The fate of the Earth?

On 3 syys, 21:52, Pertti Koivisto wrote:
On 3 syys, 06:08, mike3 wrote:



Hi.

I saw this discussion:http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41880.html

One poster posted:
"Well I'm about to finish the book on that. Venus has stopped spinning
by an internal mechanism that was feeded by chaotic resonance in its
orbit. Consequently the planet heated up tremendously melting it
completely. This happened one to two billion years ago. We still see
the residual heat of that process and this has nothing to do with
greenhouse gas effect.

There are many details supporting that hypothesis, like the shaping
and geologic frequencies of the plains indicating melting, the
exponential declining of volcanic activity indicates strong cooling
etc. The new paradigm rthat is currently emerging is "radiogenic heat"
and a lot of it. But what is the source. The most likely element -
potassium40- (40K) is also much more rare on Venus?

It was the big brake."

Is any of this good theory? If so, what sort of implication would it
have for the far future of the Earth, when the Sun's luminosity
increases to the point it begins to evaporate the oceans from the
globe? (Note that this happens quite far in advance of the red giant
phase.) As it seems to suggest things other than greenhouse are
necessary to get the Venus-like environment. If melting it down is
required to keep it so hot, not just greenhouse, then could it be that
the Earth might instead of becoming like Venus become more like Mars
with a depleted, thin and wispy atmosphere? Or is this bad theory?
It's been about 5 years since this was posted, so I suppose more work
has been done now on this subject.

* To thinking the future of the earth is much more difficult than the
past. But certainly I predict 100 % certainty that sun sets and rise
again. We can know future ! The sun shines also tomorrow ! Future can
be revealed !
Astronomers collecting data from billions of stars try to think
timetable of future. Will the sun become *to red giant ? Perhaps but
perhaps not. To know future of astronomical dimensions needs data of
such numbers that astromers have no certainty. But to think how well
planetary system work that we can live here is such a miracle that it
needs God to explain our existence.http://users.utu.fi/pertkoiv/

Pertti Koivisto kirjoitti
To thinking the future of the earth is much more difficult than the
past. But certainly I predict 100 % certainty that sun sets and rise
again. We can know future ! The sun shines also tomorrow ! Future can
be revealed !
Astronomers collecting data from billions of stars try to think
timetable of future. Will the sun become to red giant ? Perhaps but
perhaps not. To know future of astronomical dimensions needs data of
such numbers that astromers have no certainty. But to think how well
planetary system work that we can live here is such a miracle that it
needs God to explain our existence.
http://users.utu.fi/pertkoiv/

- The Bible says that the sun darken, in one day....
+ But also that in one day the sun will give seven times bigger brightness!
* What is the next episode?

Aki Karppinen wrote:

Pertti Koivisto kirjoitti
To thinking the future of the earth is much more difficult than the
past. But certainly I predict 100 % certainty that sun sets and rise
again. We can know future ! The sun shines also tomorrow ! Future can
be revealed !
Astronomers collecting data from billions of stars try to think
timetable of future. Will the sun become to red giant ? Perhaps but
perhaps not. To know future of astronomical dimensions needs data of
such numbers that astromers have no certainty. But to think how well
planetary system work that we can live here is such a miracle that it
needs God to explain our existence.
http://users.utu.fi/pertkoiv/

- The Bible says that the sun darken, in one day....
+ But also that in one day the sun will give seven times bigger brightness!

And this is relevant/interesing because... ?

--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

On 3 syys, 21:52, Pertti Koivisto wrote:
On 3 syys, 06:08, mike3 wrote:



Hi.

I saw this discussion:http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41880.html

One poster posted:
"Well I'm about to finish the book on that. Venus has stopped spinning
by an internal mechanism that was feeded by chaotic resonance in its
orbit. Consequently the planet heated up tremendously melting it
completely. This happened one to two billion years ago. We still see
the residual heat of that process and this has nothing to do with
greenhouse gas effect.

There are many details supporting that hypothesis, like the shaping
and geologic frequencies of the plains indicating melting, the
exponential declining of volcanic activity indicates strong cooling
etc. The new paradigm rthat is currently emerging is "radiogenic heat"
and a lot of it. But what is the source. The most likely element -
potassium40- (40K) is also much more rare on Venus?

It was the big brake."

Is any of this good theory? If so, what sort of implication would it
have for the far future of the Earth, when the Sun's luminosity
increases to the point it begins to evaporate the oceans from the
globe? (Note that this happens quite far in advance of the red giant
phase.) As it seems to suggest things other than greenhouse are
necessary to get the Venus-like environment. If melting it down is
required to keep it so hot, not just greenhouse, then could it be that
the Earth might instead of becoming like Venus become more like Mars
with a depleted, thin and wispy atmosphere? Or is this bad theory?
It's been about 5 years since this was posted, so I suppose more work
has been done now on this subject.

* To thinking the future of the earth is much more difficult than the
past. But certainly I predict 100 % certainty that sun sets and rise
again. We can know future ! The sun shines also tomorrow ! Future can
be revealed !

Your article has been posted 3.9.2009 , now it is 12.9.2009 and all
the world has seen sun shining all that time ! Pertti you are right.
Congratulations !
http://users.utu.fi/pertkoiv/

On Sep 2, 11:08*pm, mike3 wrote:
Hi.

I saw this discussion:http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41880.html

One poster posted:
"Well I'm about to finish the book on that. Venus has stopped spinning
by an internal mechanism that was feeded by chaotic resonance in its
orbit. Consequently the planet heated up tremendously melting it
completely. This happened one to two billion years ago. We still see
the residual heat of that process and this has nothing to do with
greenhouse gas effect.

There are many details supporting that hypothesis, like the shaping
and geologic frequencies of the plains indicating melting, the
exponential declining of volcanic activity indicates strong cooling
etc. The new paradigm rthat is currently emerging is "radiogenic heat"
and a lot of it. But what is the source. The most likely element -
potassium40- (40K) is also much more rare on Venus?

It was the big brake."

Is any of this good theory? If so, what sort of implication would it
have for the far future of the Earth, when the Sun's luminosity
increases to the point it begins to evaporate the oceans from the
globe? (Note that this happens quite far in advance of the red giant
phase.) As it seems to suggest things other than greenhouse are
necessary to get the Venus-like environment. If melting it down is
required to keep it so hot, not just greenhouse, then could it be that
the Earth might instead of becoming like Venus become more like Mars
with a depleted, thin and wispy atmosphere? Or is this bad theory?
It's been about 5 years since this was posted, so I suppose more work
has been done now on this subject.

Venus does rotate, slowly and in the retrograde direction, with its
axis almost exactly perpendicular to its orbital plane. This situation
is unstable. The tidal effect of the sun (which is about as strong at
Venus as the moon's tidal field at the earth) will slow and stop the
retrograde rotation and set Venus rotating in the prograde direction,
until its rotation is synchronized with its orbital motion.

There is a simple hypothesis which would explain the retrograde
rotation. Venus could have captured a small planet into retrograde
orbit, very much as Neptune captured Triton. Because of tidal
friction, the satellite would have spiralled inward, until it was
broken up by Venus's tidal effect. The fragments would have formed a
ring around the planet. The sun's gravity would quickly force the ring
into Venus's orbital plane. Over time, much of the ring material would
spiral into Venus, imparting its retrograde angular momentum to the
planet's rotation. This would have forced Venus to rotate in the
retrograde sense, with its equator in the plane of the ring, which was
also the plane of of the planet's orbit.

This process would have dissipated a lot of heat in Venus, especially
in its atmosphere. Whether this is related to Venus's present high
temperature is a matter for speculation. I don't know of any evidence
that would be relevant.

dow

[Newsgroups snipped]

In article ,
dow writes:
This process would have dissipated a lot of heat in Venus, especially
in its atmosphere. Whether this is related to Venus's present high
temperature is a matter for speculation.

You misspelled "calculation" at the end, there. :-) It should be easy
to compare the energy imparted by your proposed process to the power
radiated by Venus, thereby determining a time scale.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On Sep 9, 1:41*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:
[Newsgroups snipped]

In article ,

*dow writes:
This process would have dissipated a lot of heat in Venus, especially
in its atmosphere. Whether this is related to Venus's present high
temperature is a matter for speculation.

You misspelled "calculation" at the end, there. :-) It should be easy
to compare the energy imparted by your proposed process to the power
radiated by Venus, thereby determining a time scale.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner * * * * * *Phone 617-495-7123 * *
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA * * * * * * * *

The surface of Venus has fewer craters than would be expected if they
have been accumulating since the beginning of the solar system. The
ones that are there correspond to an age of the solid surface of (I
think) about 1.5 billion years. So, if the surface was melted by heat
dissipated as a retrograde satellite spiralled in, broke up, and much
of the material struck Venus, then this process must have happened a
bit more than 1.5 billion years ago. It is likely that the satellite
was captured early in the history of the solar system, at the same
sort of time as the earth was struck by another planet, forming the
moon, so presumably the satellite was in orbit around Venus for
something like three billion years before breaking up. This seems
pretty plausible to me.

It would be informative to send a spacecraft to search for any rocks
that may still be in retrograde orbit around Venus, presumably
remnants from the central part of the ring, which maybe neither were
lost to space nor hit Venus. Obviously, there is nothing big there, or
we'd have seen it, but there may be some rocks of the order of a metre
in size that have so far escaped observation.

dow

dow wrote:
It would be informative to send a spacecraft to search for any rocks
that may still be in retrograde orbit around Venus, presumably
remnants from the central part of the ring, which maybe neither were
lost to space nor hit Venus. Obviously, there is nothing big there, or
we'd have seen it, but there may be some rocks of the order of a metre
in size that have so far escaped observation.


You mean like Venus Express, which is already in orbit around Venus?

Yousuf Khan

On Sep 10, 8:36*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dow wrote:
It would be informative to send a spacecraft to search for any rocks
that may still be in retrograde orbit around Venus, presumably
remnants from the central part of the ring, which maybe neither were
lost to space nor hit Venus. Obviously, there is nothing big there, or
we'd have seen it, but there may be some rocks of the order of a metre
in size that have so far escaped observation.

You mean like Venus Express, which is already in orbit around Venus?

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Venus has been visited by many spacecraft from the USSR, USA, and ESA
(in order of first arrival). Some have actually landed, but have not
survived long in the hostile environment on the surface. Others have
gone into orbit and studied the planet's environment, its atmosphere,
and its surface by radar and infrared. But, as far as I know, none has
looked, or been equipped to look, for orbiting material.

dow

"mike3" wrote in message
...
Hi.

I saw this discussion:
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41880.html


snip


Is any of this good theory? If so, what sort of implication would it
have for the far future of the Earth, when the Sun's luminosity
increases to the point it begins to evaporate the oceans from the
globe? (Note that this happens quite far in advance of the red giant
phase.) As it seems to suggest things other than greenhouse are
necessary to get the Venus-like environment. If melting it down is
required to keep it so hot, not just greenhouse, then could it be that
the Earth might instead of becoming like Venus become more like Mars
with a depleted, thin and wispy atmosphere? Or is this bad theory?
It's been about 5 years since this was posted, so I suppose more work
has been done now on this subject.


hmm...

maybe by this time the entire planet has been urbanized and filled with
robots, so Earth essentially becomes Cybertron...

then time traveling robots show up in the distant past, only thinking they
came from a different planet...


ok, not really...