Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Does a planets orientation contribute to its internal heat?

There are two planets, Venus and Uranus that are not in counter clock wise rotation. Venus is boiling hot and about 180 degrees off of rotating the way most planets do. Uranus produces more heat internally than it receives from the Sun and it is tilted about 98 degrees. I think this extra heat production is due to magnetic conflicts with the Sun and would disappear if, say Venus, is to assume a normal counter clockwise rotation. If this contention is correct there should be a mathematical solution determine the relative heat produced in each planet by some relationship to the degree the planet disagrees with the proper counter clockwise rotation of the other planets. Venus is the extreme at 180 degrees any other being something less. This opens the possibility of a fairly large planet in the outer regions of the Solar System rotating clockwise and producing enough heat to sustain life even in the coldest regions.
I think there must be a way to calculate this effect but I can not do it.
Can you?
jw

.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
Does a planets orientation contribute to its internal heat? I think
there must be a way to calculate this effect but I can not do it.
Describe in detail the approach(es) you have
made in calculating any contribution jjw004.

Thanks

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Garry asks:
Describe in detail the approach(es) you have made in calculating the contribution jjw004.
Rep.

First of all I must confess I am neither learned nor skilled in physics. When very young I began an electrician apprentice course at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard but did not finish due to the length of the course (you could get a B.A. degree in the same time.) While working with the "test gang" running temperature readings and RPM's on large electric motors I became acquainted with the heat increase in some motors related to things like uneven mounts, excessive friction on shafts and inadequate voltage supply.

Now, to the question, I am certain in my own mind that Venus is super hot due to its retrograde rotation and not simply due to a greenhouse effect as currently offered. This effect is seen in Uranus and to a much lesser extent here at Earth (we are only 23 degrees off of perpendicular to the elliptic.). That is another point of interest. We are, it seems, still in an Earth focused Solar System using the earth as the source of the elliptic. My approach was very simplistic. I start with the assumption that the real center point of the system is at the Sun's equator. All planets positions are assumed to be proper if their axis is perpendicular to the plane created by the Suns equator plane. I then start by listing the published data for each planet (satellites later) and use that data to created a chart providing the opportunity for comparisons. I have not done it on this issue yet but I do at times write a BASIC program with a loop that lets me replay the data over and over to seek a uniform meaningful result that appears to work. This by my simplistic method would hopefully equate a given degree of tilt to an observed temperature of the object. The method must then provide for a potential enlargement of temperature, not necessarily evenly progressive, that works for all of the planets. The first handicap is that we do not have that kind of data for all of the planets, not even for the Earth that I know of, but I am sure it is there.
I had to give you more than you wanted because I have no thermal formulae that I know how to apply and no assurance such formulae would work in this instance. When time permits I will get on with the computer projections.

You may have a better idea since you are a geologist.
jw

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
You may have a better idea since you are a geologist.
My research yielded "Not Published" jjw004,
if important to you, properly publish first.

Good luck with it.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
The Tilted Sapce Time Creates a New Space Time Force Other than Dragging and Attracting
Thus some regions become more deformed than other.Any heat is always countered by Equal Cold.
Creating an Evolutionary Entropy Charge.
Thus Dimensional Explanation can be exchanged with Quantum Explanation.
Which means Universe scaling is possible and Speed of Light can be Increase with time.By exchanging Quantum Expalnation with Extra Dimensions.
Thus there are beings which live in higher Dimensions.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
The Tilted Sapce Time Creates a New Space Time Force Other than Dragging and Attracting
Thus some regions become more deformed than other.Any heat is always countered by Equal Cold.
Creating an Evolutionary Entropy Charge.
Thus Dimensional Explanation can be exchanged with Quantum Explanation.
Which means Universe scaling is possible and Speed of Light can be Increase with time.By exchanging Quantum Expalnation with Extra Dimensions.
Thus there are beings which live in higher Dimensions.
Beings which live in higher dimensions? That's a high flying conclusion. Would you care to back it up with something more substantial than your aery-faery flights of lousy logic? How about some concrete evidence of some kind? Even droppings would help. A footprint perhaps.

And besides, You're WAY off topic.

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Y
Member
Offline
Member
Y
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally posted by Garry Denke:

if important to you, properly publish first.
Why? What's the point of going through the hassle of getting something published, especially when one is a non-academic non-scientist who simply has an idea and wants to see if it's a viable idea.

Seems to me that the best thing to do in that case would be to post the idea on a dedicated science forum where knowledgeable types could comment on the idea.

So jjw's only error, it seems, was choosing this forum to post on.


Bwa ha ha haaaa!!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Y
Member
Offline
Member
Y
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
Does a planets orientation contribute to its internal heat?
Your idea, if I understand it correctly, is that (1) a planet's rotation around its axis has an effect on its magnetic field; (2) that the more extreme the deviation from the perpendicular (in relation to the plane of the orbit), the more extreme the effect on the magnetic field; (3) that a rotation in a direction opposite to the common direction of most planets has a significant effect on the magnetic field; (4) that these effects on the planet's magnetic field encounter resistance or otherwise interact with the sun's magnetic field or solar wind or cosmic radiation or something, so that (5) the planet's core generates heat.

I'm not sure I buy it. Do you have any analogous observations about the interplay of magnetic fields that would indicate (a) that heat would be generated this way and (b) that any such heat would arise within the planet rather than out in its magnetic lines of force in space? Do you have any analogous observations about magnetic fields created by physical forces similar to a planet's rotation, which would indicate that the angle or direction of rotation have any significant effect on the magnetic field so created?

While you're answering these questions, you might also want to ponder the fact that Venus doesn't appear to be throwing off more heat than it is absorbing (so its atmosphere and proximity to the sun would appear to explain its temperature).

And you might also want to ponder the likelihood of fusion occurring in the cores of the gas giants, which is widely supposed to be occurring at least within Jupiter, and not improbably within the other three.


Bwa ha ha haaaa!!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi YAC:

I am on my way to the beach area this morning so I do not have time now to respond to your post. I like your approach though. I will be in touch soon from the beach area. If Venus was putting out more heat than it was getting from the sun how would you know?
jw

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally posted by Yet Another Crank:
Why?
What's the point of going through the hassle of getting something published,
especially when one is a non-academic non-scientist
The more reason to protect it,
if jjw004 is interested in credit.

Publishing is easy.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
While you're answering these questions, you might also want to ponder the fact that Venus doesn't appear to be throwing off more heat than it is absorbing (so its atmosphere and proximity to the sun would appear to explain its temperature).
REP:Probably she never belonged to this Solar System.She is the pure relic of the ancient Collosion which had taken palce between Sun and that Ultra Cold Planet.

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Y
Member
Offline
Member
Y
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
While you're answering these questions, you might also want to ponder the fact that Venus doesn't appear to be throwing off more heat than it is absorbing (so its atmosphere and proximity to the sun would appear to explain its temperature).
REP:Probably she never belonged to this Solar System.She is the pure relic of the ancient Collosion which had taken palce between Sun and that Ultra Cold Planet.
Please don't be offended, but I'm guessing you're ten or eleven years old. Am I correct?


Bwa ha ha haaaa!!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Now you have said I am not.
I am 11 year old if you want.
But seriously there is nothing wrong in my suggestion.Infact if I am not wrong this happened long time ago.
That debris must also have struck the Earth.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi all:

It is 11:10 PM here at the beach and I have had a large dinner, which always drains s some needed blood from my brain, but I will try a preliminary response.

DKV: I am surprised to learn you?re 11 years old and even more surprised to find that you admit it. Never shake the mysterious from your mantle. From my standpoint I am impressed if for no other reason than that you survive the hassle.

To G. Denke: Yes I propose to publish when I make a break through. I have published one book on the solar system with new stuff but done too early.
Academics publish to enhance their credentials; I have none- to advance.

To the Crank: I am going to provide as serious a response as possible to you posting that I can. OTOH we must start with the realization that the criteria you want me to provide is not available from any one ? no academic ? not Newton and not likely from me. However, since I am probably the first person to ever raise the issue in the first place I want to pursue it the best way I know how. It is now going on 11:30 PM. My lady has already gone bye-bye so I will too. I have a busy day tomorrow because I sold my boat and must conclude paper work meetings first.

You will get your response.
jw

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I am surprised to learn you?re 11 years old and even more surprised to find that you admit it. Never shake the mysterious from your mantle. From my standpoint I am impressed if for no other reason than that you survive the hassle.
REP:I hope I do not go against your theory.
But going by the defintion of forum I have put my point of view.Apart from a genuine objection, once raised during the Group Intelligence Discussion, I have not found a fruitful reasoning which could have resulted in a better understanding of us as a group..

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Originally posted by jjw004:
Does a planets orientation contribute to its internal heat?

Reply by JAC
?Your idea, if I understand it correctly, is that (1) a planet's rotation around its axis has an effect on its magnetic field; (2) that the more extreme the deviation from the perpendicular (in relation to the plane of the orbit), the more extreme the effect on the magnetic field; (3) that a rotation in a direction opposite to the common direction of most planets has a significant effect on the magnetic field; (4) that these effects on the planet's magnetic field encounter resistance or otherwise interact with the sun's magnetic field or solar wind or cosmic radiation or something, so that (5) the planet's core generates heat.

I'm not sure I buy it. Do you have any analogous observations about the interplay of magnetic fields that would indicate (a) that heat would be generated this way and (b) that any such heat would arise within the planet rather than out in its magnetic lines of force in space? Do you have any analogous observations about magnetic fields created by physical forces similar to a planet's rotation, which would indicate that the angle or direction of rotation have any significant effect on the magnetic field so created?

While you're answering these questions, you might also want to ponder the fact that Venus doesn't appear to be throwing off more heat than it is absorbing (so its atmosphere and proximity to the sun would appear to explain its temperature). ?

JJw Rep;

I will stay with the objects I referred to. It is common knowledge that astronomers blame the extraordinary heat of Venus on a Greenhouse effect along the lines of which you would like me to ponder. I pondered that issue long ago and feel it is simply a conclusion due to a lack of imagination as to other possible causes. On the surface it appears to work and academics cannot leave things in Limbo, they must have an answer so why not a Greenhouse effect? As I see it if the heat from the sun can get in through the clouds then a lot can get out again. We are talking temperatures that could melt lead not a place where plants can flourish.

As to your re-statement of my proposal the basics are right on target. If you?re not into it then you must feel that planets and satellites do not affect one another. The moon Io is literally bursting with volcanic action, as so well depicted by NASA efforts and that is believed to be due to interplanetary action. There is also the prospect for more than one circumstance effecting Venus. A very hat planet due to magnetically generated heat and some contribution of a Greenhouse effect. My point is that it is worth my time to seek an explanation and if it is possible mathematically all the better.

As to publishing I fail to understand your point. If some one has a worthwhile idea they would normally want the credit for the discovery. If they are wrong there will be no credit anyway. I doubt further discussion on my part would be useful for you.
jw

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
Y
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Y
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
And returning to the topic..............

I have read reputable scientific papers proposing that the reasons for earths internal heat are threefold.

The first is from the nuclear reaction of radioactive elements in the earths core, however this one is not considered to be the major contributor of thermal energy. There is, however, some disagreement on this from the fringes of the scientific community.

The second is the tidal forces exerted by the moon. This is the one that is thought to contribute the most to the internal stresses that drive plate tectonics and therefore cause earthquakes through plate interactions. This stress also generates heat. The combination of heat and plate stress helps drive volcanic activity.

The earth has the largest moon to planet mass ratio and therefore the strongest moon induced tidal forces.

The third is the current generated by the differential spin of the various layers of the earths core and mantle through it's own magnetic field. As far as I know the amount this contributes to the internal heat is unknown and a subject of speculation.

The tilt of the earth's axis out of alignment with the orbital plane is not considered to be a major factor in anything but the seasons. The earth, at 93,000,000 miles from the sun and only 5000 miles in diameter, would be subjected to only trivial variations in force due to it's tilt on it's axis as it revolves around the sun.

If solar radiation were a contributor of any apreciable amount of the earths internal heat the surface would be unlivable and we would not be here. Just look at mercury for an example. Mercury does not rotate in relation to the sun (the same face always faces the sun) and the sunward side is extremely hot while the side away from the sun is a frozen wasteland well below any temperatures found on earth.


People don't care what you have done
People won't remember what you have said
But they will never forget how you made them feel
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
Y
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Y
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
I will stay with the objects I referred to. It is common knowledge that astronomers blame the extraordinary heat of Venus on a Greenhouse effect along the lines of which you would like me to ponder. I pondered that issue long ago and feel it is simply a conclusion due to a lack of imagination as to other possible causes. On the surface it appears to work and academics cannot leave things in Limbo, they must have an answer so why not a Greenhouse effect? As I see it if the heat from the sun can get in through the clouds then a lot can get out again. We are talking temperatures that could melt lead not a place where plants can flourish.
The greenhouse effect is not about heat in only one form that can pass as easily through the atmosphere in the outward direction as the inward direction.

It is about energy from the sun that comes in as radiation that interacts with the planet's surface and is converted to thermal energy that is re-radiated as mostly infrared radiation.

The incoming solar radiation (mostly ultraviolet) can pass easily into the planet's atmosphere, however when it becomes infrared energy the greenhouse gasses cause it to be reflected back down to the surface.

It is this one way effect that traps the heat in the planet's atmosphere and surface and drives the extreme temperature found on Venus.

That is why scientists are worried about increasing greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. It doesn't matter if they are manmade, natural, or a combination; they will have the same effect either way.

Also, Venus is a lot closer to the sun than Earth and therefore recieves more energy per square mile of surface than the earth. Don't forget the square of the distance law for any radiated energy (other than coherent energy as from a laser) that says that if the earth were twice the distance from the sun as venus it would not recieve half the energy concentration but rather one fourth as much per square mile of surface. So while the earth will probably never reach the temperature of Venus regardless of the amount of greenhouse gasses; it still could get pretty warm and change our climate and the locations where man could survive. Imagine having to move closer to the arctic and antarctic areas because the equatorial band became too hot to allow us to live life as we know it in the open atmosphere.


People don't care what you have done
People won't remember what you have said
But they will never forget how you made them feel
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Thank you YOGI for your replies.

Your first reply is on point and except for the one comment about solar radiation that has nothing to do with my contention about heat being generated in solar objects by their orientation to the plane of the suns equator. The three current propositions you offer from your readings do represent the mainstream view of the causes for the Earths internal heat. They seem to have some doubts as to all of the possible causes so they may have more explanations than they need to answer the heat question or it may reflect a little insecurity in the conclusions. You have a typo when you refer to the Earth as 5,000 miles in diameter. There is a little conflict in the published data that I have reviewed and that is not even close to the polar diameter. The equatorial diameter of earth is about 7,926 miles.

Your second response about the Greenhouse effect on Venus by infrared energy is well taken. Your comment that Venus is closer to the sun than Earth is also noted. It is about 67 million miles average compared to Earths at about 93 million miles average. I think the planet Mercury is estimated to rotate about 1.58 times as it revolves the 360 degrees around the sun. The difference with your statement is nominal and I mention it to keep us on tract. To my limited knowledge NO ONE has offered a formula to calculate the factors involved with the alleged Greenhouse effect attributed to Venus. There is always the likelihood of more than one explanation. Science is not supposed to stop investigating because one possible conclusion is offered. I am not concluding anything and that is the way things should be done. I postulate that with the knowledge we have of the planets and comparing two objects we know are extremely hot and finding that both of those objects are in retrograde rotation there may be a common effect that may not be universal to all solar objects because the others rotate counterclockwise.
I am seeking a mathematical formula to determine if the heat generated can be equated to the retrograde rotation and/or the tilt of objects to the suns plane.

For you to insist on a Greenhouse effect for which no mathematical proof has been offered is not a viable response to my conjecture. It remains a conclusion until proof is provided. Even if the Greenhouse contention were correct that of itself would not rule out the contribution of other causes unless every degree of hest measured was covered by the proposed formula for the Greenhouse effect.

Thank you for your interest and the historical review.
jjw

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
I return to this topic to note a source of some information that deals with the effect of motors overheating due to polarity inconsistencies. In this instance a planet rotating clockwise when the Sun and the other planets rotate counterclockwise. I am aware that motors are not the same as planets but it does bear on my point.


http://www.aosmithmotors.com/html/motorDoctor/magneticsheatmotorefficiency.htm


Magnetics, heat, and motor efficiency
"Motor efficiency remains one of the top issues in our industry, but when you talk about efficiency, often you're talking about trade-offs. In other words, it is relatively easy to make a motor more efficient, if money is no object. But since cost is a factor, motor manufacturers keep seeking the right balance of increasing motor output without driving up the price of the product.
Occasionally, a technician or service person will ask me, "why not just increase the output by increasing the voltage (the current flow) to the motor?" While that may seem logical, increasing the voltage (in effect, creating an over voltage situation) will not necessarily boost the output of the device. To understand why, you need to become familiar with a physical characteristic called "hysteresis loss."

"Think of the atoms of magnetic material as an unruly herd of cattle. Running electric current through the material will polarize these atoms,
creating the magnetic field. But as I mentioned, this is an unruly herd. It takes time for the current to bring all those atoms into formation.

As you might suspect, when you reverse the current in an alternating current motor, it takes time for those atoms to get going in the opposite direction. And the amount of time is not necessarily the same as the time it took to get the herd moving properly in the first place.

"Without getting into a lengthy physics lecture, this process of reversing polarity produces heat (or wasted energy). This is known as hysteresis loss. And that helps explain why increasing the voltage into the motor will not necessarily increase the output. Instead, it can fight the resistance of magnetic materials to reverse polarity--and simply heat iron."

I know that Ac Vs Dc has nothing to do,with my contention, it is the reversing of the magnetics that I feel makes the point relevant.
jjw

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
The tilt of the earth's axis out of alignment with the orbital plane is not considered to be a major factor in anything but the seasons.
REP: yes it is not major factor from the point of view of Heat content but it offers its services .. rather critical services of season creation and destruction.Internally it means that it produces a Heat cycle which actually pumps the small but very important seasonal changes.Without Seasonal changes intelligent life is not possible.Imagine the great African prosperous Wildlife at its infacny when everything was in plenty... All around the year there was weather remained same in some parts...
Making the species complacent and vulnerable.
Suddenly the whole jungle used to get wiped out due to outbreak of diseases. Remember the Dinosaurs. Part of the reason behind their extinction remains biological.
Thus Tilt may not contribute to net Internal Heat but it produces the differential required to pump the Seasons.Notice that its internal contribution can not be neglected otherwise the system fails.There are Steam Cycles below the earth which use this differntial change produce what is called as stable climate(no such AC can be reproduced easily).Can anyone tell me what will be Earth Tempreature Distributuion if the Earth did not choose to Tilt the way it did?
==========================================
The earth, at 93,000,000 miles from the sun and only 5000 miles in diameter, would be subjected to only trivial variations in force due to it's tilt on it's axis as it revolves around the sun.
REP: Yes but we should know that the Tidal Force(from Sun or the Moon) is no more important or less important than the Season inducing Tilt.
There are other factors as well which contributes negligibly but are important.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Q:Does a planet's tilt contribute to it's internal heat?

No, Jim, it doesn't. The internal heat is, for planets, or better has been generated in the formation of the planet by the conversion of gravitational energy in thermal energy (called heat of accretion), by the differentiation of the planet's material in layers of different densities(lithosphere and core for example) or by radioactive decay.

For stars, the situation is rather different. More mass being involved, the heat of accretion raises the temperature so much that fusion reactions become possible on a large scale, and these reactions produce further energy, etc.

Tilt has nothing to do with this, in the sense that seasonal heating it is more than negligible compared to the internal heating. Even for the planets close to the Sun. You compare temperature variations at the surface of say a few hundred degrees at best with tens of thousands of degrees in the core.

But there is something that I don't understand. I know that you are looking for your own interpretation of the solar system, and this is fine. But some of the questions you've been asking are below freshman astronomy, and I belive it would be much more efficient for you if you actually read an astronomy/astrophysics book. There is wealth of such books, some of them presenting elementary phenomenology without too many formulae and theories. If you'd like, I can round up some titles for you.It would be a much better use of your time than reading dkv's aberations like: "There are other factors as well which contributes negligibly but are important."

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Thank you Pasti for your sound advice.

Was it Holmes (or Doyle) that said something like ?when all possible causes have been ruled out what remains must be the answer?, or some such. You are taking me back to the conclusions historically offered as the cause. It is clear to me that reading more astronomy books will not provide any new answers. What ever the state of astronomical thinking may be as to Venus and Uranus it fails to distinguish between the ?normal? members of the system and those that appear to be otherwise. I read more as I dream up more issues. I rely on the academics findings and conclusions for just about all my efforts as long as they have answers to offer which deal with the issues I pursue. In this instance I start with a simple documented fact- to wit- that Venus and Uranus are two planets that produce a lot of heat. A lot more than the balance of the tribe in general. Next, the two planets that do this are documented to be in retrograde rotation. The prospective answer for the extra heat may be found in the orientation, or not, and the issue, to me, is not answered in the books, so I am looking for it.

This is not complex but the outcome could have an effect on gravitation and all of the other interplanetary relationships that we now take for granted.

Looking back on it I see that it was not such a good idea to post this question on this forum. I guess I thought some smart person would offer me an avenue to travel towards a possible solution and that was a little too optimistic. I will go on with the effort on my own time. Thank you again for the comments.

I think I like dkv?s observations because they force me to try to understand. Whether I can or not does not make them any less entertaining for me.
jjw

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
It was Holmes (and A.C. Doyle since the latter created the former). I understand your approach, but in my view it doesn't hurt to know the arguments of the opposing counsel. And decide for yourself if they are accurate or not. In my oppinion, it is much better than trying to make sense of dkv's ramblings.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
:Does a planet's tilt contribute to it's internal heat?
No, Jim, it doesn't.
REP: Yes but neglibly when comared to total Heat content.By internal I mean the Heat content of the Planet.Tilt triggers a Heat Cycle which does its job of keeping the seaons running.
=======================================
The internal heat is, for planets, or better has been generated in the formation of the planet by the conversion of gravitational energy in thermal energy (called heat of accretion), by the differentiation of the planet's material in layers of different densities(lithosphere and core for example) or by radioactive decay.
REP: Thats fine.In short it was there at the time of creation and infact it has been loosing its internal heat.We are in the golden period of Earth where the Internal Heat has stable value due to a complex evolutionary process.The difference is of few degrees and we would never have been there to discuss it.It is such a lucky mix.
Earth consists of Intelligent Life Conducive Heat Cycles which runs on the Solar Energy ..
=======================================
For stars, the situation is rather different. More mass being involved, the heat of accretion raises the temperature so much that fusion reactions become possible on a large scale, and these reactions produce further energy, etc.
REP: Even that is fine.Let us Start a new Topic how Stars generate Internal Heat.
=====================================
Tilt has nothing to do with this
REP: By "this" I mean the Season effect.Which is when compared to the Actual Heat content leaves no scope for significant discussion but is it not true that without the Tilt the Seasonal Variation will vanish? Isnt it true that intelligent life(like humans) can not grow on a Monotnous Region of extreme Harsh climate or extremly Conducive Climate...Both lead to self destruction.It makes sense.Any Evolutionist will say that there are inherent limits on allowable conditions for initelligent life like evolution...Thats why Tilt has a insignificant contribution to Heat Content but Significant Contribution to its distibution in a way which helps life to grow.
=========================================
, in the sense that seasonal heating it is more than negligible compared to the internal heating.
REP: The Origin of Earth accounts for most of its heat.The same Core should be found in most of the Planets...What comes out of a planet as measured value of internal heat depends on Many factors.However nothing like Venus is expected =============================================
Even for the planets close to the Sun. You compare temperature variations at the surface of say a few hundred degrees at best with tens of thousands of degrees in the core.
REP: Yes and this is the reason I said that Venus doesnt belong to this Group.
===========================================
"There are other factors as well which contributes negligibly but are important."
REP: If we are discussing the amount of heat content then the contribution is neglible.Infact nothing else contributes as significantly as its Origin in past.
But if we are discussing its distribution then the situation is different and the Tilt becomes important..
And I am not aware why I should be wrong.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
dkv, the question was:"Does a planet's tilt contribute to it's internal heat?"

This question has a very precise meaning. At least for us, the narrow minded physicists, it refers to the influence of the tilt of the planets on the processes that take place in the core of the planets that generate heat.

And the answer is no, the tilt does not influence these processes.

dkv:"Yes but neglibly when comared to total Heat content.By internal I mean the Heat content of the Planet.Tilt triggers a Heat Cycle which does its job of keeping the seaons running."

Seasons are due to the tilt of the rotation axis/equatorial plane with respect to the orbital plane. Simpler put, due to tilt different hemispheres of the planet receive more heat from the Sun during the time necessay for a planet to complete a full orbit around the Sun. So now we are clear at least what seasons are.

Now there is the (more or less academic) question of whether the seasons affect the internal heat of the planet, as you claim. Once again, for us the narrow minded physicists, this question has a very precise meaning. It means that we would like to know whether the seasonal temperature variations affect the temperatures in the core of the planet (remember that the core of the planet is responsible for the generation of internal heat). And without entering too many practical details, the answer is once again, no. Seasonal temperature variations (and day/night variations for that matter) only raise the temperature of a very thin surface layer of the planet (much like what happens on Earth with the temperatures of the oceans: deep enough the temperature remains constant irrespective of what the temperature at the surface is). So the answer is once again, no, seasonal variations in temperature are irrelevant to the processes that take place in the cores of the planets and which generate the internal heat.

So returning to your answer, as far as one can make any sense of it, no, the seasonal effect isn?t even negligible when it comes to the internal core processes. And the heat cycle generated by the tilt is a consequence of the seasons, and not what keeps the seasons running.


dkv: ?Thats fine.In short it was there at the time of creation and inf act it has been loosing its internal heat. We are in the golden period of Earth where the Internal Heat has stable value due to a complex evolutionary process. The difference is of few degrees and we would never have been there to discuss it. It is such a lucky mix. Earth consists of Intelligent Life Conducive Heat Cycles which runs on the Solar Energy .?

The difference of a few degrees does not exist in fact, and ?Earth consists of Intelligent Life Conducive Heat Cycles which runs on the Solar Energy? once again, is a statement that you make and which makes no sense. Not even philosophically.

REP: Even that is fine. Let us Start a new Topic how Stars generate Internal Heat.

I am so happy that I have your seal of approval regarding the internal processes in stars! It has always been my lifelong goal!
As for starting the new topic, google up the carbon cycle on stars. It?s been on the market for close to 3 decades now.

??Tilt has nothing to do with this?
dkv: ?By "this" I mean the Season effect.?

When I wrote the line that you quote, ?this? meant the internat heat generation mechanics/processes. It seems that for you it once again means something entirely different.

dkv: ?Which is when compared to the Actual Heat content leaves no scope for significant discussion but is it not true that without the Tilt the Seasonal Variation will vanish? Isn?t it true that intelligent life (like humans)? can not grow on a Monotonous Region of extreme Harsh climate or extremly Conducive Climate...Both lead to self destruction. It makes sense. Any Evolutionist will say that there are inherent limits on allowable conditions for intelligent life like evolution...That?s why Tilt has a insignificant contribution to Heat Content but Significant Contribution to its distribution in a way which helps life to grow. ?

Focus dkv, focus! On the issue that is being discussed, that is! That without seasons life might not have come into existence on Earth is a different issue altogether. But even in that context, seasons were not the fundamental cause of the apparition of life.


REP: ?The Origin of Earth accounts for most of its heat. The same Core should be found in most of the Planets. What comes out of a planet as measured value of internal heat depends on Many factors. However nothing like Venus is expected. Even for the planets close to the Sun. You compare temperature variations at the surface of say a few hundred degrees at best with tens of thousands of degrees in the core.
dkv: Yes and this is the reason I said that Venus doesn?t belong to this Group.

Once again, I have no ideea what group you refer to. As for what Jim says, it is not inconceivable that the conditions on Venus to be what they are. It is almost as heavy as the Earth, so it is conceivable that it can retain an atmosphere. It is closer to the Sun, so it receives more heat, and as such it is not unreasonable to expect a strong greenhouse effect to be present at its surface and in its atmosphere. The only aspect that makes Venus different is that it rotates clockwise, in the opposite direction that the ?norm?. And I believe this was Jim?s point. He is trying to correlate, among other things, the conditions on Venus with it?s peculiar rotation.

"There are other factors as well which contributes negligibly but are important."
dkv: ?If we are discussing the amount of heat content then the contribution is negligible. In fact nothing else contributes as significantly as its Origin in past. But if we are discussing its distribution then the situation is different and the Tilt becomes important. And I am not aware why I should be wrong.?

The fact that you are not aware why you should be wrong makes you a person that should read more, to answer a question that you asked earlier. As for the rest of your statement, FOCUS ON THE TOPIC THAT IS DISCUSSED. Which is the influence of the planetary tilt on its internal heat. Not the influence of seasons on the existence of life, not how the distribution of the seasonal heat makes a planet more or less hospitable to life. STAY WITH THE TOPIC THAT IS DISCUSSED.

What you do is you change the context in which the issue is discussed and then you claim that you are right in your assumptions. LEARN TO DISCIPLINE YOUR THINKING AND REASONING, and be less concerned with being right no matter what. It is this aspect of your postings that make you a person who needs to learn more. Your strategy, when confronted on an issue or an argument, is to change the context of the discussion, and then to claim in the new context that you are right and have in fact always been right. That might work with other people, but it isn?t working with me. If you will ever take my advice and learn more about the issues you want to discuss, maybe you will understand that being always right no matter what is a childish trend, and maybe you will also understand that being right in science is not a matter of personal oppinion but a matter of (observed) facts and reasoning. And maybe, once you realize these things you will be able to handle discussions in a more cogent manner.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
I don't watch TV, and who needs to when you have entertainment as rich as this at the click of a mouse - and I am learning at the same time. Keep it up - I love this forum.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
This error is annoying though.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
It's a server error and should be fixed soon. We hope.

"Amaranth"

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi dkv.

I am about finished with this post but I want to get you focused on the point. I am talking about the potential internal heat. For Venus the effect overall, from all potential sources is quoted at 484 degrees celcius (730 k). I have no interest in seaonal surface changes that are obvious to all and well determined. Think about it.
jw

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5