![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Venus has been getting rid of roughly 20.5 w/m2, and otherwise from
our best available terrestrial science is suggesting that's roughly 256 fold greater than the core heat loss of Earth. Therefore, Venus is a relatively newish planet, whereas Mars is more than likely older than Earth, and our salty old moon that's nearly if not solid to its low density core is simply not even made of Earth. Go figure. Not all planets or moons are those formulated from our initial solar system, whereas interstellar migrations have taken place. As the following author Darrell Lakin would say "There is room for influences here not yet understood", but lo and behold we do have sufficient supercomputers and of their 3D fully interactive orbital simulators that'll go a great way towards proving out or disqualifying most any theory. Too bad such nifty applied technology as orbital software and those of our very best talents are not being allowed anywhere near such supercomputers (most of which having been 100% directly public funded and/or at the very least more than half public funded). On Aug 9, 5:19 pm, Darrell Lakin wrote: All the outer planets radiate much more heat than they receive in energy from the sun. All that is except Uranus which radiates negligable energy not received from the sun. Theories try to explain this but nothing so far has been put forward that can be proven or for that matter even sounds plausible. This is a major problem in explaining the formation of the planets, along with the current opinion that Uranus and Neptune could not have been formed out of primordial material at their current distances. But what if the explanation is much more simple? Consider 8 iron balls taken out of an oven in your kitchen. They will cool at a rate consistent with their mass and material. Those with similiar mass and material will be at about the same temperature at the same time, say, a couple hours from now. Jupiter Saturn and Neptune all radiate between 2 and 2-1/2 times the energy they receive. Why is one planet, Uranus, so different? Lots of people have tried to explain this with sophisticated ideas like helium rain, or metallic hydrogen, or a solid diamond planet core and even the collision of an earth sized "dwarf-ice-planet" with Neptune. But what if the answer is much simpler? What if Uranus is colder because its much older than the other planets? Remember the iron balls from the kitchen, or if you prefer, fresh baked cookies from the oven? And then, lets say, you came across one cookie that was cold? Lets say then that your grandmother looked at you and pointed out that obviously it MUST have been made earlier? She may have even chided you about not having seen it before, on your own? We have planets in the much belabored "ecliptic" however these angles are not precise and have not been adequately explained when compared with the asteroid belt versus the spherical nature of the Ort Cloud and the wild angles of observed objects in the Kuiper Belt. There is room for influences here not yet understood. What if? Darrell Lakin 3174 South Shore Drive Smithfield, VA 23430 According to Yiddish faith-based physics, such as whatever works on behalf of their terrestrial physics apparently doesn't apply off- world. What if, indeed, if not why the hell not take a darn good simulation look-see at whatever's technically possible? - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
planetary heat losses | Darrell Lakin | History | 20 | August 15th 07 09:55 PM |
Brad Guth is...... | Tarapia Tapioco | Space Station | 19 | February 18th 04 04:03 PM |
Brad Guth is...... | Brad Guth | Policy | 18 | February 18th 04 04:03 PM |
Brad Guth is...... | OM | History | 0 | December 26th 03 11:36 PM |
Brad Guth is...... | OM | History | 0 | December 26th 03 11:34 PM |