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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#589071

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:58:17 AM UTC-10, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> 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

I did not watch the video. Please explain the science it would have provided.

> 
> > 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

Dear YK, I do not believe you about the core of Jupiter having the same gravity as Earth if that core is Earth sized and Earth mass. That would mean that the 99.6% of Jupiter's mass above the core has no upwards gravitational influence. That is odd since you say the gravity is zero at the center. Your video viewing theory is defective. Your explanation is inarticulate. Try again, with math, not TV.

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

#589073

Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> writes:

>Dear YK, I do not believe you about the core of Jupiter having the same
>gravity as Earth if that core is Earth sized and Earth mass. That would mean
>that the 99.6% of Jupiter's mass above the core has no upwards gravitational
> influence.

That is correct.

If you calculate the gravitational force of a uniform, hollow spherical
shell, the gravity force due to the shell is zero everywhere inside.

You can model Jupiter as a core and a hollow shell (the rest of it).
The hollow shell has zero force on anything inside it, so the only
gravity experienced by someone on the core is from just the core.

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

#589076

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 7:06:45 AM UTC-10, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Alan Folmsbee <om> writes:
> 
> >Dear YK, I do not believe you about the core of Jupiter having the same
> >gravity as Earth if that core is Earth sized and Earth mass. That would mean
> >that the 99.6% of Jupiter's mass above the core has no upwards gravitational
> > influence.
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> If you calculate the gravitational force of a uniform, hollow spherical
> shell, the gravity force due to the shell is zero everywhere inside.
> 
> You can model Jupiter as a core and a hollow shell (the rest of it).
> The hollow shell has zero force on anything inside it, so the only
> gravity experienced by someone on the core is from just the core.

Hello MM, I accept your explanation as correct. I was wrong. I apologize for my mistake. Sorry. Alan F. 

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

#589082

That explanation is correct if
Suck Gravity were correct.
GRCs prove it isn't.

DM is FUDGE.
Fudge can be applied anywhere-
even inside Jupiter.
As long as the Fudge Masters rule,
Science is dead.

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

#589157

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 11:27:51 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> That explanation

  What explanation? You NEVER quote what you're replying to.


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#589161

Sorry, Mark.
I assume that if the last post right above 
talks about an explanation,
I can say "that explanation ", and
move right along.
I'll try to quote more often

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

#589179

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:52:22 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Sorry, Mark.
> I assume that if the last post right above 
> talks about an explanation,
> I can say "that explanation ", and
> move right along.
> I'll try to quote more often

  Okay, cool.

  What you and I see as the "last post right above" aren't necessarily the same. If you meant what Michael Moroney said about gravity, it *is* correct, as measured experimentally. Oil exploration companies lower gravity gradiometers down exploratory wells and the measured gravity at depth always agrees with the "abstract" math.

  What are these "GRC"s you refer to, and how do you think they disprove Newtonian gravitation's description of the change of gravity with depth within a solid body?


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#589204

Mark remarked
"  What are these "GRC"s you refer to, and how do you think they disprove Newtonian gravitation's description of the change of gravity with depth within a solid body? "
Galactic rotation curves.
Of which there are apparently more than
one kind.
They show that there is something 
major-league wrong with suck gravity.
2 kinds of GRC = 2 kinds of DM?
3 kinds of GRC = 3 kinds of DM?

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

#589491

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:40:43 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Mark remarked
> "  What are these "GRC"s you refer to, and how do you think they disprove
> Newtonian gravitation's description of the change of gravity with depth
> within a solid body? "
> Galactic rotation curves.
> Of which there are apparently more than
> one kind.
> They show that there is something 
> major-league wrong with suck gravity.
> 2 kinds of GRC = 2 kinds of DM?
> 3 kinds of GRC = 3 kinds of DM?

  Fine and dandy, but what has that got to do with predicting the strength of gravity inside at some point a solid body using the hollow shell explanation?


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web