beginner question - from EU Perspective

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.
Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:05 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 5:00 pm Below is a chart showing density of all large rocky planets/moons in order from the sun. Apart from a couple of outliers like Titan/Triton they indicate gravity/density as a predominantly a product of distance not mass. The outliers like Titan are due to theie relatively large size in their orbital environment but they still follow the general trend. If this is not the case who has organised all the denser objects to be near the sun and less dense further away? God?

Gravity.png
Can't see for some reason.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:02 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:18 pm
Maol wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:52 pm You need to accept the fact that pumice formation does not require water cooling. If you're not too busy playing "gotcha" and you can trouble yourself to read this link you stand to learn something and better understand the physical universe. Good Luck ;)

https://news.yahoo.com/pumice-ash-depth ... 86LoClrV9B
Not the greatest idea to take scientific guidance from yahoo, I prefer geological and chemical studies. However, these anecdotal stories are for tiny fragments of magma/pumice which is why they can cool rapidly via convection in air. How is an entire 1,000 km moon going to rapidly cool in a vacuum?
Can you tolerate a USGS report on Mt. St. Helens? This USGS report was published in 1978 and describes pumice fields and deposits from previous eruptions over the last 2500 years. https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1383c/report.pdf

There is pumice all around the mountain from the eruption in 1980. Perhaps you missed it, but it did not erupt underwater and pumice from it landed many miles away.

As for your insistence rapid underwater cooling is required, you need to understand pumice forms during explosive eruptions. It is launched from the vent and lands as chunks of solidified pumice. Several volcanoes around planet Earth have erupted pumice with magnetic properties. Connect the dots.

Why do you think something will not cool in space. I hope this isn't a shock to you, but "outer space" is cold, really, really, cold.

Cargo
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Cargo » Wed Feb 01, 2023 5:13 am

What argument are we on about? How moons/planets/stars form?

Temperate as our common concept of hot and cold don't really work in space if I'm being honest with myself. Because it all depends on the context of the environment in the area of Space you're talking about. After all, the JWST heat shield is 600F+ on the sunny side.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:57 am

Cargo wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 5:13 am What argument are we on about? How moons/planets/stars form?

Temperate as our common concept of hot and cold don't really work in space if I'm being honest with myself. Because it all depends on the context of the environment in the area of Space you're talking about. After all, the JWST heat shield is 600F+ on the sunny side.
Are you people just making things up to bolster your arguments, or are you actually this ignorant of well known facts?

https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/observato ... hield.html
Picture caption in the NASA link ^^ The sunshield separates the observatory into a warm, sun-facing side (thermal models show the max temperature of the outermost layer is 383K or approximately 230 degrees F), and a cold side (with the coldest layer having a modeled minimum temp of 36K or around -394 degrees F). The five-layer sunshield keeps sunlight from interfering with the sensitive telescope instruments. The telescope operates under 50K (~-370F) Photo: Northrop Grumman

This may come as a surprise to you, but the temperature in our solar system depends on the distance from the Sun.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/ ... peratures/

In this wiki entry the temperature of Atlas is shown as 81K (-313.87F/-192.15C)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(moon)

Cargo
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Cargo » Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:32 am

Indeed I typo'd myself and didn't even look. I actually posted that same link you shared in another thread. I love Kapton.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Cargo
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Cargo » Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:01 am

3 and 6 are close on the numpad and I was multi-tasking like I shouldn't with watts.

Fun with space applications though
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/thre ... pe.183243/
https://www.cgstape.com/product/polyimide-film

allaboutcircuits.com nice lol haha
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:27 pm

Maol wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:02 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:18 pm
Maol wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:52 pm You need to accept the fact that pumice formation does not require water cooling. If you're not too busy playing "gotcha" and you can trouble yourself to read this link you stand to learn something and better understand the physical universe. Good Luck ;)

https://news.yahoo.com/pumice-ash-depth ... 86LoClrV9B
Not the greatest idea to take scientific guidance from yahoo, I prefer geological and chemical studies. However, these anecdotal stories are for tiny fragments of magma/pumice which is why they can cool rapidly via convection in air. How is an entire 1,000 km moon going to rapidly cool in a vacuum?
Can you tolerate a USGS report on Mt. St. Helens? This USGS report was published in 1978 and describes pumice fields and deposits from previous eruptions over the last 2500 years. https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1383c/report.pdf

There is pumice all around the mountain from the eruption in 1980. Perhaps you missed it, but it did not erupt underwater and pumice from it landed many miles away.

As for your insistence rapid underwater cooling is required, you need to understand pumice forms during explosive eruptions. It is launched from the vent and lands as chunks of solidified pumice. Several volcanoes around planet Earth have erupted pumice with magnetic properties. Connect the dots.
Yes. Tiny little pumice rocks could rapidly convect heat away post eruption from a volcano. However, you continually fail to acknowledge that a moon is not a tiny little rock and it cannot rapidly convect away all it's heat in a vacuum.
Maol wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:02 pmWhy do you think something will not cool in space. I hope this isn't a shock to you, but "outer space" is cold, really, really, cold.
There's your fundamental fail. You need to find out how heat transfers. Not so good in space as radiation is the only method. No amount of imaginative power is going to radiatively cool a 1,000 km lava blob in space. Rapidly.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:54 pm

The other problem is that these pumice moons need to maintain their pumice like state throughout the entire body of matter, but, even at their lower overall gravity, just a few miles down the pressure would be way, way higher than the compression strength of pumice. It would become molten and any gas bubbles would have long been exhausted, leaving behind molten lava at circa 4-5 g/cm. It's probably why the mainstream can only tolerate ice for these masses. Ice is just compressed to water internally and there's a limit even at extremely high pressure, so their fairy tail remains intact.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:37 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:54 pm The other problem is that these pumice moons need to maintain their pumice like state throughout the entire body of matter, but, even at their lower overall gravity, just a few miles down the pressure would be way, way higher than the compression strength of pumice. It would become molten and any gas bubbles would have long been exhausted, leaving behind molten lava at circa 4-5 g/cm. It's probably why the mainstream can only tolerate ice for these masses. Ice is just compressed to water internally and there's a limit even at extremely high pressure, so their fairy tail remains intact.
So now you will have us believe a 300 km. diameter object with half the density of water has enough pressure at any depth to have a molten core? You are conflating pressure at depth of a low density object with what you feel familiar with on Earth, which because of much larger mass and higher density (5.514 g/cm3) has much higher gravity compression forces.

Interesting interactive image of Hyperion in this NASA link. Cassini's close flyby in 2005 acquired lots of high quality images. Irony of ironies, Hyperion even looks like a chunk of pumice.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/satu ... /in-depth/

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Feb 03, 2023 5:03 pm

Maol wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:37 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:54 pm The other problem is that these pumice moons need to maintain their pumice like state throughout the entire body of matter, but, even at their lower overall gravity, just a few miles down the pressure would be way, way higher than the compression strength of pumice. It would become molten and any gas bubbles would have long been exhausted, leaving behind molten lava at circa 4-5 g/cm. It's probably why the mainstream can only tolerate ice for these masses. Ice is just compressed to water internally and there's a limit even at extremely high pressure, so their fairy tail remains intact.
So now you will have us believe a 300 km. diameter object with half the density of water has enough pressure at any depth to have a molten core? You are conflating pressure at depth of a low density object with what you feel familiar with on Earth, which because of much larger mass and higher density (5.514 g/cm3) has much higher gravity compression forces.
Yes, why wouldn’t it? The Kola Superdeep only went 7km into the crust and the rock started to become plasticated and impossible to drill. You think that just because it’s pumice and lower density you could drill 150km down and it would stay pumice? Nonsense. As stated before, this is why mainstream science totally disagrees with you (that it's rock in any form) and thinks Hyperion is made out of water.
Maol wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:37 pmInteresting interactive image of Hyperion in this NASA link. Cassini's close flyby in 2005 acquired lots of high quality images. Irony of ironies, Hyperion even looks like a chunk of pumice.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/satu ... /in-depth/
Not for me. There are areas where it's 20-30 km of smooth rock. Why did those areas escape the process? More like craters, EU machining or bubbling magma during formation.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Feb 03, 2023 5:49 pm

Rough calculation;

The center of the Earth is 3,600,000 atmospheric pressures.
At Hyperions recorded surface gravity the center would be roughly 5000 atmospheric pressures.
5000 atmospheric pressures is the equivalent of 482 N/mm2.
Pumice's compression strength is 51 N/mm2.

Therefore, pumice in towards the center of Hyperion would be comprehensively crushed, and no longer fit the description of pumice.

Cargo
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Cargo » Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:47 am

But what if there is no 'atmosphere'?

I'm going to continue to stare at the that picture and twirl the 3d model. Amazing..

I will say, there's no way this body was not formed 'at once' relatively speaking. All the shapes and 'craters' on this body, they did not accumulate over millions/billions of years. No way in hell/.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:43 pm

Cargo wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:47 am But what if there is no 'atmosphere'?
It's just a unit of measurement for comparison. I think pumice has a weight with or without a substantial atmosphere above it.
Cargo wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:47 amI'm going to continue to stare at the that picture and twirl the 3d model. Amazing..

I will say, there's no way this body was not formed 'at once' relatively speaking. All the shapes and 'craters' on this body, they did not accumulate over millions/billions of years. No way in hell/.
I'm not necessarily saying it couldn't form relatively quickly, just not quick enough to trap bubbles internally. There's no chemical/physical process to achieve it. Also, even if we accepted there was a way, it couldn't still be pumice because it would ultimately be crushed even on this small moon. There are also much bigger moons with the same low density issues. Pretty much all of them outside of the inner planets are supposedly made of water and no-one even bats an eyelid at this nonsense.

PS. Is there any way now to embed images or graphs on the forum? The script says I don't have permission to see/download my own image. Why is that?

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Maol » Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:33 pm

Are you factoring in your calculations that the value of g diminishes with depth in a body until at the center of gravity it reaches zero?

https://physicsteacher.in/2017/10/18/ac ... ght-depth/

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:48 pm

Maol wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:33 pm Are you factoring in your calculations that the value of g diminishes with depth in a body until at the center of gravity it reaches zero?

https://physicsteacher.in/2017/10/18/ac ... ght-depth/
Yes. There's still pressure as gravity is pulling in all directions rather than just one. Is the pressure at the bottom of the ocean lower than the surface? After all the gravity gradient is lower, why not pressure? Gravity between two identical planets is also zero. So, could you lift a copy planet Earth off the surface of the actual planet Earth by hand? Gravity at that point is, after all, zero.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests