Dandav Posted June 7 Report Share Posted June 7 (edited) In the following article it is stated: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/1-4020-4520-4_408 Tidal heating is the increase in internal thermal content of a planet or moon associated with the differential gravitational force (or tide) between two bodies in orbit about their common center of mass. As tidal heating is a source of heat energy in a planet or moon, why do we ignore that phenomenon? In the following article it is stated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget About 50% of the Earth's internal heat originates from radioactive decay. Not even one word about tidal heating energy. Why do we wish to believe that the Earth's internal heat is mainly due to radioactive decay and not due to Tidal heating energy / force? Edited June 7 by Dandav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halc Posted June 7 Report Share Posted June 7 It does heat the ocean, but internally, tidal stress currently accounts for under half a percent of the internal heat budget of Earth, most of that being near the surface, not contributing even that half percent to the deep internal heat of the planet. The article you chose didn't bother to include sources below some threshold of significance 7 hours ago, Dandav said: Why do we wish to believe that the Earth's internal heat is mainly due to radioactive decay and not due to Tidal heating energy / force? Because radioactive decay accounts for about 100 times the heat compared to tidal heating? It's not a wishful thing. It is the finding of empirical measurements. Half of it is primordial heat leftover from formation, so you omitting that is far more negligent than the one particular article not bothering to include tidal stress energy. Moontanman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzkpfw Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 Ignored so hard it's on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_heating#:~:text=Munk %26 Wunsch (1998) estimated,TW being due to tidal Moontanman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandav Posted June 8 Author Report Share Posted June 8 (edited) 4 hours ago, Halc said: It does heat the ocean, but internally, tidal stress currently accounts for under half a percent of the internal heat budget of Earth, most of that being near the surface, not contributing even that half percent to the deep internal heat of the planet. 3 hours ago, pzkpfw said: Ignored so hard it's on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_heating#:~:text=Munk %26 Wunsch (1998) estimated,TW being due to tidal Thanks It is stated that the internal friction due to the tidal forces heats the interior of the planet. When an object is in an elliptical orbit, the tidal forces acting on it are stronger near periapsis than near apoapsis. Thus the deformation of the body due to tidal forces (i.e. the tidal bulge) varies over the course of its orbit, generating internal friction which heats its interior. https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/moon/5Page49.pdf As the Moon orbits Earth, its gravitational pull raises the familiar tides in the ocean water, but did you know that it also raises 'earth tides' in the crust of earth. These tides are up to 50 centimeters in height and span continent-sized areas. The Earth also raises 'body tides' on the moon with a height of 5 meters! Hence, the Moon' tidal force raises the Earth crust (not just the Earth Ocean) by up to 50 cm two times a day. Please remember that when the crust is lifted by 50 cm, the whole internal matter is also lifted. Hence, while a rock at the crust (radius R) would be lifted by 50 cm, a similar rock mass at 1/2R would be lifted by 25cm. Every atom in the Earth (even the one at the internal core under maximal gravity pressure) must move constantly upwards/downwards due to this phenomenon. Did we try to calculate the impact of this internal friction due this deformation of the Earth body? Don't you agree that even if the Earth core was cold as ice at its first day, then after relatively short time it would gain significant internal heat energy? Edited June 8 by Dandav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halc Posted June 8 Report Share Posted June 8 7 hours ago, Dandav said: Did we try to calculate the impact of this internal friction due this deformation of the Earth body? You didn't read my post. I said it accounts for under half a percent of the heat budget of Earth. That figure wasn't made up. Earth loses internal heat at the rate of about 47 TW. Tidal heating of the mantle/core/crust is under 0.2 TW, well under half a percent of the total figure, small enough that the one article you linked didn't bother to mention it. Sources are linked above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandav Posted June 8 Author Report Share Posted June 8 (edited) 2 hours ago, Halc said: Tidal heating of the mantle/core/crust is under 0.2 TW How do we know for sure that Earth Tidal heating of the mantle/core/crust is under 0.2 TW? In the following article it is stated: https://interestingengineering.com/science/scientists-discover-huge-unknown-structures-near-earths-core In wonderful, unexpected ways, Earth still manages to surprise scientists. A team of researchers from the University of Maryland in the U.S. has discovered a large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core. Why those scientists are so surprised from this large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core? Could it be that they just don't really know how that large structure had been created? Could it be that they have missed the real impact of tidal force? Please look at the following tidal force diagram: https://i.sstatic.net/doGS5.gif https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/258770/are-tides-just-very-very-very-weak-spaghettification We clearly see that tidal has two forces: 1. Horizontal force - which pushes the matter outwards and sets the bulges. 2. Vertical force- which pushes the matter along the vertical line into the core. Could it be that the vertical force is the ultimate answer for the creation of this large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core? If that is correct, then I would expect that this large structure should have a shape of a bar along the vertical line (and not just a ball structure). As the Earth still manages to surprise scientis, why it can't also manage to surprise them by its large tidal friction heating energy that is generated while the large structure spins? How can we believe that the motion /spin of such large bar structure could only create heating energy under 0.2 TW? Edited June 8 by Dandav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted June 9 Report Share Posted June 9 On 6/8/2024 at 8:37 PM, Dandav said: How do we know for sure that Earth Tidal heating of the mantle/core/crust is under 0.2 TW? In the following article it is stated: https://interestingengineering.com/science/scientists-discover-huge-unknown-structures-near-earths-core In wonderful, unexpected ways, Earth still manages to surprise scientists. A team of researchers from the University of Maryland in the U.S. has discovered a large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core. Why those scientists are so surprised from this large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core? Could it be that they just don't really know how that large structure had been created? Could it be that they have missed the real impact of tidal force? Please look at the following tidal force diagram: https://i.sstatic.net/doGS5.gif https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/258770/are-tides-just-very-very-very-weak-spaghettification We clearly see that tidal has two forces: 1. Horizontal force - which pushes the matter outwards and sets the bulges. 2. Vertical force- which pushes the matter along the vertical line into the core. Could it be that the vertical force is the ultimate answer for the creation of this large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core? If that is correct, then I would expect that this large structure should have a shape of a bar along the vertical line (and not just a ball structure). As the Earth still manages to surprise scientis, why it can't also manage to surprise them by its large tidal friction heating energy that is generated while the large structure spins? How can we believe that the motion /spin of such large bar structure could only create heating energy under 0.2 TW? @Dandav, Is this going to be yet another thread where you ask questions then do not accept the answers you receive? The temperature gradient in the upper part of the crust is determined by directly measuring temperatures at different elevations in boreholes. On land, temperature measurements are usually made at depths greater than 100 meters to avoid any effect of variable surface temperatures. In the oceans, water temperatures at the sea bed are generally steady; measurements are made in the uppermost layer of sediments and yield reliable results. Once the thermal conductivity is known (it can be measured in a laboratory) the heat flow can be calculated using Fourier’s equation: q = -ku Where q is the heat flow, k is the thermal conductivity, and u is the temperature gradient. The best estimated results from these measurements: Steady energy flow from Earth’s interior: .09 W/m^2 Total Tidal Energy: .007 W/m^2 Energy from Earth Tides: 0.2 TW or 0.0004 W/m^2 The amount of Earth tide energy flow, 200 gigawatts is minuscule by any planetary standard, it hardly varies at all over periods of millions of years and has no significant effect, globally or regionally, on the Earth’s overall heat budget or the energy balance of the climate system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandav Posted June 10 Author Report Share Posted June 10 13 hours ago, OceanBreeze said: Energy from Earth Tides: 0.2 TW or 0.0004 W/m^2 The amount of Earth tide energy flow, 200 gigawatts is minuscule by any planetary standard, it hardly varies at all over periods of millions of years and has no significant effect, globally or regionally, on the Earth’s overall heat budget or the energy balance of the climate system. Thanks for your explanation / calculation. However, is it include the whole impact from the moon tidal gravity? Please look again in the following tidal forces diagram: On 6/8/2024 at 4:37 PM, Dandav said: Please look at the following tidal force diagram: https://i.sstatic.net/doGS5.gif https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/258770/are-tides-just-very-very-very-weak-spaghettification We clearly see that tidal has two forces: 1. Horizontal force - which pushes the matter outwards and sets the bulges. 2. Vertical force- which pushes the matter along the vertical line into the core. Could it be that the vertical force is the ultimate answer for the creation of this large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core? If that is correct, then I would expect that this large structure should have a shape of a bar along the vertical line (and not just a ball structure). Do you confirm that moon' tidal force is a combination of horizontal and vertical forces? Hence, while the horizontal tidal force sets the Bulges, the vertical tidal force changes the shape of the earth to oval shape. Why do we ignore the impact of the vertical tidal force from our calculation and focus only of the moon' horizontal tidal force? Please be aware that the Earth' core is very hot: https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/what-is-at-earths-core At approximately 5,400°C, this inner core is similar in temperature to the surface of the Sun. The remainder is the Earth's liquid outer core, made of mostly nickel-iron, with similar temperatures, getting hotter towards the center. So, how could it be that this "large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core" had been created? On 6/8/2024 at 4:37 PM, Dandav said: https://interestingengineering.com/science/scientists-discover-huge-unknown-structures-near-earths-core In wonderful, unexpected ways, Earth still manages to surprise scientists. A team of researchers from the University of Maryland in the U.S. has discovered a large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core. Why those scientists are so surprised from this discovery? Don't you agree that this "large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core" could be there due to the vertical tidal force? Now just think about the impact due to that thick material near the Earth’s core while it move/rotate in the Earth's liquid outer core, made of mostly nickel-iron, with similar temperatures. Don't you agree that as the earth spins, there must be a severe internal friction between the internal core to the Earth's liquid outer core. Did we try to estimate the impact of this friction on the total tidal heat energy that is created by the moon? In any case, the moon isn't there by itself. In the solar system we can find the sun and some other planets. IO for example, is the warmest moon in the solar system. https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2020/10/13/jupiter-moons-tidal-heating-raising-temperature/ As Jupiter dazzles in the night sky, new research suggests its moons are warming each other Four of those moons, Europa, Callisto, Ganymede and Io, are heating up more than scientists thought they should consider Jupiter is the fifth planet from the sun – 483 million miles away. Previously, researchers believed that tidal heating – a process that creates energy as the moons compress and stretch – was largely caused by Jupiter’s gravity. However, heating among the moons themselves has a larger impact than the gas giant planet does, the study discovered. Hence, as heating among the moons themselves has a larger impact than the gas giant planet does, then could it be that the tidal heating among the planets in the solar system themselves have also large impact? However, even the solar system is not there by itself. There are other stars, BH, Dark stars and even dark matter outside the solar system. Each one of them might have minor impact on tidal heating. Never the less, by adding the horizontal and vertical tidal impact forces on from all the objects, we might find a fit with the requested heat energy budget. So far, I have only focused on one aspect - the Heat energy due to tidal forces. However, there is one more significant aspect that is called - Electromagnetic field. There is a possibility that due to the motion between this large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core" to the Earth's liquid outer core, made of mostly nickel-iron, high electrical current should flow. This High electrical current could be the source for the Earth' electromagnetic field. In order to answer this question, we need to go back to 1803. https://www.britannica.com/science/geomagnetic-field In the 1830s the German mathematician and astronomer Carl Friedrich Gauss studied Earth’s magnetic field and concluded that the principal dipolar component had its origin inside Earth instead of outside. He demonstrated that the dipolar component was a decreasing function inversely proportional to the square of Earth’s radius, a conclusion that led scientists to speculate on the origin of Earth’s magnetic field in terms of ferromagnetism (as in a gigantic bar magnet), various rotation theories, and various dynamo theories. Carl Friedrich Gauss discuss about a gigantic bar magnet. Could it be that the "large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core" acts as gigantic bar magnet (dipole?) and is the main reason for the Earth' magnetic field? Some scientists believe that the Earth magnetic field is due to the heat flow from the inner core: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory#/media/File:Dynamo_Theory_-_Outer_core_convection_and_magnetic_field_generation.svg Illustration of the dynamo mechanism that generates the Earth's magnetic field: convection currents of fluid metal in the Earth's outer core, driven by heat flow from the inner core, organized into rolls by the Coriolis force, generate circulating electric currents, which supports the magnetic field.[1] If that assumption was correct, then technically, all we need is internal heat in order to set magnetic field. Unfortunately, that idea doesn't work at IO moon. So, although IO is the hottest moon in the solar system, it does not generate magnetic field: https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/02/05/the-magnetic-fields-of-moons-in-the-solar-system/ "Io itself does not generate a magnetic field" Therefore, could it be that IO moon is very hot due to the combined tidal forces from different objects around it, but as it has no main tidal force and as isn't massive enough, it can't form an internal bar magnet that is vital for the creation of the magnetic field? In any object that we observe, we find high correlation between the main vertical tidal force to the magnetic poles. It might drift by few percentages, but no more than that. Therefore, do you agree that there is a possibility that this Erath' large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core is created mainly by the Moon tidal force combined with other tidal forces from different objects around it? This can explain why the Earth' magnet poles aren't fully aligned with the Earth' rotation axis and why they drift from each other over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 There is just too much speculation in your post that is is impossible to know exactly what you are asking. I will just briefly try to answer this question: "Therefore, do you agree that there is a possibility that this Earth' large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core is created mainly by the Moon tidal force combined with other tidal forces from different objects around it?" No, I do not agree. If you read the article that you linked to, it mentions that the scientific team that discovered this object believes this is something that existed in the primordial early Earth even before the moon existed! I believe that is the reason the scientists were surprised to discover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandav Posted June 12 Author Report Share Posted June 12 (edited) On 6/10/2024 at 9:03 PM, OceanBreeze said: I will just briefly try to answer this question: "Therefore, do you agree that there is a possibility that this Earth' large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core is created mainly by the Moon tidal force combined with other tidal forces from different objects around it?" With your permission, before we try to understand how that structure had been formed, let's verify the observations. In the following article it is stated: https://astrobiology.com/2023/11/mysterious-giant-blobs-of-material-near-earths-core.html In the 1980s, geophysicists made a startling discovery: two continent-sized blobs of unusual material were found deep near the center of the Earth, one beneath the African continent and one beneath the Pacific Ocean. Each blob is twice the size of the Moon and likely composed of different proportions of elements than the mantle surrounding it. So, there are two separated continent-sized blobs near the center of the Earth. Please try to draw those two continent-sized blobs. What kind of structure would you get? Is it a ball shape or a bar shape? Don't you agree that two separated continent-sized blobs next to each other (near the Earth' core) would never ever set a total ball shape but together they should look almost like a bar? So, why the science community insist to keep on with the idea of a solid ball shape in the Earth core, while the observation from 44 years ago had already proved that it looks like a BAR? It is also stated that one blob is beneath the African continent - (which means in the south direction) while the other one is beneath the Pacific Ocean - (which means in the north direction). Therefore, why do they refuse to accept the observation that in the core of the earth there is a bar (and not a ball) which is located between the south to north poles? On 6/10/2024 at 9:03 PM, OceanBreeze said: No, I do not agree. If you read the article that you linked to, it mentions that the scientific team that discovered this object believes this is something that existed in the primordial early Earth even before the moon existed! The observation proves that IO moon doesn't generate magnetic field although it is the hottest moon in the solar system. It also has no massive satellite / ring that is orbiting around it Actually, around any planet that has magnetic field we always see at least one massive satellite / moon ring around it. That is correct for our planet and actually for any planet in the solar system (even for the Sun itself). We see a perfect fit between any planet' magnetic field with its rotation motion (it is vertical or almost vertical, to its rotation motion) while its rotation motion has a perfect fit with the orbital satellite / moon disc motion. Therefore, we can say that the magnetic field of any planet (and the Sun) is always vertical (or almost vertical) to the orbital satellite / moon disc motion. As an example, let's look at URANUS. It is stated: https://creation.com/planets-uranus-and-neptune Uranus is tipped on its side at an angle of ~98°. The answer for its magnetic field is there Infront of our eyes: The observation proves: 1. An object without at least one massive satellite / moon ring can't generate significant magnetic field even if it is very hot (IO moon). 2. There is a perfect fit between the moon orbital ring motion to the magnetic field (they are almost vertical to each other) 3. In the core of the Earth there is a solid (Or thick material) bar and not a solid ball while one side of the bar is pointed to the south pole and the other side is pointed to the north pole. Why the science community refuse to accept those clear observations? Edited June 13 by Dandav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandav Posted June 14 Author Report Share Posted June 14 (edited) On 6/12/2024 at 8:07 AM, Dandav said: 1. An object without at least one massive satellite / moon ring can't generate significant magnetic field even if it is very hot (IO moon). Venus https://www.ucl.ac.uk/culture-online/case-studies/2022/sep/venus-hottest-planet Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system! It has no moons. Therefore, as expected, it has no magnetic field https://science.nasa.gov/venus/venus-facts/ Even though Venus is similar in size to Earth and has a similar-sized iron core, the planet does not have its own internally generated magnetic field. Never the less, it has induced magnetic field Instead, Venus has what is known as an induced magnetic field. This weak magnetic field is created by the interaction of the Sun's magnetic field and the planet's outer atmosphere. Therefore, this is one more key observation that hot object without relatively massive satellite, can't have its own internally generated magnetic field. Do you agree that based on IO moon and Venus planet, heat by itself (even if it is the hottest planet or the hottest moon in the solar system) can't help this object to have its own internally generated magnetic field? there is a need for satellite' tidal gravity force (especially - the vertical tidal force) in order for the object to have its own internally generated magnetic field? Edited June 14 by Dandav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandav Posted June 15 Author Report Share Posted June 15 (edited) How the Earth' magnetic field is created? https://www.space.com/earths-magnetic-field-explained Earth's magnetic field can be visualized if you imagine a large bar magnet inside our planet, roughly aligned with Earth's axis. Each end of the magnet lies relatively close (about 10 degrees) to the geographic North and South poles. Earth's invisible magnetic field lines travel in a closed, continuous loop and are nearly vertical at each magnetic pole. This is the best real science explanation about the Earth magnetic field creation process. However, there is no need to imagine large bar magnet inside our planet as we have already observed it 44 years ago. On 6/12/2024 at 8:07 AM, Dandav said: https://astrobiology.com/2023/11/mysterious-giant-blobs-of-material-near-earths-core.html In the 1980s, geophysicists made a startling discovery: two continent-sized blobs of unusual material were found deep near the center of the Earth, one beneath the African continent and one beneath the Pacific Ocean. Each blob is twice the size of the Moon and likely composed of different proportions of elements than the mantle surrounding it. So, there are two separated continent-sized blobs near the center of the Earth. Please try to draw those two continent-sized blobs. What kind of structure would you get? Is it a ball shape or a bar shape? Don't you agree that two separated continent-sized blobs next to each other (near the Earth' core) would never ever set a total ball shape but together they should look almost like a bar? So, why the science community insist to keep on with the idea of a solid ball shape in the Earth core, while the observation from 44 years ago had already proved that it looks like a BAR? It is also stated that one blob is beneath the African continent - (which means in the south direction) while the other one is beneath the Pacific Ocean - (which means in the north direction). Why the science community refuse to accept the idea of gigantic bar magnet which had been offered by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1830? On 6/10/2024 at 8:33 PM, Dandav said: https://www.britannica.com/science/geomagnetic-field In the 1830s the German mathematician and astronomer Carl Friedrich Gauss studied Earth’s magnetic field and concluded that the principal dipolar component had its origin inside Earth instead of outside. He demonstrated that the dipolar component was a decreasing function inversely proportional to the square of Earth’s radius, a conclusion that led scientists to speculate on the origin of Earth’s magnetic field in terms of ferromagnetism (as in a gigantic bar magnet), various rotation theories, and various dynamo theories. Carl Friedrich Gauss discuss about a gigantic bar magnet. Could it be that the "large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core" acts as gigantic bar magnet (dipole?) and is the main reason for the Earth' magnetic field? Why they aren't willing to offer Carl Friedrich Gauss (although he is not living any more) a Nobel prize for his breakthrough understanding which had been confirmed by observation in 1980 and the above real science explanation? Edited June 15 by Dandav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandav Posted June 16 Author Report Share Posted June 16 (edited) What is the Moon tidal impact on the Planet rotation? In the following article it is stated that the Earth’s rotation is indeed being slowed down by the presence of the Moon: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/01/28/how-long-until-the-moon-slows-the-earth-to-a-25-hour-day/ The Earth’s rotation is indeed being slowed down by the presence of the Moon - every year, the Moon gains a little energy from the Earth, and drifts a little farther away from us. Based on this understanding if we will eliminate the moon, then the Earth rotation won't slow down. However, there is no need to eliminate the moon as there are several planets around us and some of them don't have moons. https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/datasets/planet-rotations/ How long does it take for those planets to spin one full rotation? And what is the best way to show the answer to this question? The simple answer is: Mercury: 58d 16h, 10.83 km/h Venus: 243d 26m, 6.52 km/h Earth: 23h 56m, 1574 km/h Mars: 24h 36m, 866 km/h Jupiter: 9h 55m, 45,583 km/h Saturn: 10h 33m, 36,840 km/h Uranus: 17h 14m, 14,794 km/h Neptune: 16h, 9,719 km/h With regards to the moons per planet: https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/moons/ According to the NASA/JPL Solar System Dynamics team, the current tally of moons orbiting planets in our solar system is 293: One moon for Earth; two for Mars; 95 at Jupiter; 146 at Saturn; 28 at Uranus; 16 at Neptune; and five for dwarf planet Pluto. Surprisingly, the observation proves that those planets without moons as Mercury and Venus have almost lost completely their rotation velocity while Mars with only two tinny moons spin one full rotation in about 24 h (similar to earth time), although its equator velocity is half. Jupiter, for example, have 95 moons (one of them is the most massive moon in the solar system), makes one full rotation in 9h 55m but moves 27 times faster than Earth at its equator, spinning at a whopping 45,583 km/h! Don't you agree that the rocky planets as Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars have been formed is the same process and more or less in the same time. However, those planets without moons have almost lost their rotation velocity while the planets that have more massive moons rotates at higher velocity. In other words, the Moon tidal is needed to increase the planet rotation (or at least to keep its rotation) instead of decreasing as we wish to believe. How can we explain this clear observation and how the science community have missed this important observation? Edited June 16 by Dandav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 18 hours ago, Dandav said: What is the Moon tidal impact on the Planet rotation? In the following article it is stated that the Earth’s rotation is indeed being slowed down by the presence of the Moon: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/01/28/how-long-until-the-moon-slows-the-earth-to-a-25-hour-day/ The Earth’s rotation is indeed being slowed down by the presence of the Moon - every year, the Moon gains a little energy from the Earth, and drifts a little farther away from us. Based on this understanding if we will eliminate the moon, then the Earth rotation won't slow down. However, there is no need to eliminate the moon as there are several planets around us and some of them don't have moons. https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/datasets/planet-rotations/ How long does it take for those planets to spin one full rotation? And what is the best way to show the answer to this question? The simple answer is: Mercury: 58d 16h, 10.83 km/h Venus: 243d 26m, 6.52 km/h Earth: 23h 56m, 1574 km/h Mars: 24h 36m, 866 km/h Jupiter: 9h 55m, 45,583 km/h Saturn: 10h 33m, 36,840 km/h Uranus: 17h 14m, 14,794 km/h Neptune: 16h, 9,719 km/h With regards to the moons per planet: https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/moons/ According to the NASA/JPL Solar System Dynamics team, the current tally of moons orbiting planets in our solar system is 293: One moon for Earth; two for Mars; 95 at Jupiter; 146 at Saturn; 28 at Uranus; 16 at Neptune; and five for dwarf planet Pluto. Surprisingly, the observation proves that those planets without moons as Mercury and Venus have almost lost completely their rotation velocity while Mars with only two tinny moons spin one full rotation in about 24 h (similar to earth time), although its equator velocity is half. Jupiter, for example, have 95 moons (one of them is the most massive moon in the solar system), makes one full rotation in 9h 55m but moves 27 times faster than Earth at its equator, spinning at a whopping 45,583 km/h! Don't you agree that the rocky planets as Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars have been formed is the same process and more or less in the same time. However, those planets without moons have almost lost their rotation velocity while the planets that have more massive moons rotates at higher velocity. In other words, the Moon tidal is needed to increase the planet rotation (or at least to keep its rotation) instead of decreasing as we wish to believe. How can we explain this clear observation and how the science community have missed this important observation? Moons are not the only influence on a planets rotation and the size of the planet has to be taken into consideration as well. I don't see any one missing anything but you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 (edited) Moderator Note: This thread is so full of wrongness that it needs to be moved to Silly Claims. For the benefit of any readers, here are just some corrections to the highly inaccurate or just flat out wrong statements made by Dandav in this thread. Hopefully, these corrections will help to clear up any confusion caused by Dandav’s personal theory about the effect of the moon’s tidal force on the Earth and the nature of Earth’s geomagnetic field. Dandav claim #1: Don't you agree that two separated continent-sized blobs next to each other (near the Earth' core) would never ever set a total ball shape but together they should look almost like a bar? So, why the science community insist to keep on with the idea of a solid ball shape in the Earth core, while the observation from 44 years ago had already proved that it looks like a BAR? It is also stated that one blob is beneath the African continent - (which means in the south direction) while the other one is beneath the Pacific Ocean - (which means in the north direction). Therefore, why do they refuse to accept the observation that in the core of the earth there is a bar (and not a ball) which is located between the south to north poles? Fact: There is no bar located between the North and South poles. The two continent-size masses located in the Earth’s lower mantle, near the outer core, are more correctly described as massive blobs, and they are oriented more to the East and West than North and South. This image is an artists rendition (based on seismic signatures) of how the blobs would look surrounding the Earth’s outer core, as seen from the North pole (a) and the South pole (b). Clearly the blobs bear no resemblance to a bar, as Dandav is claiming. Current thinking is these are remnants of a planet (Theia) that collided with Earth billions of years ago. This colossal impact is believed to be the same event that resulted in the creation of our Moon. Seismic studies confirm that the inner core of the Earth is either a solid ball or a very dense plasma that behaves as a solid. The outer core is mostly composed of liquid iron and nickel. Dandav Claim #2: Carl Friedrich Gauss discuss about a gigantic bar magnet. Could it be that the "large structure made up of thick material near the Earth’s core" acts as gigantic bar magnet (dipole?) and is the main reason for the Earth' magnetic field? Why the science community refuse to accept the idea of gigantic bar magnet which had been offered by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1830? Fact: In 1834 Carl Freidrich Gauss organized a global survey of the magnetic field of the Earth, which was nearly completed by 1841. Gauss certainly never attributed the magnetic field to a “gigantic bar magnet” except perhaps analogously . Gauss found that just measuring Earth’s magnetic field accurately was challenging because it was not one dipole, but a very complex magnetic field. Today, we know that in addition to the North magnetic Pole, the Earth also has a North Geomagnetic Pole and both of them are in constant motion. It is no wonder Gauss found measuring Earth’s magnetic field to be challenging! Gauss’ main contribution was proving that Earth’s magnetic field originated inside the Earth, not outside it. Dandav claim #3: How long does it take for those planets to spin one full rotation? And what is the best way to show the answer to this question? The simple answer is: Mercury: 58d 16h, 10.83 km/h Venus: 243d 26m, 6.52 km/h Earth: 23h 56m, 1574 km/h Mars: 24h 36m, 866 km/h Jupiter: 9h 55m, 45,583 km/h Saturn: 10h 33m, 36,840 km/h Uranus: 17h 14m, 14,794 km/h Neptune: 16h, 9,719 km/h With regards to the moons per planet: One moon for Earth; two for Mars; 95 at Jupiter; 146 at Saturn; 28 at Uranus; 16 at Neptune; and five for dwarf planet Pluto. Surprisingly, the observation proves that those planets without moons as Mercury and Venus have almost lost completely their rotation velocity while Mars with only two tinny moons spin one full rotation in about 24 h (similar to earth time), although its equator velocity is half. In other words, the Moon tidal is needed to increase the planet rotation (or at least to keep its rotation) instead of decreasing as we wish to believe. How can we explain this clear observation and how the science community have missed this important observation? Fact: We know the moon is actually acting as a brake dragging on Earth’s rotation, extracting energy by slowing the rotation. The moon gains energy from this interaction and is slowly moving into a higher orbit, away from the Earth. Geoscientists describe the outer core as Earth’s “geodynamo.” For a planet to have a geodynamo, it must rotate, it must have a fluid medium in its interior, the fluid must be able to conduct electricity, and it must have an internal energy supply that drives convection in the liquid. There is no need for a planet to have a satellite moon in order to have a magnetic field. Venus is partially tidal locked to the sun, accounting for that planet’s slow rotation. The slow rotation is the reason Venus does not generate a magnetic field despite having a liquid core. Mercury avoids being tidal locked to the sun due to it having an elliptical orbit but Mercury’s close proximity to the sun does cause a slow rotation speed. Despite it’s slow rotation speed and having no moons, Mercury does have a magnetic field. Although Mercury’s magnetic field is much weaker than Earth's magnetic field, it is still strong enough to deflect the solar wind, inducing a magnetosphere. Mars is thought to have an almost totally solid core and so a very weak magnetic field. Earth is the “Goldilocks” geodynamo. It rotates steadily, at a brisk 1,675 kilometers (1,040 miles) per hour at the Equator. Coriolis forces, an artifact of Earth’s rotation, cause convection currents to be spiral. The liquid iron in the outer core is an excellent electrical conductor, and creates the electrical currents that drive the magnetic field. If the moon has any effect on the geodynamo, it is of no significance. The energy supply that drives convection in the outer core is provided as droplets of liquid iron “freeze” onto the solid inner core. Solidification releases heat energy. This heat, in turn, makes the remaining liquid iron more buoyant. Warmer liquids spiral upward, while cooler solids spiral downward under intense pressure, thus convection. This heat flow from the core is necessary for maintaining the convecting outer core and the geodynamo and Earth's magnetic field. As for the gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus: The earliest stage of giant planet formation is thought to be the formation of a solid core made of heavy elements (rocks and ices). As the core becomes massive enough (a few times the mass of Earth), it can accrete hydrogen and helium gas from the proto disk. As gas is accreted onto the planet, it increases the total angular momentum of the world, which, in turn, leads to rapid rotation. The exact details of these processes and how the rotation of the planet evolves with time are not yet fully understood. However, there is no indication that satellite moons have anything to do with speeding up a planet’s rotation. All indications are the moons steal energy from their respective planet by acting as a brake, gradually slowing down the planet’s rotation speed. Edited June 19 by OceanBreeze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandav Posted June 22 Author Report Share Posted June 22 (edited) Dear OceanBreeze Thanks for your comperhensive reply. 1. massive blobs: On 6/17/2024 at 9:13 PM, OceanBreeze said: Fact: There is no bar located between the North and South poles. The two continent-size masses located in the Earth’s lower mantle, near the outer core, are more correctly described as massive blobs, and they are oriented more to the East and West than North and South. Thanks for this explanation. 2. Earth magnetic field: On 6/17/2024 at 9:13 PM, OceanBreeze said: Earth is the “Goldilocks” geodynamo. It rotates steadily, at a brisk 1,675 kilometers (1,040 miles) per hour at the Equator. Coriolis forces, an artifact of Earth’s rotation, cause convection currents to be spiral. The liquid iron in the outer core is an excellent electrical conductor, and creates the electrical currents that drive the magnetic field. If the moon has any effect on the geodynamo, it is of no significance. Sorry, did we consider the impact of Curie point? https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/core/ "In the inner core, the temperature is so high the magnetism of iron is altered. Once this temperature, called the Curie point, is reached, the atoms of a substance can no longer align to a magnetic point." "The hottest part of the core is actually the Bullen discontinuity, where temperatures reach 6,000° Celsius (10,800° Fahrenheit)—as hot as the surface of the sun." Please be aware that Curie temperature, for iron it is 1043 K. Therefore, at about 6000 c iron atoms can no longer align to a magnetic point. Hence, would you kindly explain how the electrical currents can drive the magnetic field and set the Earth magnetic poles at specific points while the Iron atom can no longer align to a magnetic point? 3. The moon tidal impact on planet rotation / equator' velocity: Let me start by sumerize the planet equator velocity with regards to the number of its moons. I would like to arrange the planets according to their equator' velocity as follow: Venus: No moons, equator' velocity of 6.52 km/h Mercury: No moons, equator' velocity of 10.83 km/h Mars : Two tiny moons, equator' velocity of 866Km/s. Earth: One massive moon, equator' velocity of 1574 km/h. Neptune: 16 moon, equator' velocity of 9,719 km/h Uranus: 28 moons, equator' velocity of 14,794 km/h Saturn: 146 moons equator' velocity of 36,840 km/h Jupiter: 95 moons, equator' velocity of 45,583 km/h Please be aware that Earth equator' velocity (with one moon) is faster than Mars equator' velocity (with two moons) as the mass of Earth moon (7 10^22 Kg) is significantly higher than the total two moons at mars (less than 10^17 Kg). In the same token, Jupiter hosts several very massive moons and therefore its total 95 moons mass is higher than those 146 moons at Saturn. Hence, do you confirm that the planet equator' velocity is directly affected by two main factors - the number of the moons and the total mass of the moons? if so, do you confirm that the observation proves that as the planet has more moons and more massive moons, its equator' velocity is higher while those planets without moons have lost most of their equator' velocity? However, this observation contradicts the following fact: On 6/17/2024 at 9:13 PM, OceanBreeze said: Fact: We know the moon is actually acting as a brake dragging on Earth’s rotation, extracting energy by slowing the rotation. The moon gains energy from this interaction and is slowly moving into a higher orbit, away from the Earth. So, although we all agree that this fact is correct by 100% somehow, we must explain the observation. The questions are as follow: A. With regards to the four rocky planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mards.) Based on the observation, two planets have no moons (Mercury and Venus) and they have almost lost completely their rotation. I fully agree with your following answer about Venus and Mercure: On 6/17/2024 at 9:13 PM, OceanBreeze said: Venus is partially tidal locked to the sun, accounting for that planet’s slow rotation. On 6/17/2024 at 9:13 PM, OceanBreeze said: Mercury avoids being tidal locked to the sun due to it having an elliptical orbit but Mercury’s close proximity to the sun does cause a slow rotation speed. We know that those rocky planets had been formed in the similar process and it a similar time, so by definition, their equator' velocity at their first day should be quite similar. We fully understand why Venus and Mercure (with no moons) have almost lost their rotation, but there is no answer why Earth and Mars (which have moons) could keep their rotation / spinning velocity for so long time? Based on the above fact, those planets without moons should spin much faster than those with moons as the moon is actually acting as a brake dragging on planet's rotation, extracting energy by slowing the rotation. Therefore, based on this fact, don't you agree that the rotation / Erath velocity of the Earth should be lower than this one at Venus? So, how could it be that the Earth & Mars equator' velocity is significantly faster with regards to Venus & Mercure equator velocity? (Earth equator' velocity is almost 240 times faster than Venus although they have similar mass). B. With regards to the gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus On 6/17/2024 at 9:13 PM, OceanBreeze said: As for the gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus: The earliest stage of giant planet formation is thought to be the formation of a solid core made of heavy elements (rocks and ices). As the core becomes massive enough (a few times the mass of Earth), it can accrete hydrogen and helium gas from the proto disk. As gas is accreted onto the planet, it increases the total angular momentum of the world, which, in turn, leads to rapid rotation. The exact details of these processes and how the rotation of the planet evolves with time are not yet fully understood. This explanation is clear. However, the observation proves that as the planet has more moons and more massive moons, its equator' velocity is higher. So how can you claim that: On 6/17/2024 at 9:13 PM, OceanBreeze said: However, there is no indication that satellite moons have anything to do with speeding up a planet’s rotation. All indications are the moons steal energy from their respective planet by acting as a brake, gradually slowing down the planet’s rotation speed. Would you kindly explain the contradiction between the observation that prove that as the planet has more moons and more massive moons, its equator' velocity is higher while based on the fact the moons steal should energy from their respective planet by acting as a brake, gradually slowing down the planet’s rotation speed? 4. The moon tidal impact on planet magnetics field Please be aware that in all the planets with moons (except mars), the magnetic field poles are almost fully parallel with the rotation axis while this axis is almost fully vertical to the moon orbital motion. This message is also correct even for Uranus (that is tipped on its side at an angle of ~98°) as I have already explained: On 6/12/2024 at 8:07 AM, Dandav said: https://creation.com/planets-uranus-and-neptune Uranus is tipped on its side at an angle of ~98°. Therefore, this by itself proves that moons have key impact on the Planet' magnetic fields. Let's look now at the following planets and try to understand their magnetic fields: Venus - On 6/17/2024 at 9:13 PM, OceanBreeze said: Venus is partially tidal locked to the sun, accounting for that planet’s slow rotation. The slow rotation is the reason Venus does not generate a magnetic field despite having a liquid core. That is correct. Venus has no Internally generated magnetic field as it has no moons to keep its high rotation velocity. Therefore, Venus has also no magnetic poles. Mercure - On 6/17/2024 at 9:13 PM, OceanBreeze said: Mercury avoids being tidal locked to the sun due to it having an elliptical orbit but Mercury’s close proximity to the sun does cause a slow rotation speed. Despite it’s slow rotation speed and having no moons, Mercury does have a magnetic field. Although Mercury’s magnetic field is much weaker than Earth's magnetic field, it is still strong enough to deflect the solar wind, inducing a magnetosphere. Mercure has magnetic field, but it is an ancient magnetic field core that was solidified into thermoremanent and kept that information forever. https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/mercury-magnetic-poles We wanted to get an insight into the ancient core magnetic field of Mercury – it’s like doing archaeology on planetary magnetic fields. The ancient core magnetic field is recorded in ‘thermoremanent’ magnetised rocks. Imagine a swimming pool of molten material with magnetic material in it. Because it’s very hot it cools down very slowly, so the little compounds of magnetic materials like iron metal will point to where the magnetic north pole was at the time. The molten material solidifies into thermoremanents and keeps that information forever. Therefore, Mercure doesn't generate today any sort of magnetic fields due to its rotation, all it has is a weak magnetic field due to this ancient magnetic field core/dipole. Please be aware that the ancient magnetic field dipole isn't parallel to the rotational axis and therefore magnetic poles doesn't fall in the geographic poles as we clearly observe in all the planets with moons (except of mars) https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/mercury-magnetic-poles For the first time I got information from the ancient core field of Mercury. Nobody has looked for that before. I got some palaeopole locations – previous magnetic north poles of past fields. If the field was a dipole parallel to the rotational axis, as it is on Earth, the palaeopoles would fall in the geographic poles, but this was not the case. The problem now is trying to understand what that means. Those scientists don't understand why the ancient magnetic field dipole isn't parallel with the rotational axis. Could it be that long time ago, Mercure had at least one moon? If so, this moon was responsible to keep Mercure at high rotation velocity and the creation of its magnetic field dipole (in a similar process as on Earth). Once it gone, Mercure have lost most of its rotation and its internal energy. Therefore its ancient magnetic field dipole had been solidified into thermoremanent and kept that information forever. Never the less, without moon to stabilize the motion of the planet, it had been shifted and therefore the ancient magnetic field dipole isn't parallel with the current Mercure rotation axis. Therefore, do you agree that if Mercure had moon/moons in the past, it could explain its ancient magnetic field? Mars - On 6/17/2024 at 9:13 PM, OceanBreeze said: Mars is thought to have an almost totally solid core and so a very weak magnetic field. That is correct However, it had global magnetic field in its early life, similar to that of Earth. https://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Mars does not presently have a global magnetic field but had one early in its life, similar to that of Earth. However, Mars does have very strong crustal magnetic fields, more than 30 times stronger than those of Earth. So, how could it be that Mars with its two tiny moons could keep quite high rotation velocity but lost most of its global magnetic field? I think that the answer is due to its tinny moons. One of them is in the range of 10^16 kg while the other is in the range of 10^15 Kg. Just to remind you that the mass of the Earth moon is in the rang of 10^22 Kg. Therefore, they are too small to inject internal heat by their tidal force. Never the less, even at their current mass they still can force the planet to rotate at its current velocity. That proves that rotation by itself can't generate significant magnetic field. However, we still need to understand how it could gain its global magnetic field in the past. could it be that the answer is - by more tiny moons or even by one more massive moon in the past (same scenario as Mercure)? Hence, why can't we assume that in the past, Mars surely had more moons that could contribute enough tidal force that is needed to heat up its core, and generate the requested global magnetic field? Edited June 23 by Dandav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandav Posted June 23 Author Report Share Posted June 23 (edited) Please read again the following section: On 6/22/2024 at 6:07 PM, Dandav said: https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/mercury-magnetic-poles The ancient core magnetic field is recorded in ‘thermoremanent’ magnetised rocks. For the first time I got information from the ancient core field of Mercury. Nobody has looked for that before. I got some palaeopole locations – previous magnetic north poles of past fields. If the field was a dipole parallel to the rotational axis, as it is on Earth, the palaeopoles would fall in the geographic poles, but this was not the case. This scientist claims that he found the locations of the ancient core magnetic field' north poles He also adds that this magnetic dipole isn't parallel to the rotational axis. Could it be that he had found the ancient magnetic dipole / Bar of Mercure? Edited June 23 by Dandav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts