Jupiter has gas?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mytheory

Guest
I always thought Jupiter was made up of a ridiculous amout of gas, and that that's where the bulk of all the gas went after the solar system formed. why is it, that when jupiter was struck by those huge comets several years back, that they left poc marks on what appeared to be the "surface" If this planet is all gas or mostly gaseous why did scars form on the "surface" after the impacts had occurred? I read that debris from these comets were shot back in to space after they hit and are now orbiting jupiter, Sound familiar? When a large comet hits a solid planet (earth) or when a planet impacts another doesn't debris shoot back into space, wasn't that how the moon was formed. I'm confused anyone got an answer? Has anyone else ever wonderd about this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span">@LEX</span> </div>
 
F

fatal291

Guest
although i am not an expert, nor am i being sarcastic in any way but i wonder this too. The one thing that does come to mind is when u skip rocks across water even though the water is not a solid, it still leaves signs of impact (ripples, splashes) so im guessing what we saw was the comet breaking up and causing some chemical reaction.. ill see if i can get a better answer
 
F

fatal291

Guest
Observers hoped that the impacts would give them a first glimpse of Jupiter beneath the cloud tops, as lower material was exposed by the comet fragments punching through the upper atmosphere. Spectroscopic studies revealed absorption lines in the Jovian spectrum due to diatomic sulfur (S2) and carbon disulfide (CS2), the first detection of either in Jupiter, and only the second detection of S2 in any astronomical object. Other molecules detected included ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The amount of sulfur implied by the quantities of these compounds was much greater than the amount that would be expected in a small cometary nucleus, showing that material from within Jupiter was being revealed. Oxygen-bearing molecules such as sulfur dioxide were not detected, to the surprise of astronomers.[6]<br /><br />As well as these molecules, emission from heavy atoms such as iron, magnesium and silicon was detected, with the abundances of these atoms being consistent with what would be found in a cometary nucleus. While substantial water was detected spectroscopically, it was not as much as predicted beforehand, meaning that either the water layer thought to exist below the clouds was thinner than predicted, or that the cometary fragments did not penetrate deeply enough.<br /><br /><br />[edit] Seismic waves<br />As predicted beforehand, the collisions generated enormous seismic waves which swept across the planet at speeds of 450 km/s and were observed for over two hours after the largest impacts. These waves seemed to be gravity waves, but their location was subject to debate. The waves were thought to be travelling within a stable layer acting as a waveguide, and some scientists believed the stable layer must lie within the hypothesised tropospheric water cloud. However, other evidence seemed to indicate that the cometary fragments had not reached the water layer, and the waves were instead propagating within the stratosphere.[7]<br /><br />http:
 
3

3488

Guest
Hi mytheory.<br /><br />Brilliant reasoning, but unfortunately no. The angle at which comet SL9 struck Jupiter<br />were far too steep to allow for skimming off the Jovian atmosphere.<br /><br />Also the Galileo atmospheric entry probe, encounterd no liquids as such either, just <br />an increasingly dense & hot atmosphere.<br /><br />The scars longevity was a surprise for sure, but actually, they were in the stratosphere of Jupiter<br />which tends to rotate more like a single entity, rahter than the diferential <br />rotation of the clouds. Jupiter I'm afraid has no 'surface' to speak off & the SL9 impacts as<br />well as the Galileo atmospheric probe do not dispute that fact.<br /><br />Hope that helps.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
F

fatal291

Guest
hes just wondering how are there impact marks to a planet that has no surface, its made of gas so how can you make those kind of impact marks on something thats pretty much gas.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Think about it, wehave clouds don't we. That's just gas <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
The reason for the scars was due to the amount of enrgy the impacts generated. It changed the chemical composition of the clouds in those areas. Then the clouds continued to rotate around Jupiter just as the did before and after.<br /><br />As for the shooting back out, in many ways gas acts as a fluid. For example wind can knock you over if it's moving fast enough even here on earth, where the gas density is much lower than on Jupiter.<br /><br />So when the comets bored into the atmosphere of Juiper, they caused tremendous heating and the cooler gas surrounding the impact point resists the extreme pressure. So that the only release point for that heat induced pressure was through the path of least resistance, which happend to be the same patch the comet took before it burned up.<br /><br />Somehow, I'm not sure that last part is very clear, perhps I'll try again after my morning coffee. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Sounds very clear to me. Effectively, a geyser.<br /><br />So many examples of this concept. The expansion foam I was using the other day to weather-seal a project. Squirt it into the hole and it meets resistance (wood and metal). Expanding back out the hole it came in was far more energy-efficient than trying to part the wood and metal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>when the comets bored into the atmosphere of Juiper, they caused tremendous heating and the cooler gas surrounding the impact point resists the extreme pressure. So that the only release point for that heat induced pressure was through the path of least resistance, which happend to be the same patch the comet took before it burned up.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />you are saying that the heated gas took the same 'path' ? that surely was a typo, anyway, wouldn't the heated gas rather rise towards the top of the atmosphere? <br /><br />I imagine that heating the gas led to some altered chemical composition of it (it might have even reacted with burned off cometary material) and that showed up as altered colour of the gases that we have seen as the enduring impact spots, I take it those spots have since vanished?<br /><br />I must say I never understood the staying power of that famous red spot for example unless there was some solid 'ground' feature like some humungous volcano or a mountain range or something like that that would alter atmosphere above it and maintain it<br /><br />I don't know about Jupiter being all gas, with increasing pressure as you go down into it that should change to liquid and eventually perhaps solidify at great depths and pressures (well, depending on the composition) and while that would be nothing like firm surface that we know here on Earth still it could have 'peaks and valleys' in that 'solid' (or even liquid) surface and those features would be responsible for causing and maintaining the cloud features like that famous red spot<br /><br />when it comes to Jupiter its huge scales are stupendous from our human standpoint and I suppose the ususal time and size scales of events happening there are beyond our layman's comprehension, sort of like cosmic distances are, so that a feature like the red spot can form on Jupiter and last for countless human generation and it may just be a local pas <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't know about Jupiter being all gas, with increasing pressure as you go down into it that should change to liquid and eventually perhaps solidify at great depths and pressures (well, depending on the composition) and while that would be nothing like firm surface that we know here on Earth still it could have 'peaks and valleys' in that 'solid' (or even liquid) surface and those features would be responsible for causing and maintaining the cloud features like that famous red spot <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The problem with that statement is that it doesn't take into account the tremendous heat developed by all of that pressure. It would seem, at first, that the pressure of the gas above it would turn the gas near the center into a solid the same way that a mountain can make a diamond out of coal. However, there is a lot more pressure acting upon the core of Jupiter than just the weight of a mountain. The pressures create such temperatures that the gas remains a superheated fluid, or more correctly a plasma, despite the force compressing it. In fact the temperatures are almost, but not quite as hot as the core of a star. Saying that Jupiter has a "solid" core is like saying the Sun has a solid core as well.<br /><br />Earth's own core is not a solid, but a liquid all the way down to the center. How do we know this? Seismology. Earthquakes produce powerful sound waves which can be detected all over the world. The way these sound waves are deflected by the core is used to determine its precise makeup. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
Hi PistolPete,<br /><br />I thought that the Earth's Inner Core was solid (due to pressure), but the outer core was molten metal?<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
That was my understanding as well, a solid crystalline core for earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
I just re-looked it up. Yes, you guys were right. I was doing that post from memory and may have gotten confused by something my astronomy professor told me. My astronomy professor was actually a geologist by trade, but had enough of a physics background to teach introductory astronomy. He told me that the latest seismological research seems to indicate that there may be an inner-inner core that is again liquid, but this hasn't been conclusively proven yet. He did state, however, that there is no "solid" surface of Jupiter and that even at the pressures of the core of the Earth, the word "solid" doesn't quite have the same meaning. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
for all I know you may be right or your professor <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I have only basic chemistry to my command really since my interests have always been in theoretical physics, from the little I read up on Jupiter I never got feeling of believing any of it too much, it just seems nobody quite knows what the conditions deep down below the gaseous atmosphere might be, likely there is no 'surface' there but whatever is there it can sustain some inohomogeneity in its makeup, at least that's what my layman common sense understanding is telling me<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
The concept of a planet without a solid surface is such a foreign notion and so contrary to our everyday experience that it is very hard to wrap your head around at first. I went through the same thing the first time I learned of it, however, over time I have learned of so many stranger things about the Universe that a planet with no surface doesn't seem like such a strange idea. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Part of the trouble is that us laypeople tend to think of the phases of matter we were taught in high school chemistry: solid, liquid, gas, and possibly plasma. We think of them as straightforward regions -- it's either one thing or the other, and broadly, the difference is how dense and hot the stuff is. We also tend to think of these as a coherent spectrum -- solids are denser and colder than liquids, liquids are colder and denser than gases, and so forth. But the reality is much more complex than that, and our high school conception of the phases of matter tends to mislead us.<br /><br />What is inside of Jupiter is most likely a combination of gas and liquid, but at such pressures that it really wouldn't behave like what the average layperson thinks of as a liquid. It's an exotic form of matter. Theory (and some experimentation) predicts that the center of Jupiter will contain liquid metallic hydrogen -- but liquid hydrogen as used in the Space Shuttle is not metallic. So how can this be? It's an exotic liquid requiring truly phenomenal pressure to achieve. So the answer is that yes, Jupiter is made of gas. But in places it is more dense than a lot of the solids we're used to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts