internal heating of bodies just too much of a stretch

bonzelite · Jun 2, 2006

with the comet fragment thread and with the recurring Enceladus threads, i have decided to make a thread about the oft-unaccepted and "baffling" cases of apparent internal mechanisms to either heat or explode a body, as this flies in the face of conventional wisdom and acceptibility. yet there is evidence for it happening right now. so why is this so difficult to seriously consider? you cannot possibly think that "it's all figured out" by tidal heating or gravitational pulling. Enceladus: pretty much appears to me to be heated by it's own self. sorry charlie sixpack who doesn't believe that. comet fragments: looks llke it may have exploded outward. kinda sorta. sorry charlie for thinking it's just got to be "gravity" again --like how it is accepted as fact that Jupiter's "gravity" pulled Levy9 apart. i can accept that volatiles within the comet under pressure, but not such material that constitutes MOST of the comet, went haywire and fragmented the comet upon close approach. or just in general. fireballs fragment in earth's upper atmosphere due to friction. why can't a comet do the same in close proximity to the sun? or even in far proximity? and tell me this, how long has the comet been fragmented? let the fun begin.

qso1 · Jun 2, 2006

bonzelite: like how it is accepted as fact that Jupiter's "gravity" pulled Levy9 apart. Me: Hows it going, haven't seen you post in awhile, good to see you back. Anyhow, that example is one IMO that reinforces the work of theoreticians, astronomers, and other scientists on the question of gravity. The reason. It was predicted two years before the event that comet Shoemaker Levy would impact Jupiter. The comets relatively close passage to Jupiter and the ability to predict something that eventually actually occured are two strong indicators. Indicators that there must be something to this gravity thing. bonzelite: fireballs fragment in earth's upper atmosphere due to friction. why can't a comet do the same in close proximity to the sun? or even in far proximity? Me: Earths lower atmosphere interacting with meteors causes the friction which in turn causes the fireworks we see. If a meteor passes say, within 500 miles (Far proximity) of earths surface, no fireball. Typical altitudes where meteors are visible are between 30-70 miles or close proximity. The suns atmosphere or photosphere does not extend far enough for most comets to interact in the same way that would be visible to us on earth. Except in cases where comets get close enough to the sun to be drawn in which has happened. The close proximity distance is probably on the order of thousands of miles which puts one in a region too bright for effective observation by earth based astronomy with todays tech. In addition, the Suns photosphere at this range is too bright to see the exact nature of how comets are vaporized once they interact with it. As for fragmentation, no reason why a comet would not be fragmented going into the sun but again, too difficult to actually observe until we are able to develop telescopic probes that can see pretty deep into the outer reaches of the suns photosphere. One form of interaction we do observe is the tail it <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

bonzelite · Jun 2, 2006

hello, qso1. yes, i've been away for a while. had to take a break from this place. i see it's the same old place it's always been. good to see you, by the way <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> how is your art? i'm more into internal heating than EPH, for the record, insofar as Enceladus in particular. for example, an IR scan of the human body and Enceladus render inner hot spots. i propose that body is heated from within as we are. how it is heated cannot be known at this time. and if comets are, too, heated from within, that would be another case. are there extant IR heat profiles of cometary nuclei? this part of your post stands out: Shoemaker Levy IIRC was identified as fragmenting in 1992, from that and calculations of Jupiters gravitational effect on it, the astronomers for which the comet was named accurately predicted the subsequent 1994 impacts. Schwachmann Wachman 3 was identified fragmenting in 1995 and of course, came apart spectacularly this year. And keep in mind, the first years reported may not be when the initial breakup began. That could be maybe months, years before visible detection. yes^^^ that is the point. Levy may have been fragmented years before impact. and a prediction of it's slamming into Jupiter does not necessarily mean that the Jupiter broke it apart. the two conditions can be mutually exclusive. for that matter, the earth, then, should "break apart" every spacecraft that has orbited it from any distance, but this is not observed.

bonzelite · Jun 2, 2006

something else that comes to mind, too, is that the "tails" we observe as comets approach our sun may exist the entire time that they are orbiting, but at vast distances the structures are not visible or glowing. the luminosity factor of cometary tails makes me think: what in life creates luminosity? the sun is allegedly a thermonuclear furnance, planetary auroae are electromagnetic, lightning is electromagnetic, phosphorescence of algae or deep sea fish is biochemical, metal begins to glow as it is heated --so how about comets? the tails' glow is a form of radiation. so let's examine causes for this radiation given it's structure and conditions --so why are the volatile's within the comet luminous? they're not simply reflecting sunlight off of them like a mirror; the tails actually glow from light within the structures. yes?

yevaud · Jun 2, 2006

That would be the Ion Tail, which is to say gasses released from the Comet which are then ionized by the Solar Wind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Jun 2, 2006

yes, the question is rhetorical. now let's go further: the entire body of the earth's atmosphere is gaseous, but it is not ionized and glowing globally by the "solar wind" (plasma). only in the polar and near polar regions is this atmospheric gas ionized and glowing. our planet does not have a visibly global glowing condition. it, as well as observed on other planets, has concentrated areas of aurorae along magnetic field lines. a comet is far smaller than a planet, of course. so it's entire body appears enshrouded in the ionized gases. but the larger point is that it glows at all. why? gas will not glow "just because." i suggest the magnetotail of the comet is not simply illuminated by sunlight --the gas is glowing electromagnetically as is observed in aurorae. and this requires an inherent magnetic field/radiation belt system. this would suggest inner heating.

yevaud · Jun 2, 2006

The tail is ionized by interaction with charged particles in the solar wind. It's really the same effect that causes the Aurorae. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

silylene old · Jun 2, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />so why is this so difficult to seriously consider? you cannot possibly think that "it's all figured out" by tidal heating or gravitational pulling. Enceladus: pretty much appears to me to be heated by it's own self. sorry charlie sixpack who doesn't believe that. <hr /></blockquote> No exploding planets or mysterious electromagnetic forces are required to explain things. I have suggested from the very beginning (in this forum) that gravitational tugging on a sphere which has a non-spherically symmetrical mass distribution will significantly amplify tidal heating and cause local hotspots. Now serious scientific study is beginning to confirm this proposition. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

bonzelite · Jun 2, 2006

No exploding planets or mysterious electromagnetic forces are required to explain things. EM forces are not mysterious. they're everywhere to greater or lesser degrees. the earth has a magnetosphere with a magnetotail. why a comet is "officially" exempt from this is the mystery. the earth can have such a structure, but a comet cannot? and you are ready to face a firing squad if tidal heating is bogus? you're that sure?

CalliArcale · Jun 5, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />the earth can have such a structure, but a comet cannot?<hr /></blockquote> Without a magnetic field, a magnetotail is impossible. (The Earth's magnetotail is part of the Earth's magnetic field. Ergo, no magnetic field, no magnetotail.) No comet has ever been observed to possess a measurable magnetic field -- certainly not enough of one to produce a magnetotail. However, it is untrue that the Earth's upper atmosphere is not ionized. Things don't have to glow to be ionized. In fact, another word for the magnetosphere is the ionosphere. (The words are not synonymous -- a planet without a magnetic field can still have an ionosophere. For instance, Mars has an ionosphere.) I consider it extremely simplistic to assume that all events must have the same cause. Why suggest a firing squad if a particular case proves not to be caused by tidal heating? Can you not conceive of the possibility that different causes can underly internal heating? In the case of comets, I suspect that tidal heating is seldom the cause. Shoemaker-Levy 9, being relatively far from the Sun, may indeed have succumbed to tidal forces. But this is clearly not the cause of 73P's relatively recent breakup. In fact, I suspect most comet breakups have nothing to do with tidal interactions (except indirectly, as a tidal interaction put them on their current course). Solar heating seems very likely to me. Given enough time, and the inevitable uneven heating, they're bound to fracture eventually. BTW, you asked why manmade satellites don't fracture in Earth orbit. This is because the tidal stress is less than the mechanical strength of the satellites themselves. They're quite small -- the difference in gravitational force from one end to the other is negligible. A larger body might not fare as well, depending on how strong it is inside. Even then, an object will generally not break up insta <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Jun 8, 2006

However, it is untrue that the Earth's upper atmosphere is not ionized. i should have said, instead, "glowing." ionization happens often during storms, for example, of the air, but the air is not glowing all of the time. electrostatic/em forces do not always glow continually. plasmas exist in a range of densities. the earth's ionosphere is not continually lit up. I consider it extremely simplistic to assume that all events must have the same cause. i don't think all events have the same cause. you seem not to consider a comet tail as possibly and electromagnetic structure, as in an aurorae? Why suggest a firing squad if a particular case proves not to be caused by tidal heating? Can you not conceive of the possibility that different causes can underly internal heating? i don't buy the tidal heating idea for Enceladus. that may come into play, but i doubt it is the central culprit. i will not bet the farm on tidal heating or face a firing squad if i'm wrong. i do not have such belief in it to lay it down this way. but others seem to be fairly sure it is "tidal heating." to the extent in the manner of their talk that they'd gladly face a bullet if they're wrong, being that they're so certain. I suspect most comet breakups have nothing to do with tidal interactions (except indirectly, as a tidal interaction put them on their current course). Solar heating seems very likely to me. i agree. Jupiters "gravity" did not break up Levy9 any more than it will "break apart" an orbiting craft.

qso1 · Jun 8, 2006

bonzelite: i agree. Jupiters "gravity" did not break up Levy9 any more than it will "break apart" an orbiting craft. Me: I can't say for sure what caused Shoemaker Levy to break up but as a layman in this stuff. Theres something that stands out in my mind about the orbital craft. I'll start with the Roche limit which is that limit that has been theorized to explain the existence of Saturns rings. Saturns rings which I'm sure you already know are thought to have once been a satellite that failed to form, or was torn apart by tidal due to falling within the Roche limit of Saturn. Spacecraft in low earth orbit on the other hand, are able to be there and the vast majority are within the earth's Roche limit because they are structurally designed to withstand several times the pull of gravity at launch. Otherwise, they couldn't be placed in orbit with present technology. Being designed to withstand several G's at launch means they can stand up to being well within the Roche limit. In addition, and this is just a hypothesis of mine that I have no way of testing or proving...spacecraft are very small to begin with relatively speaking and in that respect, they may be below some as yet unknown threshold for which the Roche limit may not apply. As always, I'm a day late and a dollar short...just noticed Calli's explanation on why manmade objects do not break up when orbiting planets or moons. Hopefully, my explanation will widen the scope of it a bit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

CalliArcale · Jun 8, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />i should have said, instead, "glowing." ionization happens often during storms, for example, of the air, but the air is not glowing all of the time. electrostatic/em forces do not always glow continually. plasmas exist in a range of densities. the earth's ionosphere is not continually lit up.<hr /></blockquote> Okay, now I understand what you're saying. Correct: the Earth's upper atmosphere is not continually glowing in visible light. That only happens when the ions have something to interact with, like other ions (such as those flowing from the Sun). There might be aurora tonight, BTW: we're in a solar wind stream right now. Spaceweather.com has a lovely picture from a brilliant display over Winnipeg that apparently only lasted about a minute. It's very unpredictable. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />i don't think all events have the same cause. you seem not to consider a comet tail as possibly and electromagnetic structure, as in an aurorae?<hr /></blockquote> I think the ion tails, when they glow, are behaving much like aurorae. But the dust tails are shining in reflected sunlight. Comets have different kinds of tails -- often at the same time. Spectroscopy of these tails reveals that sometimes they even have multiple ion tails made of different ions! (Different ions glow in distinctly different colors, which makes it possible to identify them.) Hale-Bopp had a lovely blue ion tail in addition to its brighter dust tail. It's usually not possible to see the ion tails with the naked eye, although they'll often come out in visible light with a long exposure. One interesting thing is that the dust tails always flow away from the Sun, blown by the solar wind. But the ion tails don't always go quite the same way; I presume this is because the particles are moving fast enough to make some headway against the solar wind. (They do still gen <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Search

internal heating of bodies just too much of a stretch

bonzelite

Guest

qso1

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

silylene old

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

qso1

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page