Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #588782 > unrolled thread

Jupiter Red Spot Theory

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Jupiter Red Spot Theory Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 11:00 -0700
    Jupiter Red Spot Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 11:27 -0700
      Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:02 -0500
        Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:13 -0700
          Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:20 -0500
            Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:34 -0700
              Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:29 -0500
                Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 07:05 -0700
                  Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 10:03 -0500
                    Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:34 -0700
        Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-12 02:47 +0200
    Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 12:30 -0700
      Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 19:32 -0700
        Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 20:53 -0700
          Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 01:32 -0700
            Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 14:11 -0700
              Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 17:10 -0700
              Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 18:29 -0700
    Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 18:34 -0700
    Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-07-13 08:58 -0400
      Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:40 -0700
        Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-13 17:05 +0000
          Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 10:53 -0700
            Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 11:27 -0700
              Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 18:18 -0700
                Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 18:52 -0700
                  Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 21:00 -0700
                    Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 05:40 -0700
                      Re: Jupiter Red Spot Theory "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 16:39 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#588782 — Jupiter Red Spot Theory

All known planets with high clouds have a clear atmosphere near the ground. Venus has thick clouds up high, but the Russians discovered the clear atmosphere at ground level. Titan and Earth also have high clouds and transparent gases at ground level. Jupiter is not known to have a clear gas layer down low, but it is expected by the author, not by professional astrophysicists.

The gravity of Jupiter accelerates stuff at 24.8 meters per second squared at the cloud tops. If the rocky core of Jupiter is like the Earth, the gravity at the surface of the core is far less than on Earth. Jupiter is 300 times as massive as Earth. So the gravity at the core of Jupiter is about 300 times less than on Earth.

The core of Jupiter can be non-spherical because the gravity there is ten times less than on the asteroid Vesta. Even though the core can be as massive as Earth, it can be shaped like a bowling pin, elongated and with scooped out features fanning into the wind. See the photo of asteroid Itokawa. That fan effect of the core causes The Great Red Spot. A big cyclone runs from the core to the cloud tops, permanently. A spacecraft submarine can go there to photograph the core through clear air. A 10,000 mile thick layer of transparent gases will allow people to see a spectacle that is imaginable. High clouds over a tornado will be seen to go to the dual core of Jupiter. The red spot is the top of a tornado that starts on a mountain peak of the rocky core.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#588786

Jupiter is a round planet of lava
and crust just like every other.
IF they manage to get Juno
to work, they will see that,
but some will deny the evidence 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588793

On 7/11/2016 1:27 PM, john wrote:
> Jupiter is a round planet of lava
> and crust just like every other.
> IF they manage to get Juno
> to work, they will see that,
> but some will deny the evidence
>

We shall see, won't we?
What's going to be especially interesting is what you do with results 
that are different than your predictions.

Like your prediction that the satellite would get eaten by Jupiter 
before it could settle into orbit, because (according to you) Jupiter's 
gravity is a lot stronger than anybody thought. But YOU KNEW AHEAD OF 
TIME the probe would fall into Jupiter earlier than designed, because 
YOU DON'T NEED DATA to determine truth.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588798

I didn't say it would get eaten at
any particular time- just that it
wouldn't behave how they thought 
and would be eaten.
I will be surprised if their
instruments function, but if they
do, we certainly will see where
the bear shits

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588799

On 7/11/2016 2:13 PM, john wrote:
> I didn't say it would get eaten at
> any particular time- just that it
> wouldn't behave how they thought
> and would be eaten.

Uh-huh. And what if it behaves as they thought?
Then what, John?

> I will be surprised if their
> instruments function, but if they
> do, we certainly will see where
> the bear shits

Why yes, I believe we will, because measurement and observation trump 
common sense or what you BELIEVE will happen.

I'm looking forward to you being surprised, but it doesn't seem to 
change your thinking at all. Wonder why that is.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588804

Odd
I, too, hope their instruments function.
However, we may never know if they do,
and don't give the answer that they
want.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588883

On 7/11/2016 2:34 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> I, too, hope their instruments function.
> However, we may never know if they do,
> and don't give the answer that they
> want.
>

John, there will be data from the instruments.
There are several possibilities:
1. The data will agree with your predictions, and they will publish that 
data. In this case I think you will celebrate.
2. The data will agree with your predictions, and they will not publish 
that data. I wonder how you will know and what your reaction would be.
3. The data will disagree with your predictions, and they will not 
publish that data. I wonder how you will know and what your reaction 
would be.
4. The data will disagree with your predictions, and they will publish 
that data. What will your reaction be in this case?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588887

Bod 
THEY control what is presented.
YOU discount whistleblowers.
We'll never know, will we?
:)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589227

On 7/12/2016 9:05 AM, john wrote:
> Bod
> THEY control what is presented.
> YOU discount whistleblowers.
> We'll never know, will we?
> :)
>

So, John, you are saying you don't have any way to tell whether an 
iconoclast is telling the truth, or is a fraud, or is deluded.

Because "THEY" are preventing you from making that determination. 
Whoever "THEY" are.

So even though you can't tell, you just ASSUME something?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589477

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:03:28 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/12/2016 9:05 AM, john wrote:
> > Bod
> > THEY control what is presented.
> > YOU discount whistleblowers.
> > We'll never know, will we?
> > :)
> >
> 
> So, John, you are saying you don't have any way to tell whether an 
> iconoclast is telling the truth, or is a fraud, or is deluded.
> 
> Because "THEY" are preventing you from making that determination. 
> Whoever "THEY" are.
> 
> So even though you can't tell, you just ASSUME something?
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Let it be reality that hollow cores are impossible in the macro realm.In the micro atomic realm the buckyball comes to mind. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588836

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 7/11/2016 1:27 PM, john wrote:
>> Jupiter is a round planet of lava
>> and crust just like every other.
>> IF they manage to get Juno
>> to work, they will see that,
>> but some will deny the evidence
> 
> We shall see, won't we?
> What's going to be especially interesting is what you do with results
> that are different than your predictions.

Even before the Juno results come in, it is safe to say that Jupiter is a 
gas giant with a mass of ca. 2.5 times of the mass of all other planets in 
the Sol system [1], so not “a round planet of lava and crust just like every 
other”. 

Because we already know from the Galileo Probe in 1995 that Jupiter consists 
of ca. 90 % hydrogen and 10 % helium. [2]  If Jupiter has a solid or liquid 
core, then that would most likely consist of solid hydrogen, helium or 
methane [3], or, due to the extreme gravitational pressure, degenerate 
matter like metallic hydrogen.  The outer boundary of that core would have 
to be more than 156 km below the upper boundary of Jupiter’s atmosphere 
(ibid.); its mean radius is 69'911 ± 6 km [1].

Whereas magma (not: lava; for lava there has to be a volcano [4]) and 
planetary crusts consists of true metals like silicon, aluminium, sodium, 
potassium, calcium, magnesium, and iron (in descending percentages). [5]

__________
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Mass_and_size>
[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Probe#End_and_results>
[3] <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=hydrogen+phase+diagram>
    <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=helium+phase+diagram>
    <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=methane+phase+diagram>
[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lava>
[5] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma#Composition.2C_melt_structure_and_properties>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588936

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 11:00:21 AM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> All known planets with high clouds have a clear atmosphere near the ground.

  You mean, the ones we've sent surface probes to so far.

> Venus has thick clouds up high, but the Russians discovered the clear
> atmosphere at ground level. Titan and Earth also have high clouds and
> transparent gases at ground level. Jupiter is not known to have a clear
> gas layer down low, but it is expected by the author, not by professional
> astrophysicists.

  Where did you get the idea that physicists of any stripe do not expect "transparent gases" near whatever passes for a core of Jupiter?

> The gravity of Jupiter accelerates stuff at 24.8 meters per second squared at
> the cloud tops. If the rocky core of Jupiter is like the Earth,

  Why do you expect Jupiter to have a predominantly rocky core?

> the gravity at the surface of the core is far less than on Earth.

  Why must it be less? For it to be less, the core must be smaller than Earth, less dense than Earth, or both.

> Jupiter is 300 times as massive as Earth. So the gravity at the core of
> Jupiter is about 300 times less than on Earth.

  That doesn't make sense.

  First, make a solid(!) guess at how large this core must be, then make a solid guess how dense it is.

  Only then can you determine its surface gravity.

  Mind you it will have to agree with the observed gravity at the cloud tops you mentioned. Remember that gravity follows the inverse-square law. We know what the gravitational acceleration is at the cloud tops, and it must be zero at the center. The gravitational acceleration at all altitudes in between is absolutely predictable.

> The core of Jupiter can be non-spherical because the gravity there is ten
> times less than on the asteroid Vesta.

  The gravity where? At what distance from the center (the average radius of your purported non-spherical core)?

> Even though the core can be as massive as Earth, it can be shaped like a
> bowling pin, elongated and with scooped out features fanning into the wind.
> See the photo of asteroid Itokawa. That fan effect of the core causes The
> Great Red Spot. A big cyclone runs from the core to the cloud tops,
> permanently.

  Therefore, your purported core MUST rotate at the same rate as the Red Spot's observed motion.

  There's a problem with Jupiter's magnetic field, though.

  Jupiter's magnetic field isn't quite aligned with its spin axis (like many other planets) so we know that the magnetic field rotates in 9h 55min.

  The Red Spot also rotates around the planet with an *average* speed of 9h 55min, but it has lapped the magnetic field rate at least ten times in the last 200 years.

  That means that either the magnetic field or the Red Spot are not "attached" to the core. 

> A spacecraft submarine can go there to photograph the core through clear air.

  Uh, no. Have any idea what the temperature and pressure there, that your "submarine" will have to withstand, will be? Remember, the visible cloud tops are at about one Earth-atmosphere pressure.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/138/


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589012

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:30:46 AM UTC-10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 11:00:21 AM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > All known planets with high clouds have a clear atmosphere near the ground.
> 
>   You mean, the ones we've sent surface probes to so far.

Yes. Known planets, not glimpsed planets.

> 
> > Venus has thick clouds up high, but the Russians discovered the clear
> > atmosphere at ground level. Titan and Earth also have high clouds and
> > transparent gases at ground level. Jupiter is not known to have a clear
> > gas layer down low, but it is expected by the author, not by professional
> > astrophysicists.

>   Where did you get the idea that physicists of any stripe do not expect "transparent gases" near whatever passes for a core of Jupiter?

I told my theory, not a theory of professionals.

> 
> > The gravity of Jupiter accelerates stuff at 24.8 meters per second squared at
> > the cloud tops. If the rocky core of Jupiter is like the Earth,
 
>   Why do you expect Jupiter to have a predominantly rocky core?

I hope Jupiter is like a wish it to be: a hot rocky core the size of Earth. The inner heat of Thorium clears the colder atmosphere, like Venus.

> 
> > the gravity at the surface of the core is far less than on Earth.
> 
>   Why must it be less? For it to be less, the core must be smaller than Earth, less dense than Earth, or both.

No. The gravity at an Earth sized core is almost zero, for the standard reasons. The overlaying gases have 300 times the mass of the Earth sized core, so the gravity is reduced compared to a bare Earth.

> 
> > Jupiter is 300 times as massive as Earth. So the gravity at the core of
> > Jupiter is about 300 times less than on Earth.
> 
>   That doesn't make sense.

Sense this: I predicted some stuff. Experiments will prove me wrong, or right about the non-spherical core causing the red spot. Two planets falling into Jupiter would meet at the center and collide at a velocity of 35mph. 


> 
>   First, make a solid(!) guess at how large this core must be, then make a solid guess how dense it is.


Earth size, Earth density times X due to compression of about 12X.

> 
>   Only then can you determine its surface gravity.
> 
>   Mind you it will have to agree with the observed gravity at the cloud tops you mentioned. Remember that gravity follows the inverse-square law. We know what the gravitational acceleration is at the cloud tops, and it must be zero at the center. The gravitational acceleration at all altitudes in between is absolutely predictable.

Predict this: gravity at a core of Earth size and Earth density.

> 
> > The core of Jupiter can be non-spherical because the gravity there is ten
> > times less than on the asteroid Vesta.
> 
>   The gravity where? At what distance from the center (the average radius of your purported non-spherical core)?

The gravity should be measured at the Earth sized core for the proposed calculation. The mountains under low gravity can be very tall. 5 mile x 300 proposed mountain height.

You are wise to ask for those details. Thank you for playing.

> 
> > Even though the core can be as massive as Earth, it can be shaped like a
> > bowling pin, elongated and with scooped out features fanning into the wind.
> > See the photo of asteroid Itokawa. That fan effect of the core causes The
> > Great Red Spot. A big cyclone runs from the core to the cloud tops,
> > permanently.
> 
>   Therefore, your purported core MUST rotate at the same rate as the Red Spot's observed motion.


It is possible to have the core rotate at a rate different from Jupiter's 9 hour day. If it rotates 10x faster, the tornado goes North and is bent to the red spot. Like on Earth, tornadoes bend in directions orthogonal to the Earth's axis.

> 
>   There's a problem with Jupiter's magnetic field, though.
> 
>   Jupiter's magnetic field isn't quite aligned with its spin axis (like many other planets) so we know that the magnetic field rotates in 9h 55min.
> 
>   The Red Spot also rotates around the planet with an *average* speed of 9h 55min, but it has lapped the magnetic field rate at least ten times in the last 200 years.
> 
>   That means that either the magnetic field or the Red Spot are not "attached" to the core. 

That is good thinking, but with a North pointing start of the tornado, bent 90 degrees as tornadoes do, the attachment is fluid.


> 
> > A spacecraft submarine can go there to photograph the core through clear air.
> 
>   Uh, no. Have any idea what the temperature and pressure there, that your "submarine" will have to withstand, will be? Remember, the visible cloud tops are at about one Earth-atmosphere pressure.

The internal pressure equalization of my submarine proposal allows a fish-like aclimation to conditions. A tungsten sub with diamond electronic can beam the facts from its deployed buoys.
> 
> https://what-if.xkcd.com/138/
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589178

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:32:20 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:30:46 AM UTC-10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 11:00:21 AM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:

> > > Venus has thick clouds up high, but the Russians discovered the clear
> > > atmosphere at ground level. Titan and Earth also have high clouds and
> > > transparent gases at ground level. Jupiter is not known to have a clear
> > > gas layer down low, but it is expected by the author, not by professional
> > > astrophysicists.
> 
> >   Where did you get the idea that physicists of any stripe do not expect
> > "transparent gases" near whatever passes for a core of Jupiter?
> 
> I told my theory, not a theory of professionals.

  It's nice to know what professionals predict just for comparison purposes, if nothing else. Also, knowing *why* they predict what they do can be helpful.

> > > The gravity of Jupiter accelerates stuff at 24.8 meters per second
> > > squared at the cloud tops. If the rocky core of Jupiter is like the Earth,
>  
> >   Why do you expect Jupiter to have a predominantly rocky core?
> 
> I hope Jupiter is like a wish it to be: a hot rocky core the size of Earth.

  There's absolutely no doubt it is hot, but it's much much hotter than Earth's. But there's no reason to think it is predominantly rocky, or that it's any particular size within certain broad limits already established by measuring Jupiter's gravity.

> The inner heat of Thorium clears the colder atmosphere, like Venus.

  I haven't read that explanation for Venus' high surface temperature, nor that temperature alone has anything to do with good near-surface seeing. Nor would Thorium have anything to do with Jupiter's temperature.

> > > the gravity at the surface of the core is far less than on Earth.
> > 
> >   Why must it be less? For it to be less, the core must be smaller than
> > Earth, less dense than Earth, or both.
> 
> No. The gravity at an Earth sized core is almost zero, for the standard
> reasons. The overlaying gases have 300 times the mass of the Earth sized
> core, so the gravity is reduced compared to a bare Earth.

  I hope you now understand where that particular line of thought went wrong.

> > > Jupiter is 300 times as massive as Earth. So the gravity at the core of
> > > Jupiter is about 300 times less than on Earth.
> > 
> >   That doesn't make sense.
> 
> Sense this: I predicted some stuff. Experiments will prove me wrong, or right
> about the non-spherical core causing the red spot.

  If you're referring to your "submarine", that will never ever happen, and I'll go into detail why not below.

  Other experiments, maybe.

> Two planets falling into Jupiter would meet at the center and collide at a
> velocity of 35mph. 

  A planet falling into Jupiter wouldn't make it anywhere near the center as a solid body. Otherwise, AIUI, you're roughly correct about terminal velocity for solid bodies in Jupiter's atmosphere.

> >   First, make a solid(!) guess at how large this core must be, then make
> > a solid guess how dense it is.
> 
> Earth size, Earth density times X due to compression of about 12X.

  An Earth-sized body 12x as dense as Earth is will obviously have 12x Earth's mass.

> >   Only then can you determine its surface gravity.
> > 
> >   Mind you it will have to agree with the observed gravity at the cloud
> > tops you mentioned. Remember that gravity follows the inverse-square law.
> > We know what the gravitational acceleration is at the cloud tops, and it
> > must be zero at the center. The gravitational acceleration at all altitudes
> > in between is absolutely predictable.
> 
> Predict this: gravity at a core of Earth size and Earth density.

  Above, you said 12x Earth density. Anyway, an Earth-sized body of Earth density at Jupiter's center is flat-out impossible because of the pressure of forty thousand miles of liquid metallic hydrogen crushing it.

  Just for comparison, you're not the first to suggest Jupiter has a "rocky" core- currently, it's thought to be between 12 and 45 times Earth's mass (we can't fine that down because the gravity measurements so far haven't been sufficiently detailed), and around 20,000 miles in diameter. It's also hot- around 64,000 F at its surface and hotter still in the center.

 The pressure there does funny things to minerals. Earth's core has a density of about 12,000 kg per cubic meter but Jupiter's core's density has to be around 25,000 kg per cubic meter, twice that of Earth's.

  The point is, "rocks" as we know them- aluminum and silicon oxides with traces of other elements- are not stable at the pressures at Jupiter's core. They'll self-refine to a molten nickel-iron alloy ball in the middle like Earth has, with layers of other elements "floating" on top of that, all surrounded by forty thousand miles of liquid metallic hydrogen.

  No, those temperatures and pressures aren't typos or mistakes.

  You apparently don't understand how much the atmospheric pressure and temperature increase with depth in Jupiter's atmosphere. Just below the visible clouds, the pressure is so high that hydrogen becomes a mixture of molecular gas and and liquid (we know this because we have applied that much pressure to hydrogen here on Earth, and that's what happens to it). At a depth of only 20% of Jupiter's radius, hydrogen can no longer exist as a molecular liquid. Instead, it's a liquid metal made up of hydrogen atoms that can't stay bonded to each other. That's because its temperature is about 17,500 F and the pressure is about two *million* times Earth surface air pressure (again, we know this from experiments done on Earth).

  If you want to send a probe to look at Jupiter's "clear atmosphere under the clouds", it can't go much deeper than a few thousand miles before it's swimming in liquid metallic hydrogen, and will have already melted/been crushed.

> > > The core of Jupiter can be non-spherical because the gravity there is ten
> > > times less than on the asteroid Vesta.

  I hope you now understand where that particular line of thought went wrong.

  Any core of Jupiter *will* be spherical.

> >   The gravity where? At what distance from the center (the average radius
> > of your purported non-spherical core)?
> 
> The gravity should be measured at the Earth sized core for the proposed
> calculation. The mountains under low gravity can be very tall. 5 mile x 300
> proposed mountain height.

  I hope you now understand where that particular line of thought went wrong.

  Any core of Jupiter *can not* have mountains.

> You are wise to ask for those details. Thank you for playing.

  Are we having fun yet?

> > > Even though the core can be as massive as Earth, it can be shaped like a
> > > bowling pin, elongated and with scooped out features fanning into the
> > > wind. See the photo of asteroid Itokawa. That fan effect of the core
> > > causes The Great Red Spot. A big cyclone runs from the core to the cloud
> > > tops, permanently.

  I hope you now understand where that particular line of thought went wrong.

  Any core of Jupiter *can not* be shaped like a bowling pin.

> >   Therefore, your purported core MUST rotate at the same rate as the Red
> > Spot's observed motion.
> 
> It is possible to have the core rotate at a rate different from Jupiter's 9
> hour day. If it rotates 10x faster, the tornado goes North and is bent to the
> red spot. Like on Earth, tornadoes bend in directions orthogonal to the
> Earth's axis.

  That won't work, because...

> >   There's a problem with Jupiter's magnetic field, though.
> > 
> >   Jupiter's magnetic field isn't quite aligned with its spin axis (like
> > many other planets) so we know that the magnetic field rotates in 9h 55min.
> > 
> >   The Red Spot also rotates around the planet with an *average* speed of 9h
> > 55min, but it has lapped the magnetic field rate at least ten times in the
> > last 200 years.
> > 
> >   That means that either the magnetic field or the Red Spot are not
> > "attached" to the core. 
> 
> That is good thinking, but with a North pointing start of the tornado, bent
> 90 degrees as tornadoes do, the attachment is fluid.

  The fact that the Red Spot has *lapped* the magnetic field at least ten times last 200 years means your tornado would be wrapped around the planet ten times. You cannot possibly believe that could remain stable.

> > > A spacecraft submarine can go there to photograph the core through clear
> > > air.
> > 
> >   Uh, no. Have any idea what the temperature and pressure there, that your
> > "submarine" will have to withstand, will be? Remember, the visible cloud
> > tops are at about one Earth-atmosphere pressure.
> 
> The internal pressure equalization of my submarine proposal allows a
> fish-like aclimation to conditions.

  That means that the internal machinery of your sub must operate at temperatures of tens of thousands of degrees F. But see, your sub won't make it that deep.

> A tungsten sub with diamond electronic can beam the facts from its deployed
> buoys.
> > 
> > https://what-if.xkcd.com/138/

  The link above describes what will happen to a metallic object as it descends into Jupiter via a phase diagram. You know about phase diagrams, right?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_diagram_of_tungsten_(1975).png

  See the slanted black line rising slightly to the right? That's the boundary between solid and liquid tungsten. Notice the temperature and pressures along that line. The "surface" of Jupiter's liquid metallic hydrogen "ocean" is at 10,000 Kelvin and two million bar.

  Your sub will be a blob of molten tungsten with some chunks of diamond falling out of it by the time it's a mere few hundred miles below the visible cloud tops.

  The highest-melting-point materials I know of are alloys of mostly tantalum and hafnium (with some carbon) that melt a little over 4,000 K, still not enough to get as deep as you want. Also, increasing pressure also increases melting point, but the highest reached to my knowledge is about half of that at the liquid metallic hydrogen "ocean surface" for hafnium carbide and it melted at around 9,000 K, still not enough.

  Sorry, but that's physics for you.

  Now, if you want to talk balloons, there's some hope. I can imagine a blunt aerodynamic "lander" that would fall into the clouds, slowing sufficiently to deploy first a parachute, then a large balloon of pure hydrogen which when heated above surrounding temperature would float just like a hot-air balloon does in Earth's atmosphere. The limiting factors will still be temperature and pressure, but we know how deep our typical spacecraft machinery can go because of the Galileo missions which achieved a depth of about 90 miles when they were crushed by a mere 23 Earth atmospheres of pressure. If we built a very strong instrument package it could probably manage another hundred miles or so, but keeping a balloon inflated under that kind of pressure (not to mention not melting) is a serious engineering challenge.

  Eventually, you need a rigid "balloon" for buoyancy, and that's called a bathyscaphe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste

  The Trieste was engineered to withstand about two thousand Earth atmospheres but not high temperatures, and was huge. A smaller version, a couple tons maybe, is just barely possible, but temperature will still kill it way above the liquid metallic hydrogen point. Also keep in mind that hafnium and tantalum ain't cheap.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589525

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 

Thank you Mark, Yousuf, and Michael for correcting my mistake about the gravity near a core of Jupiter. I was wrong and I forgot some college stuff about what you all said. That hollow shell with zero gravity reminded me of the geometry and the right physic. Sorry. My level of embarrassment has risen to a magnitude which is appropriate for this situation.

The Submarine made of tungsten and with diamond electronics also has a nuclear cooling unit to keep the internal temperature below 2000 kelvin. The surface is kept solid by that refrigeration. The red spot may be due to a magnetic effect of a core of H or Fe. Maybe Uranium is Ferromagnetic under pressure, making Jupiter into a transformer with fluid windings.


> 
> > A tungsten sub with diamond electronic can beam the facts from its deployed
> > buoys.
> > > 
> > > https://what-if.xkcd.com/138/
> 
>   The link above describes what will happen to a metallic object as it descends into Jupiter via a phase diagram. You know about phase diagrams, right?
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_diagram_of_tungsten_(1975).png
> 
>   See the slanted black line rising slightly to the right? That's the boundary between solid and liquid tungsten. Notice the temperature and pressures along that line. The "surface" of Jupiter's liquid metallic hydrogen "ocean" is at 10,000 Kelvin and two million bar.
> 
>   Your sub will be a blob of molten tungsten with some chunks of diamond falling out of it by the time it's a mere few hundred miles below the visible cloud tops.

It is refrigerated by a nucular cooler.


> 
>   The highest-melting-point materials I know of are alloys of mostly tantalum and hafnium (with some carbon) that melt a little over 4,000 K, still not enough to get as deep as you want. Also, increasing pressure also increases melting point, but the highest reached to my knowledge is about half of that at the liquid metallic hydrogen "ocean surface" for hafnium carbide and it melted at around 9,000 K, still not enough.
> 
>   Sorry, but that's physics for you.
> 
>   Now, if you want to talk balloons, there's some hope. I can imagine a blunt aerodynamic "lander" that would fall into the clouds, slowing sufficiently to deploy first a parachute, then a large balloon of pure hydrogen which when heated above surrounding temperature would float just like a hot-air balloon does in Earth's atmosphere. The limiting factors will still be temperature and pressure, but we know how deep our typical spacecraft machinery can go because of the Galileo missions which achieved a depth of about 90 miles when they were crushed by a mere 23 Earth atmospheres of pressure. If we built a very strong instrument package it could probably manage another hundred miles or so, but keeping a balloon inflated under that kind of pressure (not to mention not melting) is a serious engineering challenge.
> 
>   Eventually, you need a rigid "balloon" for buoyancy, and that's called a bathyscaphe:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste
> 
>   The Trieste was engineered to withstand about two thousand Earth atmospheres but not high temperatures, and was huge. A smaller version, a couple tons maybe, is just barely possible, but temperature will still kill it way above the liquid metallic hydrogen point. Also keep in mind that hafnium and tantalum ain't cheap.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

That is also a good balloon idea for Venus. Like in my sci fi book, "The Balloons of Venus".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589572

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 
> 
> Thank you Mark, Yousuf, and Michael for correcting my mistake about the
> gravity near a core of Jupiter. I was wrong and I forgot some college stuff
> about what you all said. That hollow shell with zero gravity reminded me of
> the geometry and the right physic. Sorry. My level of embarrassment has risen
> to a magnitude which is appropriate for this situation.

  A tip here is to not get emotionally invested in a particular idea. Nobody can remember everything so when shown to be wrong I acknowledge it and (try to) REMEMBER the right stuff. No point in going all red in the face- it just prevents you from thinking.

> The Submarine made of tungsten and with diamond electronics also has a
> nuclear cooling unit to keep the internal temperature below 2000 kelvin.
> The surface is kept solid by that refrigeration.

  That's a fair first thought but refrigeration is based on a thermodynamic reality- the condenser (the part on the outside that gets rid of the probe's internally generated heat as well as the incoming heat trying to melt the hull) has to run *hotter* than its surroundings in order to reject heat. If it doesn't, heat won't flow from it to the atmosphere. Don't believe me? Go to your kitchen and feel the coils on the back of your fridge- they're warm, aren't they? A fridge has to work harder in a hot environment, too. When I lived in Phoenix and didn't run the AC the coils on my fridge were usually too hot to touch.

  That means that the condenser has to have a *higher* melting point than the hull, and we're back to the limits of theoretical hafnium-tantalum-carbon alloys that haven't been tested at the pressures we can expect inside Jupiter.

  Now, there are designs for refrigeration systems intended for large spacecraft that use *molten metal* for the radiator, but they're designed to operate in vacuum, not the high-temperature bath of Jupiter's atmosphere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_droplet_radiator

  The liquid metal heat carrier there could not fall below ambient temperature before returning to the refrigeration system. I don't think it would help.

(bathyscaphe)

> That is also a good balloon idea for Venus. Like in my sci fi book, "The
> Balloons of Venus".

  I see no good reason a bathyscaphe couldn't operate successfully pretty much all the way from Venus' cloud tops down to its surface and back (if the sulfuric acid issue can be solved) but that's a mere 90 atmospheres and ~870 F.

  Also, where is your SF published? I enjoyed Niven's _Becalmed In Hell_.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589598

as a matter of bouyancy, no & yes

> > about what you all said. That hollow shell with zero gravity reminded me of
> > the geometry and the right physic. Sorry. My level of embarrassment has risen
> > to a magnitude which is appropriate for this situation.
> 
>   A tip here is to not get emotionally invested in a particular idea. Nobody can remember everything so when shown to be wrong I acknowledge it and (try to) REMEMBER the right stuff. No point in going all red in the face- it just prevents you from thinking.
> 
> > The Submarine made of tungsten and with diamond electronics also has a
> > nuclear cooling unit to keep the internal temperature below 2000 kelvin.
> > The surface is kept solid by that refrigeration.
> 
>   That's a fair first thought but refrigeration is based on a thermodynamic reality- the condenser (the part on the outside that gets rid of the probe's internally generated heat as well as the incoming heat trying to melt the hull) has to run *hotter* than its surroundings in order to reject heat. If it doesn't, heat won't flow from it to the atmosphere. Don't believe me? Go to your kitchen and feel the coils on the back of your fridge- they're warm, aren't they? A fridge has to work harder in a hot environment, too. When I lived in Phoenix and didn't run the AC the coils on my fridge were usually too hot to touch.
> 
>   That means that the condenser has to have a *higher* melting point than the hull, and we're back to the limits of theoretical hafnium-tantalum-carbon alloys that haven't been tested at the pressures we can expect inside Jupiter.
> 
>   Now, there are designs for refrigeration systems intended for large spacecraft that use *molten metal* for the radiator, but they're designed to operate in vacuum, not the high-temperature bath of Jupiter's atmosphere:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_droplet_radiator
> 
>   The liquid metal heat carrier there could not fall below ambient temperature before returning to the refrigeration system. I don't think it would help.
> 
> (bathyscaphe)
> 
> > That is also a good balloon idea for Venus. Like in my sci fi book, "The
> > Balloons of Venus".
> 
>   I see no good reason a bathyscaphe couldn't operate successfully pretty much all the way from Venus' cloud tops down to its surface and back (if the sulfuric acid issue can be solved) but that's a mere 90 atmospheres and ~870 F.
> 
>   Also, where is your SF published? I enjoyed Niven's _Becalmed In Hell_.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589610

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 11:11:24 AM UTC-10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 1:32:55 AM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 
> > 
> > Thank you Mark, Yousuf, and Michael for correcting my mistake about the
> > gravity near a core of Jupiter. I was wrong and I forgot some college stuff
> > about what you all said. That hollow shell with zero gravity reminded me of
> > the geometry and the right physic. Sorry. My level of embarrassment has risen
> > to a magnitude which is appropriate for this situation.
> 
>   A tip here is to not get emotionally invested in a particular idea. Nobody can remember everything so when shown to be wrong I acknowledge it and (try to) REMEMBER the right stuff. No point in going all red in the face- it just prevents you from thinking.

I have a long-term goal of admitting I am wrong at every opportunity that is appropriate.

> 
> > The Submarine made of tungsten and with diamond electronics also has a
> > nuclear cooling unit to keep the internal temperature below 2000 kelvin.
> > The surface is kept solid by that refrigeration.
> 
>   That's a fair first thought but refrigeration is based on a thermodynamic reality- the condenser (the part on the outside that gets rid of the probe's internally generated heat as well as the incoming heat trying to melt the hull) has to run *hotter* than its surroundings in order to reject heat. If it doesn't, heat won't flow from it to the atmosphere. Don't believe me? Go to your kitchen and feel the coils on the back of your fridge- they're warm, aren't they? A fridge has to work harder in a hot environment, too. When I lived in Phoenix and didn't run the AC the coils on my fridge were usually too hot to touch.
> 
>   That means that the condenser has to have a *higher* melting point than the hull, and we're back to the limits of theoretical hafnium-tantalum-carbon alloys that haven't been tested at the pressures we can expect inside Jupiter.
> 
>   Now, there are designs for refrigeration systems intended for large spacecraft that use *molten metal* for the radiator, but they're designed to operate in vacuum, not the high-temperature bath of Jupiter's atmosphere:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_droplet_radiator
> 
>   The liquid metal heat carrier there could not fall below ambient temperature before returning to the refrigeration system. I don't think it would help.

My radiator for the tungsten refrigerator uses x-ray and gamma ray lasers. That is the way to send the hot stuff away from the cooler diamonds. The internal heat in the submarine is sent far away with electromagnetic rays.

> 
> (bathyscaphe)
> 
> > That is also a good balloon idea for Venus. Like in my sci fi book, "The
> > Balloons of Venus".
> 
>   I see no good reason a bathyscaphe couldn't operate successfully pretty much all the way from Venus' cloud tops down to its surface and back (if the sulfuric acid issue can be solved) but that's a mere 90 atmospheres and ~870 F.
> 
>   Also, where is your SF published? I enjoyed Niven's _Becalmed In Hell_.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

My science fiction books are published as e-books on Amazon.com.

3 Books by Alan Folmsbee, for Kindle at Amazon

"Alien Art for Sale"  $7, September, 2009, 149 pages

"Time Liars: Collected Short Stories" $5, September, 2009, 87 pages: The Balloons of Venus, Symmetric Sleeper, Dust Lanes, Time Liars

"Time Liars 2: Short Stories" $1, July, 2011, 71 pages: Cookie Crumbles, The Clay People, Mars Tour for New Owners, A More Perfect Vacuum...part 2 of Time Liars.

excerpt

A More Perfect Vacuum
by Alan Folmsbee, June 15, 2011
Part Two of the "Time Liars" Series of Short Stories

The Earth and Sun were moving. The pushy tyrants of the Sterne Drive Compound spacecraft said it was "for the children" that they were relocating everything to the Andromeda Galaxy. More likely, according to their former crewmates, it was to show off. To push around the worldly powers in front of their wives, the two tyrants Bill and Frank were lifting the big iron. The wives were very impressed and showed how much. About an hour later, they returned their gaze to the telescreen.

"Is your music ready for us to hear?" Frank demanded of Houston. "The name of the band on our spacecraft is Beyond! Play that secondary Beyond album from China. Is it any good?"

Houston Control sent out a radio beam to the craft that was moving heaven and Earth while all the women of the world waited for the emptiness of the astronauts' loud rock to be replaced by this Chinese music. Houston said, "We haven't listened to it yet. You have had fifteen years to practice, but we only launched you seven hours ago. Here is the latest album from Beyond of China." Some twangy guitar work started, very unlike the heavy metal from real Beyond, the band on the Sterne spacecraft.

The music went on for two minutes and five seconds and then Bill sent his review. "Stop the music. Tell them to change the name of their band to The Has Beens. There can only be one Beyond and that is not from the Earth, it is from here. We have traveled across the Universe two times in the last fifteen years and we have the real product. Listen to this..."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589001

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 11:00:21 AM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> All known planets with high clouds have a clear atmosphere near the ground. Venus has thick clouds up high, but the Russians discovered the clear atmosphere at ground level. Titan and Earth also have high clouds and transparent gases at ground level. Jupiter is not known to have a clear gas layer down low, but it is expected by the author, not by professional astrophysicists.
> 
> The gravity of Jupiter accelerates stuff at 24.8 meters per second squared at the cloud tops. If the rocky core of Jupiter is like the Earth, the gravity at the surface of the core is far less than on Earth. Jupiter is 300 times as massive as Earth. So the gravity at the core of Jupiter is about 300 times less than on Earth.
> 
> The core of Jupiter can be non-spherical because the gravity there is ten times less than on the asteroid Vesta. Even though the core can be as massive as Earth, it can be shaped like a bowling pin, elongated and with scooped out features fanning into the wind. See the photo of asteroid Itokawa. That fan effect of the core causes The Great Red Spot. A big cyclone runs from the core to the cloud tops, permanently. A spacecraft submarine can go there to photograph the core through clear air. A 10,000 mile thick layer of transparent gases will allow people to see a spectacle that is imaginable. High clouds over a tornado will be seen to go to the dual core of Jupiter. The red spot is the top of a tornado that starts on a mountain peak of the rocky core.

I can see no reason for Jupiter not having a rock core.Even diamonds,granite aluminum gold,silicone iron etc. should not be left out.Energy of great heat. I can see this core with a crushing pressue over a 100 times Earth's core.It is truely a monster planet O ya  TreBer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589040

On 11/07/2016 2:00 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> The gravity of Jupiter accelerates stuff at 24.8 meters per second
> squared at the cloud tops. If the rocky core of Jupiter is like the
> Earth, the gravity at the surface of the core is far less than on
> Earth. Jupiter is 300 times as massive as Earth. So the gravity at
> the core of Jupiter is about 300 times less than on Earth.

Your understanding of internal gravity of a planet is wrong. Watch this 
video it'll make you understand:

How Long To Fall Through The Earth? - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urQCmMiHKQk

> The core of Jupiter can be non-spherical because the gravity there is
> ten times less than on the asteroid Vesta. Even though the core can
> be as massive as Earth, it can be shaped like a bowling pin,
> elongated and with scooped out features fanning into the wind. See
> the photo of asteroid Itokawa. That fan effect of the core causes The
> Great Red Spot. A big cyclone runs from the core to the cloud tops,
> permanently. A spacecraft submarine can go there to photograph the
> core through clear air. A 10,000 mile thick layer of transparent
> gases will allow people to see a spectacle that is imaginable. High
> clouds over a tornado will be seen to go to the dual core of Jupiter.
> The red spot is the top of a tornado that starts on a mountain peak
> of the rocky core.

The gravity at the precise center of all planetary objects is precisely 
zero, Earth and Jupiter included. However, the surface of the core of 
Jupiter is considerably far away from the precise center so there is a 
lot of gravity available at those points on the surface. The core will 
be spherical, more or less. If the core of Jupiter is the same mass as 
Earth (it is actually likely to be considerably more massive, but we'll 
ignore that for now), then it will probably be about the same density as 
the entire Earth, and therefore it would have the same gravity as the 
Earth's surface. The video up above will explain why that is.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web