still a lot of methane - it would be enough to heat my home for a
very long time. But calling it a "trace amount" would not be out of
line at all.
However, even that skeptical article notes another one that got the
methane story right... and its title is "Large quantities of methane
being replenished on Mars". So you are apparently partly right...
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/15/large-quantities-of-methane-being-replenished-on-mars/
Ah. I overlooked the possibility, for example, that ultraviolet light
might destroy Martian methane.
Still, though, they're taking this as evidence of Martian volcanoes,
not life on Mars.
John Savard
Thad Floryan
> [...]
> Ah. I overlooked the possibility, for example, that ultraviolet light
> might destroy Martian methane.
The ESA web pages have more info and it's likely they'll be the ones,
not NASA, that discover the source(s) of the methane.
> [...]
> Still, though, they're taking this as evidence of Martian volcanoes,
> not life on Mars.
As I cited earlier, there is NO evidence of active volcanism on Mars
at present, and the seasonal variance in methane production is quite
interesting.
oriel36
> On 1/3/10 10:44 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> That's right, Gerald, and there is a good reason for that. The
> >> science is too young to say definitively what all the causes are!
>
> > Of course, many explanations provided by scientific investigation are
> > not "definitive"... which of course does not mean that the explanations
> > are bad ones, nor that they aren't substantially correct. The
> > explanation that convective processes are the primary driver of plate
> > movement is very well accepted, and is supported by an increasing volume
> > of data as research advances. (That there is convection in the core and
> > mantle is certain, as these have been directly observed.)
> > _________________________________________________
>
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> >http://www.cloudbait.com
>
> Agreed.
> -Sam
It is amazing that a thread which attempts to introduce the idea that
the rotation of the planet's interior and its links to planetary
shape and crustal motion veers towards an atmospheric gas and life of
Mars,something which I know is dear to your hearts.A few weeks ago the
world leaders issued a pledge to keep global temperatures within a
certain range thereby reaching an intellectual nadir for our race,they
would just as well pledge to halt the seasons or stop the tide from
coming in yet people seem fine with this behavior and the standards
attached to it.
This is never a story about one person against everyone else, it is
about setting standards where none exist and if people are prepared to
ignore the basic planetary facts organised around the rotation of the
Earth and subsequently ignore the geological or climatological
implications of planetary dynamics then there is little I can do about
it.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q=remarks&f=false
There is something poignant in reading Harrison's work as he struggles
to demonstrate the merits of his watch against a group who just do not
like him or his achievement yet that dull and dismal trait is still
present even as you ignore Harrison's explanation for daily rotation
in 24 hours where 1 hour and 15 degrees of geographical separation
form the basis of watches as rulers of distance based on rotation at
15 degrees per hour.
I do not know why people betray their astronomical heritage knowing
now just how dangerous empirical conclusions can become via the
attempt to force social policy through a reckless conclusion based on
pollution linked to climate.I have done my part to demonstrate that
exciting and productive work can be done in linking planetary dynamics
and geology ,climate ,planetary history or some other enjoyable facet
and it only requires a little effort to turn away from the novelties
and alarmism of empiricism.
Quadibloc
> there is NO evidence of active volcanism on Mars
> at present,
The methane itself _is_ evidence, since it is being released in
occasional large plumes.
Biology is an exciting possibility, but because it is so exciting, we
must be extremely cautious, and wait until ironclad and irrefutable
proof of life on Mars has been found, before breaking out the
champagne.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> A few weeks ago the
> world leaders issued a pledge to keep global temperatures within a
> certain range thereby reaching an intellectual nadir for our race,they
> would just as well pledge to halt the seasons or stop the tide from
> coming in yet people seem fine with this behavior and the standards
> attached to it.
It is not really as much like King Canute as you think.
They are only pledging to abstain, in their own behavior, from doing
things that would cause the temperatures to go outside that range.
Except, of course, they haven't really done even that, which is one
thing many people are not "fine with".
John Savard
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>There appears to be no active volcanos presently on Mars per...
"Volcanic" can include geochemical processes requiring only enough heat
to produce liquid water. That level of volcanism may be largely
undetectable by current monitoring tools (except for byproducts like
methane, of course).
Martin Brown
> On Jan 3, 11:20 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> Earth-based telescopes are detecting it and the claim has been made
>> its presence in Mars' atmosphere is being renewed since otherwise it'd
>> dissipate and disappear. That doesn't sound like "trace" to me.
>
> By whom has this claim been made?
Just about everyone researching Martian atmospheric chemistry. Main
announcement about this time last year. eg
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html
Roughly 10ppb detected in plumes which vary with the seasons.
>
> The Martian atmosphere consists chiefly of carbon dioxide. The carbon
CO2 atomic mass 44 (with traces of heavier isotopic forms)
> dioxide isn't claimed to be in imminent danger of dissipating and
> disappearing. Methane has a higher molecular weight than carbon
> dioxide. Hence, if the carbon dioxide in Mars' atmosphere isn't going
> anywhere fast, there's no pressing reason for the methane to be going
> away faster.
Wrong on just about all counts. CH4 is atomic mass 16 (with traces of
heavier isotopic forms) and so much lighter than CO2. It is certainly
prone to being broken down by hard UV. And there is enough trace oxygen
there at 0.13% and ozone at 30ppb to make methanes lifetime short due to
oxidation reactions. Formaldehyde is also seen at around 130ppb.
There is also plenty of dust in the Martian atmosphere which is probably
crucial in the catalysis of the destructive gas phase reactions in such
a rarefied atmosphere. It is interesting that the emissions follow the
seasons, but it will take mass spectrometry or another cunning method of
checking for isotopic selectivity to prove if it is life or an inorganic
weathering reaction producing/releasing the methane.
>
> If Mars had an _oxygen_ atmosphere, methane wouldn't last long because
> it would burn up. But it doesn't, and so methane in Mars' atmosphere
> could stay there for quite a while, it would seem to me.
We know from the Viking probes that there is either life or superoxides
of iron in the dust on the surface of Mars (with a preference for the
latter based on the hard solar uv sterilising the environment).
Regards,
Martin Brown
William Hamblen
wrote:
>Methane has a higher molecular weight than carbon
>dioxide.
Since when? Methane is about 16 and carbon dioxide is about 44.
Bud
Quadibloc
wrote:
> Since when? Methane is about 16 and carbon dioxide is about 44.
Oops. Hydrogen = 1, Oxygen = 16. So two oxygen atoms are heavier than
four hydrogen atoms (and both molecules have one carbon). Silly me,
thinking that all atoms are little wooden balls of about equal weight.
John Savard
oriel36
> On 1/3/10 10:44 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:22:32 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> That's right, Gerald, and there is a good reason for that. The
> >> science is too young to say definitively what all the causes are!
>
> > Of course, many explanations provided by scientific investigation are
> > not "definitive"... which of course does not mean that the explanations
> > are bad ones, nor that they aren't substantially correct. The
> > explanation that convective processes are the primary driver of plate
> > movement is very well accepted, and is supported by an increasing volume
> > of data as research advances. (That there is convection in the core and
> > mantle is certain, as these have been directly observed.)
>
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> >http://www.cloudbait.com
>
> -Sam
It has been many years since I have come here to demonstrate the great
human achievements which create the timekeeping averages from the raw
planetary dynamics and their cycles,even modify or extend this
appreciation by making planetary or solar system comparisons using
modern imaging yet people choose to betray the astronomical heritage
or believe people will get along with something which dishonors our
race.
Even allowing for a majority who just cannot alter their minds for
whatever reasons,I still cannot account for those people who are
intelligent enough to realise that a great injustice exists,one which
eventually leads to this present generation believing it can control
global climate and temperatures within a certain range due to the
original fraud which tried to use an Ra/Dec bridge between planetary
dynamics and objects at an experimental level.
What must go through your heads when encountering Harrison's brief
outlines of the relationship between planetary geography,time
organised around daily rotation because I certainly do not understand
why people are doing this ?.Surely somebody with enough concern must
feel that things have gone too far and it is time to return to more
stable ideologies of terrestrial processes until a clear and clean
view of planetary dynamics emerge.
" The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon
the following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360
equal parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are
called Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round
its own axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period,
each of those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively
opposite to the Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day
at each of those degrees;) and it must follow, that from the time any
one of those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just
four minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that
quantity; so that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it
will be noon with us four minutes the later, and for every degree
Eastward four minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any
greater or less quantity." John Harrison
http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q=remarks&f=false
Beneath the surface crust is a different picture to the one Harrison
knew,an uneven rotational gradient from equator to poles derived from
generalised rules for rotating viscous compositions which link maximum
equatorial speed with spherical deviation and tectonic activity.
Quadibloc
> What must go through your heads when encountering Harrison's brief
> outlines of the relationship between planetary geography,time
> organised around daily rotation because I certainly do not understand
> why people are doing this ?.Surely somebody with enough concern must
> feel that things have gone too far and it is time to return to more
> stable ideologies of terrestrial processes until a clear and clean
> view of planetary dynamics emerge.
>
> " The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon
> the following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360
> equal parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are
> called Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round
> its own axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period,
> each of those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively
> opposite to the Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day
> at each of those degrees;) and it must follow, that from the time any
> one of those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just
> four minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that
> quantity; so that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it
> will be noon with us four minutes the later, and for every degree
> Eastward four minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any
> greater or less quantity." John Harrison
What goes through my head is that he simplified matters, referring
only to that which is relevant to timekeeping.
So the detail of the Equation of Time was not important to his
explanation of how local time varies with longitude. Nor was the fact
that the 24 hour average solar day is the consequence of the
combination of two motions; the Earth's rotation, and the Earth's
orbit around the Sun.
Simply because, when he made this statement you quote, he was not
being intentionally deceitful or anything like that, does not mean
that we have to take his statement there which you have quoted as the
Absolute Truth, not subject to detailed amendments and qualifications
when we consider the Earth's motions from a more detailed standpoint
for other purposes.
And, of course, I have also noted that local time expresses a
geometrical relation between the Earth and the Sun, and thus a full
day must equal a 360 degree circle even if the basic rotational period
is not exactly a day because of the orbital contribution.
John Savard
BradGuth
Very little of Earth's hydrocarbon reserves are those derived from any
complex biodiversity and of tropical plants that conveniently died off
by the billions upon billions of tonnes, forming into those gooey
lakes, pools, oily sands, layers of coal and various deep reservoirs
(down to 8+ km underground), for us to discover and burn up every last
drop, kg or m3.
~ BG
Ken S. Tucker
Yes, it is complicated. As usual we have the standard pablum, then
we have science.
In Grade school I was presented with a photo of a leaf implanted on
a piece of coal as evidence that old trees made coal beds, I scratched
my head with skepticism.
I could also suppose trees originated in tar marshes where the carbon
was easy and free, but later evolved to take apart CO2 using solar to
get
the C via photosynthesis, and the tree died into the marsh that was
later
subsumed into a coal bed, from the original marsh.
For the last 100 million years or so, Earthlings we call trees, have
used
solar and wind energy to crack CO2 providing we mammals with O2,
and themselves with C, something we humans have a problem doing,
so ya gotta respect them Earthlings.
Once the free tar marshes were gone trees evolved to suck C from the
CO2 in Earths atmosphere, what a f***king technological advancement
that we humans cannot yet match at any useful scale, yet trees, who
are fellow Earthlings, did that 100 million years ago when they faced
a
petro crisis, sound familiar?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Martin Brown
Perhaps the stable isotope ratios of carbon would convince you. Most
petroleum has a very clear signature of photosynthesis and tracer
molecules as impurities that were once plant pigments.
> I could also suppose trees originated in tar marshes where the carbon
> was easy and free, but later evolved to take apart CO2 using solar to
> get
> the C via photosynthesis, and the tree died into the marsh that was
> later
> subsumed into a coal bed, from the original marsh.
You can suppose what you like. But the real breakthrough for
photosynthesis was capturing light photons and splitting water into
reducing agent and free oxygen without destroying the catalyst.
>
> For the last 100 million years or so, Earthlings we call trees, have
> used
> solar and wind energy to crack CO2 providing we mammals with O2,
> and themselves with C, something we humans have a problem doing,
> so ya gotta respect them Earthlings.
They don't crack CO2 they crack water and use reactive intermediates to
reduce CO2 to sugars. the CO2 supply is diffusion limited so they
preferentially concentrate the lighter isotope form.
>
> Once the free tar marshes were gone trees evolved to suck C from the
> CO2 in Earths atmosphere, what a f***king technological advancement
> that we humans cannot yet match at any useful scale, yet trees, who
> are fellow Earthlings, did that 100 million years ago when they faced
> a
> petro crisis, sound familiar?
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
The first organisms to do it with chlorophyll were almost certainly
green slimes although they were predated by other coloured gunges. One
of them was also green - Chlorobium tepidum see for example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020708082404.htm
Or for other archaea
http://plantphys.info/organismal/lechtml/archaea.shtml
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
Martin, before we go into 'real' science, could you inform us how much
Exxon stock you own, because your next move will be telling our group
that methane oceans on Titan are from plants, ok you're religious so
why
would I confuse you with facts, it's a dead end.
Best
Ken
Pierre Vandevenne
wrote:
> Perhaps the stable isotope ratios of carbon would convince you. Most
> petroleum has a very clear signature of photosynthesis and tracer
> molecules as impurities that were once plant pigments.
I read the "Deep Hot Biosphere" a few years ago and, apparently, the
problem of the origin of oil isn't 100% settled. Of course on the more
specific issue of currently available oil, the biogenic origin seems
hard to dispute.
A recent reference
Pierre Vandevenne
> Martin, before we go into 'real' science, could you inform us how much
> Exxon stock you own, because your next move will be telling our group
> that methane oceans on Titan are from plants, ok you're religious so
> why would I confuse you with facts, it's a dead end.
Martin definitely belongs to rational crowd here.
If you can come up with a convincing reaction that "cracks" CO2
without ATP, NADPH and H+ I am sure he will consider it, and probably
shoot it down with rational arguments.
Going back to this
> because your next move will be telling our group
> that methane oceans on Titan are from plants
you also said
> I could also suppose trees originated in tar marshes where the carbon
> was easy and free, but later evolved to take apart CO2 using solar to
So the real question is: if carbon was easy and free in tar marshes,
why don't we have trees on Titan?
;-)
Ken S. Tucker
> On 5 jan, 12:05, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > Martin, before we go into 'real' science, could you inform us how much
> > Exxon stock you own, because your next move will be telling our group
> > that methane oceans on Titan are from plants, ok you're religious so
> > why would I confuse you with facts, it's a dead end.
>
> Martin definitely belongs to rational crowd here.
Barely, his posts knee-jerk me with so much techno-crap, but I'll
give him a bit of leeway based on your respectable recommendation.
> If you can come up with a convincing reaction that "cracks" CO2
> without ATP, NADPH and H+ I am sure he will consider it, and probably
> shoot it down with rational arguments.
Yes, I'm aware of photosynthetic - phosphorylation,
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/photosynthetic+phosphorylation
but Martin doesn't understand it, as any expert would see. What I find
difficult
is explaining simple shit to dummies, maybe you can/
Plants convert CO2 to C + O2,.
> Going back to this
> > because your next move will be telling our group
> > that methane oceans on Titan are from plants
>
> you also said
>
> > I could also suppose trees originated in tar marshes where the carbon
> > was easy and free, but later evolved to take apart CO2 using solar to
>
> So the real question is: if carbon was easy and free in tar marshes,
> why don't we have trees on Titan?
> ;-)
Actually that's a good question, (IMHO), the reason I hold open is
life
around thermal vents that some biologists hold to be a life source in
the bottom of Earth's oceans, it's an exciting thought.
Some conjecture life exists there, what do you think?
Ken
Quadibloc
> Martin, before we go into 'real' science, could you inform us how much
> Exxon stock you own, because your next move will be telling our group
> that methane oceans on Titan are from plants, ok you're religious so
> why would I confuse you with facts, it's a dead end.
There are no plants on Titan. Therefore, it does not have an oxygen
atmosphere. It is also cold on Titan. So methane there doesn't
disappear; it comes from the original material of the solar system,
like the methane in comets or on Jupiter.
This is known, and it doesn't contradict the origins of fossil fuels
on Earth. Why do you think that you can be right when you are out of
step with the world scientific community? I know that I think that
professors who are well educated and conscientious are more likely to
be right than the odd individual with an unusual theory who is
generally thought of as a crackpot. I am not tempted to believe the
crackpot just because his theory might be more exciting, or promise
cheap energy, or something like that.
John Savard
Pierre Vandevenne
> around thermal vents that some biologists hold to be a life source in
> the bottom of Earth's oceans, it's an exciting thought.
> Some conjecture life exists there, what do you think?
Hard to say. There are other candidates as well, for different reasons
(Enceladus, Europa, Mars...).
My personal opinion hardly matters, but fwiw, my feeling is that once
life is sufficiently well established, it will evolve and adapt itself
to pretty harsh conditions. However, what seems hard at this point is
getting started. Urey-Miller style experiments offered interesting
results, and even more now that they have been re-analyzed, but it is
still a long way. And even if we found life or traces of past life on
Mars, the problem wouldn't be settled: if it is similar to ours, we'll
have to rule out past contamination from Earth. If it isn't similar to
ours, we'll take a while before recognizing it.
In any case, like many of us here, I would like to see a positive
answer before I die, but with budget constraints, it's unlikely. I'd
love to hear new "WOW signals", and all that kind of stuff. One can
always hope.
oriel36
> On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
> > Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
> > 40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.
>
> A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
> of angular velocity. Or State the 360 rotation in earth days.
>
> For the Earth, the angular velocity is 0.72921158553 10^-4 rad/s.
> For the Earth, one rotation takes 0.997269566 days
>
> For Venus, it is 2.99244922 10^-7 rad/s
> For Venus, one rotation takes 243.0185 days
All planets,including Venus,have an orbital feature aside from daily
rotation.
In the absence of daily rotation,a planet orbitally turns with respect
to the central Sun ,hypothetically every location on the planet would
experience an entire daylight/darkness cycle that takes the length of
time to complete an annual orbital circuit.It is possible to see this
in action due to the fortuitous rotational orientation of Uranus which
generates polar conditions over an annual cycle and its distance from
Earth and the Sun which allows that motion to be imaged in almost
isolation and unaffected by the Earth's orbital perspective -
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg
The orbital motion of Venus has the same fascinating component as does
the Earth,even Sun-synchronous satellites pick it up but assign a
silly 'equatorial bulge' cause to it -
"The uniformity of sun angle is achieved by tuning the natural
precession of the orbit to one full circle per year. Because the Earth
rotates, it is slightly oblate (the equator is slightly longer than it
would be if Earth were shaped into a perfect sphere), and the extra
mass near the equator causes spacecraft that are in inclined orbits to
precess: the plane of the orbit is not fixed in space relative to the
distant stars, but rotates slowly about the Earth's axis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit
The Earth's 40km spherical deviation is due to the uneven rotational
gradient in the viscous interior,specifically differential rotation
and if the GOCE satellite does its job,it will pick up signatures of
the rotational mechanism which causes the planet to deviate from a
perfect sphere along with the geological affects of the same
differential rotation mechanism.
Just getting this thread back on track from airheads who can't discuss
a single topic with any of the great scientific traits of focus and
concentration.
Pierre Vandevenne
> All planets,including Venus,have an orbital feature aside from daily
> rotation.
Yes! they do! Zillions of them.
> In the absence of daily rotation,a planet orbitally turns with respect
> to the central Sun ,hypothetically every location on the planet would
> experience an entire daylight/darkness cycle that takes the length of
> time to complete an annual orbital circuit.It is possible to see this
> in action due to the fortuitous rotational orientation of Uranus which
> generates polar conditions over an annual cycle and its distance from
> Earth and the Sun which allows that motion to be imaged in almost
> isolation and unaffected by the Earth's orbital perspective -
Well Uranus rotates in something like 17 hours and orbits in something
like 84 years with an axis tilted something like 82° which leads to
seasons lasting 21 years. What impact has the Earth orbital
perspective on that?
> The Earth's 40km spherical deviation is due to the uneven rotational
<quote>
4. For advanced classes (3rd or 4th grade), have a guided inquiry
about what the shape of the Earth really is, and why.
</quote>
> Just getting this thread back on track from airheads who can't discuss
> a single topic with any of the great scientific traits of focus and
> concentration.
And your point was?
Martin Brown
Oh yes. It certainly isn't ruled out for lighter hydrocarbon species.
And it might well still have the life signature if the CO2 source was
subducted limestone which was previously living coral or sea shells.
You get a lot of fossils in the coal seams. I burn coal at home and live
not far from one of the worlds major deposits of high quality jet and
amber (the latter frequently with lots of insects trapped in it). Jet is
known to be fossilised wood of the Araucaria species (monkey puzzle
tree). Most fossil fuels comes with evidence of fossils either
microscopic fossils, pollen, diatoms or obvious breakdown products
plants. The mainstream view is that most of it started out life as plant
material (with the possible exception of a trace of the lighter alkane
gasses). Decent intorduction (note the last three paragraphs).
http://geology.about.com/od/petroleum/a/aa_petroleum.htm
Some of the weathering reactions of serpentine type igneous rocks in
thermal vents with water and CO2 can produce methane and are one of the
favourites for methane production on Mars. I would like it to be life,
but the evidence so far is stacked against given the harsh UV and
superoxide environment. Abiotic reactions can also occur more slowly.
The right sorts of rocks have been seen on Mars so it is pretty clear
where we want to go an look.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1787.pdf
Minature instruments have got a lot more capable so next time it may
well be possible to use MS to decide if life or oxidative chemistry is
responsible for the methane observed.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
You are a third rate fuckwit with delusions of grandeur.
Titan is a heck of lot further from the sun and methane is a liquid at
the prevailing surface temperatures there. No surprise then that it has
stayed put. There isn't much methane on Venus which is even warmer than
the Earth (and thanks to runaway greenhouse now a lot hotter). Most of
the hydrogen has been lost from that planets atmosphere now.
Methane can even be made abiotically by inorganic reactions by the
weathering of hot serpentine type igneous rocks in the presence of water
and CO2. There are multiple mechanisms at work, but it doesn't alter the
fact that most petroleum deposits (AFAIK all that have been examined)
are clearly the result of thermal decomposition of ancient plant
material. deltaC13 is used as a marker for fossil fuels.
You can even tell on a good day whether the plants mainly had C4, C3 or
CAM photosynthesis. The technology is used amongst other things to catch
wine fraud - adulterating genuine grape juice with cheap cane sugars.
I begin to wonder if you are a sock puppet of Brad Guth the Venusatic.
Regards,
Martin Brown
oriel36
> On Jan 5, 4:34 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All planets,including Venus,have an orbital feature aside from daily
> > rotation.
>
> Yes! they do! Zillions of them.
>
> > In the absence of daily rotation,a planet orbitally turns with respect
> > to the central Sun ,hypothetically every location on the planet would
> > experience an entire daylight/darkness cycle that takes the length of
> > time to complete an annual orbital circuit.It is possible to see this
> > in action due to the fortuitous rotational orientation of Uranus which
> > generates polar conditions over an annual cycle and its distance from
> > Earth and the Sun which allows that motion to be imaged in almost
> > isolation and unaffected by the Earth's orbital perspective -
>
> Well Uranus rotates in something like 17 hours and orbits in something
> like 84 years with an axis tilted something like 82° which leads to
> seasons lasting 21 years. What impact has the Earth orbital
> perspective on that?
>
That is really sweet ,truly, but I am looking for somebody with a
better feel for 21st century imaging.
That somebody will now know that seasonal variations in temperatures
are orbital terms so astronomically speaking the hemispherical
explanation based on 4 seasonal quarters is dropped in favor of the
only valid astronomical descriptions - whether a planet has polar or
equatorial conditions.Uranus has almost total polar conditions while
the Earth's climate is distinctly equatorial but the idea of a solid
'tilted' axis has to go in favor of rotational orientation in order to
reflect the differential rotation of the viscopus composition beneath
the fractured crust.
I would really have no use for a person who approaches Uranus and
hemispherical 4 seasons descriptions when I need somebody with genuine
interpretative skills so enjoy your opinions of 'tilt' and the
seasons.
> > The Earth's 40km spherical deviation is due to the uneven rotational
>
> <quote>
> 4. For advanced classes (3rd or 4th grade), have a guided inquiry
> about what the shape of the Earth really is, and why.
> </quote>
>
Both the Earth's shape and crustal evolution/motion are bound by a
common mechanism, (differential rotation of the viscous interior) if
the geological institutes want to insult themselves on account of you
bunch of numbskulls who can't affirm the rotation of the Earth through
15 degrees every hour then there is little I can do about it. I won't
bother to beg questions at your level of thinking but people who
should know better had better just work with the correlation maximum
equatorial speed of 1669.9 km per hour and the 40 km spherical
deviation in terms of fluid dynamics of the interior and just ignore
'sidereal time' junkies.
> > Just getting this thread back on track from airheads who can't discuss
> > a single topic with any of the great scientific traits of focus and
> > concentration.
>
> And your point was?
I rarely say it but I can't imagine living a life of utter dullness
that is reflected in the way you think of the celestial arena and
planetary sciences.I put in a lot of effort last year in demonstrating
how a planet has either polar or equatorial conditions thereby
dropping hemispherical descriptions of 4 seasons via axial tilt.It is
time for people to grow up quickly in order to present a working
relationship between planetary dynamics and global climate and that
means many people who formely opposed the modification based on
planetary comparisons which modern imaging allows.
You just continue on with your non technical dull responses, besides,
you wouldn't like the geological consequences of the rotation of the
interior besides and I am content to leave you where you
intellectually are.
Quadibloc
> In the absence of daily rotation,a planet orbitally turns with respect
> to the central Sun ,hypothetically every location on the planet would
> experience an entire daylight/darkness cycle that takes the length of
> time to complete an annual orbital circuit.
This is exactly right!!! Congratulations.
As it happens, that daylight/darkness cycle would involve the Sun
rising in the *west* and setting in the *east*, however.
So if daily rotation, in the same counter-clockwise direction (when
viewed from the north of the plane of the ecliptic) existed, but had
exactly the same period as the planet's orbit around the central Sun,
then there would be no daylight/darkness cycle, and one side of the
planet would always be lighted, and the other side would always be
dark. This is the situation astronomers used to mistakenly believe
applied to the planet Mercury. It does apply to the Moon with respect
to its orbit around the Earth.
So with a daily rotation of 0 rotations per year, the orbit causes -1
daylight/darkness cycles - which means 1 daylight/darkness cycle in a
year, but with the Sun rising in the west instead of the east.
And with a daily rotation of 1 rotations per year, and the orbit
causing -1 daylight/darkness cycles - you get 0 daylight/darkness
cycles in a year: a tidally-locked situation where one side is always
in light, and the other side is always in darkness.
And with a daily rotation of 366.25 rotations per year, and the orbit
causing -1 daylight/darkness cycles - you get 365.25 daylight/darkness
cycles in a year. So you have a daylight/darkness cycle whose
timekeeping average is 24 hours, and a daily rotation with a period of
23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
Congratulations on finally getting it right!!!
John Savard
Ken S. Tucker
Martin over estimates me, I'm a fourth rate fuckwit.
Martin you sound knowledgable, what's the IQ of a library?
What you are doing is regurgitating basic info and the usual analyses
which must be questioned in view of the overwhelming amount of CH4
that is exo-terrestrial.
As I've explained, huge amounts of CH4 were stored in Earth as it
formed,
and under heat and pressure it forms more dense hydrocargons such as
heptanes...
> Titan is a heck of lot further from the sun and methane is a liquid at
> the prevailing surface temperatures there. No surprise then that it has
> stayed put. There isn't much methane on Venus which is even warmer than
> the Earth (and thanks to runaway greenhouse now a lot hotter). Most of
> the hydrogen has been lost from that planets atmosphere now.
>
> Methane can even be made abiotically by inorganic reactions by the
> weathering of hot serpentine type igneous rocks in the presence of water
> and CO2. There are multiple mechanisms at work, but it doesn't alter the
> fact that most petroleum deposits (AFAIK all that have been examined)
> are clearly the result of thermal decomposition of ancient plant
> material. deltaC13 is used as a marker for fossil fuels.
That's difficult to say, since bacteria invade petro deposits, so your
scheme is nullified.
> You can even tell on a good day whether the plants mainly had C4, C3 or
> CAM photosynthesis. The technology is used amongst other things to catch
> wine fraud - adulterating genuine grape juice with cheap cane sugars.
Bingo, that's what I meant, that's not even wrong.
> I begin to wonder if you are a sock puppet of Brad Guth the Venusatic.
Martin that's a really stupid insult, you have 2 ding-bat points, 1
from Brad too.
I post under a consistent handle and think Brad does too, don't fuck
things up.
Ken
Quadibloc
> Martin you sound knowledgable, what's the IQ of a library?
Many public libraries contain books written by people other than the
orthodox; so you might well find a book on flying saucers or astrology
in a public library.
It is precisely because a library is not intelligent that it cannot
distinguish itself from books containing the truth and misleading
books on its shelves.
> What you are doing is regurgitating basic info and the usual analyses
> which must be questioned in view of the overwhelming amount of CH4
> that is exo-terrestrial.
> As I've explained, huge amounts of CH4 were stored in Earth as it
> formed,
> and under heat and pressure it forms more dense hydrocargons such as
> heptanes...
It is true that when the Earth formed, or at least after it cooled
off, it might have started out with a lot of methane. After all, why
shouldn't it have gotten some, when you look at all the gas giants.
But it clearly failed to keep it on its surface, being too small and
too hot.
But I don't see why you would have reason to expect there would be
large amounts of primordial methane underground.
John Savard
BradGuth
> On 1/2/10 12:04 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > The equatorial region of Venus rotates at 6.5 km per hour while the
> > Earth's equatorial region rotates 1669.8 km per hour and a full
> > 40,075 km rotation in 24 hours.
>
> A much more meaningful way to relate rotations, is in terms
> of angular velocity. Or State the 360 rotation in earth days.
>
> For the Earth, the angular velocity is 0.72921158553 10^-4 rad/s.
> For the Earth, one rotation takes 0.997269566 days
>
> For Venus, it is 2.99244922 10^-7 rad/s
> For Venus, one rotation takes 243.0185 days
The only valid reason why Venus is still geothermally hot, is because
it's simply not nearly as old as Earth. It's not even rotating fast
enough or otherwise sufficiently paramagnetic for solar tidal and
magnetic forces to modulate and heat that planet from the inside out.
~ BG
palsing
> The only valid reason why Venus is still geothermally hot, is because
> it's simply not nearly as old as Earth
I give up, where could you possibly get such a wacky idea? I would
love to see your "validation" for such a harebrained statement.
\Paul A
BradGuth
Lets go to those Russian missions and the ongoing ESA mission before
looking back at the Magellan and other US missions to Venus.
How many thousand active geothermal vents and/or volcanic lava/mud hot
spots are still actively spewing how many superheated tonnes per
second?
Couldn't it be in excess of a thousand tonnes per second, if not an
average as great as a hundred thousand tonnes per second?
Venus has been losing roughly an average of 20.5 w/m2, and that's only
94.3e14 watts (9,430 terawatts.h).
~ BG
Quadibloc
Well, don't you remember that Venus was formed only a few thousand
years ago, when it shot out of Jupiter as a giant comet?
I mean, it's right there in "Worlds in Collision" by Immanuel
Velikovsky, which, according to Ed Conrad as well, is much more
authoritative than the theories of those dull old scientists who hold
tenure at colleges and universities around the world.
I think it's something to do with the fact that the theories of
Immanuel Velikovsky were explained by him in simple and clear language
that any fool could understand, while the official scientists hide
behind complicated mathematics - which, naturally, proves that they
don't really have a leg to stand on.
The idea that maybe this complicated mathematics is _not_ a hoax, but
is really necessary to do the science, and that there are plenty of
other people out there who have learned the mathematics, and
understand it clearly, so that it can't be, and isn't being, used as a
smokescreen, *would require people to admit that there are other
people who understand something valid that they don't*.
This is why Immanuel Velikovsky (and, at least according to Ed Conrad,
if not Brad Guth) Edgar Cayce have those official scientists beat. Or,
from the viewpoint of another poster here, this is why Copernicus,
Galileo, and Kepler were great scientists, but then astronomy fell off
the deep end when those charlatans Newton and Flamsteed came along.
About the only cure for this I can see is:
1) Don't let people vote until they've graduated from high school, and
2) Don't let people graduate from high school unless they've passed
courses in calculus _and_ in differential equations.
This is a pretty drastic cure, but if that's what it takes to achieve
sanity for our society, well, it's what it takes.
John Savard
BradGuth
> On Jan 5, 8:23 pm, palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 6:55 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only valid reason why Venus is still geothermally hot, is because
> > > it's simply not nearly as old as Earth
>
> > I give up, where could you possibly get such a wacky idea? I would
> > love to see your "validation" for such a harebrained statement.
>
> Well, don't you remember that Venus was formed only a few thousand
> years ago, when it shot out of Jupiter as a giant comet?
dwarf of a planet.
Your silly ZNR mindset is noted, although your past and current
actions prove that you are actually worse than any average ZNR. Are
you planning on running for the top NWO position of global warlord/
dictator?
~ BG
BradGuth
Lets go to those Russian missions and the ongoing ESA mission before
looking back at the Magellan and several other US missions to Venus,
whereas all of which reported that the planet itself was simply much
hotter than the surrounding atmosphere that’s even cryogenic at
sufficient altitude, and the mid latitudes being by far the coldest..
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Venus_Express/SEM5A373R8F_1.html#subhead1
How many thousand active geothermal vents and/or volcanic lava/mud hot
spots are still actively spewing and venting at how many superheated
tonnes per second?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/venus_earth_010702.html
“The volcanic activity on Venus is thought to be similar to the pre-
history geologic activity on Earth 2.5 billion years ago”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+diminutive+domes+of+Venus:+they+look+volcanic+and+may+number+in...-a09136385
“The diminutive domes of Venus: they look volcanic and may number in
the millions.”
“The domes are more than mere curiosities. If in fact they are still
active and releasing magma, they will confirm a belief of many
planetary scientists, including what Arvidson calls a majority of the
Magellan team: that volcanic Venus did not cool down in a
"geologically recent" past millions of years ago, but continues to
erupt to this day.”
Couldn't it be well in excess of a thousand tonnes per second, if not
an average as great as easily spewing and venting a hundred thousand
tonnes per second?
By several accounts, Venus has been losing roughly an average of 20.5
w/m2, and that's only 94.3e14 watts (9430 terawatts.h).
I found a terrestrial measurement of sufficient isolation, as taken
under a thick Antarctic layer of glacier ice, suggesting that Earth is
losing <125 mw/m2, or 63.75 terawatts and that’s roughly 148 times
less heat loss than Venus.
~ BG
Quadibloc
> On Jan 6, 5:55 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:> On Jan 5, 8:23 pm,
> > Well, don't you remember that Venus was formed only a few thousand
> > years ago, when it shot out of Jupiter as a giant comet?
> That's silly. Nothing ever leaves Jupiter because its a sub brown
> dwarf of a planet.
I'm glad to hear you _don't_ believe Velikovsky's silly notions, and
thus I apologize for that imputation.
John Savard
BradGuth
It seems you're not the only one as having suggested that I'm another
plagiarizing Einstein, or some other mainstream puppet or parrot.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." /
Einstein
I've done my own thing from the very get go, only later learning of
others having similar or weird notions as to explaining odd things
like our extremely unusual moon and that of a toasty planet like Venus
which seems to have lost its moon.
~ BG
BradGuth
We humans amount to perhaps 0.0001% of the biodiversity mass, and yet
we manage to consume, impact and/or destroy <90% of it (including the
perpetual carnage of our own kind). How dumbfounded is that?
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Jan 5, 7:23 pm, palsing <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 6:55 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only valid reason why Venus is still geothermally hot, is because
> > > it's simply not nearly as old as Earth
>
> > I give up, where could you possibly get such a wacky idea? I would
> > love to see your "validation" for such a harebrained statement.
>
> > \Paul A
>
> Lets go to those Russian missions and the ongoing ESA mission before
> looking back at the Magellan and several other US missions to Venus,
> whereas all of which reported that the planet itself was simply much
> hotter than the surrounding atmosphere that’s even cryogenic at
> sufficient altitude, and the mid latitudes being by far the coldest..
> http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
> http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Venus_Express/SEM5A373R8F_1.html#subhead1
>
> How many thousand active geothermal vents and/or volcanic lava/mud hot
> spots are still actively spewing and venting at how many superheated
> tonnes per second?
> “The volcanic activity on Venus is thought to be similar to the pre-
> history geologic activity on Earth 2.5 billion years ago”
> “The diminutive domes of Venus: they look volcanic and may number in
> the millions.”
>
> “The domes are more than mere curiosities. If in fact they are still
> active and releasing magma, they will confirm a belief of many
> planetary scientists, including what Arvidson calls a majority of the
> Magellan team: that volcanic Venus did not cool down in a
> "geologically recent" past millions of years ago, but continues to
> erupt to this day.”
>
> Couldn't it be well in excess of a thousand tonnes per second, if not
> an average as great as easily spewing and venting a hundred thousand
>
> By several accounts, Venus has been losing roughly an average of 20.5
> w/m2, and that's only 94.3e14 watts (9430 terawatts.h).
>
> I found a terrestrial measurement of sufficient isolation, as taken
> under a thick Antarctic layer of glacier ice, suggesting that Earth is
> losing <125 mw/m2, or 63.75 terawatts and that’s roughly 148 times
> less heat loss than Venus.
Another point; is Venus getting more or less tidal locked to us?
Each near pass or 3 to 4 body alignment gets Venus close to 100x Lunar
distance.
Considering the nearly Earth like mass of Venus, that's not an
insignificant matter of sufficient radial distance without the gravity
and subsequent tidal influence of such planets and that of our
unusually massive moon(Selene) interacting with one another. A truly
good (meaning unbiased) orbital simulator should help prove this out.
Then why not offer a public funded supercomputer (most any one of a
dozen will do) along with its public owned simulator that takes at
least all 10+ significant bodies plus a few user defined variables
into account (including physical interactions)? (we might as well
include those variable and evolving Sirius perturbations while we're
at it)
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
Page 6 looks rather interesting (not that I've ever agreed with
everything John Ackerman has interpreted or having otherwise to say,
such as his 6000 year conjecture simply doesn’t fly unless early
humans that had to be extremely survival smart and especially moon
savvy, were actually rather easily dumbfounded as well as blind)
~ BG
Quadibloc
> Another point; is Venus getting more or less tidal locked to us?
Could be. In eight Earth years, we overtake Venus almost exactly five
times - eight Earth years almost exactly equal thirteen Venus years.
John Savard
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>> Another point; �is Venus getting more or less tidal locked to us?
>
>Could be. In eight Earth years, we overtake Venus almost exactly five
>times - eight Earth years almost exactly equal thirteen Venus years.
A coincidence only. There's no evidence of any kind of orbital resonance
developing between Earth and Venus.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
BradGuth
So, perhaps Jupiter isn't quite as all powerful as we've been told,
especially when Venus gets a double alignment boost with Earth plus
our moon which happens every so often.
However, what happens to the Venus orbit when that multiple alignment
includes Jupiter?
~ BG
Ken S. Tucker
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:55:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >> Another point; is Venus getting more or less tidal locked to us?
>
> >Could be. In eight Earth years, we overtake Venus almost exactly five
> >times - eight Earth years almost exactly equal thirteen Venus years.
>
> A coincidence only. There's no evidence of any kind of orbital resonance
> developing between Earth and Venus.
The experts do not think it's coincidence. I've written astro sims
dedicated
to Venusian rotation, under their direction, and while we have
conjectures,
there doesn't seem to be any consensus, that include gravity and
magnetism.
Currently I favor magnetic alignment of Venus with Earth, but I
wouldn't sell
the idea.
Ken
BradGuth
BradGuth
> On Jan 6, 5:07 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:55:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> > >> Another point; is Venus getting more or less tidal locked to us?
>
> > >Could be. In eight Earth years, we overtake Venus almost exactly five
> > >times - eight Earth years almost exactly equal thirteen Venus years.
>
> > A coincidence only. There's no evidence of any kind of orbital resonance
> > developing between Earth and Venus.
Other than peer replicated observationology and a great deal of
physics, science and applied technology that's suggesting otherwise.
Peterson must be deathly afraid of the public having any supercomputer
and orbital simulator access.
>
> The experts do not think it's coincidence. I've written astro sims
> dedicated to Venusian rotation, under their direction, and while
> we have conjectures, there doesn't seem to be any consensus,
> that include gravity and magnetism. Currently I favor magnetic
>alignment of Venus with Earth, but I wouldn't sell the idea.
> Ken
I tend to agree, that it's not coincidence.
~ BG
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>The experts do not think it's coincidence. I've written astro sims
>dedicated
>to Venusian rotation, under their direction, and while we have
>conjectures,
>there doesn't seem to be any consensus, that include gravity and
>magnetism.
>Currently I favor magnetic alignment of Venus with Earth, but I
>wouldn't sell
>the idea.
A magnetic connection, of course, is ridiculous. But I'd be curious for
a reference to an expert opinion that the approximately integral
relationship between Earth years and Venusian years is something other
than coincidental.
oriel36
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:00:24 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
Experts indeed !,how many in sci.astro.amateur have now become
familiar with the specifics of orbital motion which all planets
have,where any given location will experience a single daylight/
darkness cycle owing to the way a planet orbitally turns through 360
degrees to the central Sun and quite apart from the 360 degree turning
due to daily rotation.The changing relationship between that orbital
turning and daily rotation and its characteristics is the fundamental
source for seasonal change of latitudinal variations in daylight/
darkness,the variations in the natural noon cycle and temperature
fluctuations which separate climate from weather.
The new experts will set aside the hemispherical explanation for the 4
seasons for a global view based on the changing relationship between
daily rotational and orbital dynamics and they will do so based on
visual observations and planetary comparisons.So,the expert opinions
begin here rather than making believe that there are 'experts' out
there somewhere.