The heating of planetary objects by the solar wind, maybe.

Void · 2017-03-05 21:55:09

OK, I have tried to get this one through many times, and only crickets reply.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s … 08dec98_1/

Dec. 8, 1998: Residents of the far north who saw a massive display of the aurora borealis in late September were also staring through an invisible fountain of gas being accelerated into space by a powerful bubble of solar wind, which pumped about 200 gigawatts of electrical power into the Earth.

Well, can you say "Electric Arc Furnace?".

Once upon a time, it was believed that the Earth was originally heated by its first condensation into an object.

Then the idea of radioactive decay was added since the Earth turned out to be much older than 5000 years, and radioactive decay was needed.

Then Io and Europa were discovered, and it was found that Io, Europa, and Ganymede are internally heated by tidal stretching.

So, what I am proposing is what is obvious. If a magnetic wind is impacting and flowing around orbital objects, then it is likely inducing counter EMF magnetic fields in those objects. And that process will generate electrical ground currents that for all we know may go into the center of the Earth, or other planemo's.

So, where could a planemo's internal heat come from? In part from electrical currents generated by the solar wind.

So Volcano's may be in part electrical. Like melted materials from an electric arc furnace are electrical in origin.

Over and over again objects are found to apparently be warmer than theory says they should be. The Moon, Enceladus, Ceres.

As for moons with underground salty oceans which may travel through a planets magnetic field, we can expect that electrical currents will flow through those oceans as well, even if direct exposure to the solar wind does not happen. This will in part be because of the motion of the moons and the rotation of Jupiter's magnetic field for the case of Callisto, Ganymede, and Europa, but we also can expect that when such a magnetic field (Such as that of Earth as well), is buffeted by variable solar winds, the plasma bubble of the magnetic field of those planets will buckle and flex like a rubber ball, and that in turn will push energy deep into the roots of those planets. (Earth included).

Crickets again? Or maybe the clubbing of baby seals

I get so tired of inadequate science. Here I am just a sort of a quack technician (Retired), and I can figure these things out.

Here is another one I have mentioned previously.

We keep hearing that planets around red dwarf stars are likely to have their atmospheres swept off by the red dwarf stars solar flares.

And yet we see the Venus has a 90 bar atmosphere. How does this happen?

Well, there are 3 situations I will mention.

Venus, Earth, Mars.

Venus (Induced complete magnetic field) Success in retaining a dense atmosphere.

Earth (Geomagnetic field, complete) Success in retaining a dense atmosphere.

Mars (Hybrid, uneven partial fossil geomagnetic field, and partial Induced magnetic field) Failure to maintain a dense atmosphere.

So, chances are that for a red dwarf their can be situations like Venus, Earth, and Mars, and in those cases, I am guessing that it may be that planets without any significant geomagnetic field will be best at retaining a dense atmosphere. The reason is because if a flair blows 100 times as hard as a non flare situation, the induction of a counter magnetic field in the upper atmospheres of such a planet will be 100 times greater.

Yes if a planet has a strong geomagnetic field, it might be protected, but it will have to be a good one, or the Mars atmospheric loss situation is likely.

So, I am just saying I get peeved about what appears to be a lack of effort to understand by our scientific community. (In some cases).

Quack Quack

Last edited by Void (2017-03-05 23:55:31)

GW Johnson · 2017-03-06 10:23:22

Void:

I dunno myself. I think that the scientists don't yet know enough about what's going on to understand how Earth, Venus, and Mars got to be what they are today.

I friend I correspond with sends me "electric universe" stuff all the time. I think those effects are too discounted by mainstream science, but I also do not believe that they dominate the way the "electric universe" proponents claim. Spacecraft charging issues were a surprise to the early probe and satellite designers, but little else has been, which is why I think that way.

I think Earth and Mars may have had similar but not identical plate tectonic histories. The biggest difference seems to be that Mar's smaller core cooled quicker, losing its generated magnetic field and allowing the solar wind to sweep its atmosphere away. I have a real problem with the idea that that cooling-off process only took a billion or so years at Mars, when it has not made a lot of progress yet at Earth after 4.6 billion years. So, I don't think they have the theories right yet, and sometimes I wonder at the dating.

Venus seems to be quite different. The radar images do not show much evidence of tectonic plate boundaries. Furthermore, the surface is often described as appearing "young". I don't know how they judge that. It's not often mentioned anymore, but one theory is that without plate tectonics as a cooling mechanism, Venus's surface evolution is episodic: every few hundred million years it melts from the inside completely, and starts over.

The outgassing that kind of volcanism would produce is more than enough to explain the dense CO2 atmosphere and the acid.

Support for the idea comes from Earthly knowledge that dry magmas are stiff, while magmas with water content are far more fluid. If Venus lost its water early on by an overheated-boiloff to space mechanism, it eventually would end up with a stiff mantle incapable of moving plate tectonics.

However nothing about that explanation addresses why Venus's hot core generates no magnetic field. The only difference to point to is rotation rate: slow versus fast. Nothing explains that either, unless Earth's moon has something to do with that difference.

All is speculation, the theories are inadequate, and we as yet do not have all the facts. Understanding must wait for a time yet.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-03-06 10:26:47)

Void · 2017-03-06 13:19:39

I am so pleased that anyone ever responded. Thanks for taking the trouble GW Johnson.

Nobody knows. Maybe we should try to eventually find out if we can.

I don't buy into the entire "Electric Universe" thing either. Just some electrical effects.

SpaceNut · 2017-03-06 20:21:44

Sorry that crickets are so loud....

The subject Physics of High Energy Plasmas is hard to do when you can not see what it is...

I see it as more like a static field due to its make up of ions mostly.

What it might look like if we could see it.

Its where we start talking about filaments and cords and conduction of energy potential ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

The friction of the solar wind energizing the ions are part of
https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_ … of_plasma)

Plasma Physics at high energy density

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-03-05 21:55:09

The heating of planetary objects by the solar wind, maybe.

#2 2017-03-06 10:23:22

Re: The heating of planetary objects by the solar wind, maybe.

#3 2017-03-06 13:19:39

Re: The heating of planetary objects by the solar wind, maybe.

#4 2017-03-06 20:21:44

Re: The heating of planetary objects by the solar wind, maybe.

Board footer