Mercury swallowed by Sun, loss of solar radiation?? Theory of Mass Extinctions due to decline of SolarRadiation

(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote in message om...
(snip)

Where you should start at is Tokamak fusion plasma machines and how much
they are affected by a single BB entered into the chamber once it is at
peak temperatures. It affects it so much that the Tokamak temperature drops
by more than 1/2.


I never thought a day would come where the tokamak machines can answer
important
questions such as how much of a contaminant can lower the temperature
by 50%.

The important question here relates to the mass extinction of the
Permian and
Cretaceous. How big of a ball falling into the Sun will cut the solar
radiation
by 20% and cause Ice Ages on Earth.

And what material is the best to slow down or stop fusion reactions in
the Sun?

Is it lead? And how big of a ball of lead would cut solar radiation by
20%? About the size of Mercury? And how would it work? Would the lead
vaporize and thus form a blanket inside the Sun and impede the fusion
of hydrogen? Or perhaps there is another weak-point in the fusion
reactions in the Sun for which some other material would be best in
achieving a Sun cooldown.

Question: What is the difference in radiation between the summertime
and the wintertime by the Sun. Is it a 20% reduction in Solar
radiation that distinguishes winter from summer (due to the 23 degree
tilt). I am wondering how
much of a loss in Solar radiation would create a global Ice Age which
the Permian
probably was.

These are all questions which you should be able to answer yourself
using fairly basic maths. In fact the type of calculations needed
have already been demonstrated by other posters, but you refuse to
accept their answers because they don't support your hypothesis.

The calculations (assuming the initial values used are correct) show
that the size of object required to reduce solar output significantly
is very, very large - much larger than Mercury. If you think
differently please show us your calculations - only then can you
seriously propose this as a theory.

I'm not saying that a large object couldn't have impacted the Sun at
some time in the past, but current theories of the causes of ice ages
don't require it. I'd also expect the solar chemistry to still show
the presence of material from such a large impact, and, as far as I'm
aware, it doesn't.

DP

--
David_Paterson = ¦ ;

Senior programmer There are three kinds of people in the world -
Visual Science Ltd. those who can count, and those who can't...

In sci.physics, Archimedes Plutonium

wrote
on 11 Aug 2003 11:58:54 -0700
:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in message ...
In sci.physics, Archimedes Plutonium

wrote
on 11 Aug 2003 02:40:41 -0700
:
The Krakatoa volcanic activity is a great gauge to use on estimating
the Siberian
flats and the Deccan flats activities of the Permian and Cretaceous.

But we lack a gauge for estimating how much cooler the Sun shines and
how much
less radiation should a comet stream be swallowed by the Sun. What if
Shoemaker-Levy comet stream had been swallowed by the Sun vice Jupiter
then would we
now have experienced colder winters and cooler summers due to the
decrease of
Solar radiation as the Sun digests the comet stream?

How much of a decrease in Solar Radiation would occur if one of the
largest
asteroids were swallowed by the Sun? Would Earth then begin a Ice Age?

Good question.

Time to crunch a comet -- and some numbers relating thereto.

Sun: 1.99 * 10^30 kg.

Sun solar output (total): 3.94 * 10^26 W.

Sun temperatu 5800 K.

Sun radius: 6.95 * 10^8 m.

Comet: various but probably a few km in diameter; ice core would
probably vaporize near the Sun anyway but let's pretend.

OK, 3 km radius comet hurtling towards certain disaster somewhere
in the Sun's photosphere. Time to evacuate humanity? 3 km radius,
1.13 * 10^14 m^3 of material. Since ice is 0.92 g/mL, or 920 kg
per m^3, we get 1.04 * 10^17 kg.

That's quite a bit of ice by Earthly standards, but the Sun would
barely notice it, masswise.

Now let's vaporize that ice and heat it to 5800 K. We'll assume
0 C, even though this is laughable anyway (quick, how hot is
Mercury's day side?).

Heat of fusion: 3.33 * 10^5 J/kg, or 3.46 * 10^22 J.

Since pressure is very low this is almost immediately followed
by heat of vaporization.

Heat of vaporization: 2.26 * 10^6 J/kg, or 2.35 * 10^23 J

We are now at 373 K at the very most.

The specific heat of steam is 2.02 * 10^3 J/kg K. The amount
of energy:

(5800K - 373K) * (2.02 * 10^3 J/kg K) * 1.04 * 10^17 kg = 1.14E24 J

Total: 1.41E24 J.

Now, there are some issues with the Sun itself. Were this
distributed uniformly across the Sun's surface the Sun
might decrease power output for a few microseconds, but
it's not. We therefore have to compute the insolation
across the comet; as an approximation we merely compare
cross-sectional areas at a certain radius.

The Sun's total surface area (assuming the Sun is a hot, monstrous
billiard ball, which is OK for this problem) is 6.07 * 10^18 m^2.
The comet's cross-sectional area is 1/4 its total surface
area (area of circle = pi * r^2; area of sphere = 4 * pi * r^2)
and is 2.83 * 10^7 m^2. Insolation across that surface area as
the comet smacks the billiard ball is
(2.83 * 10^7 / 6.07 * 10^18) * 3.94 * 10^26 W = 1.84 * 10^15 W.

Comet? What comet? Maybe one might notice something for
a significant fraction of a year if one's looking at the
right place. It certainly wouldn't cause an Ice Age.

[rest crunched as well]

Like the other poster, it seems as though before you wrote your reply you
had your mind made up as to what the end result you like it to be and
give numbers for that conclusion.

Where you should start at is Tokamak fusion plasma machines and how much
they are affected by a single BB entered into the chamber once it is at
peak temperatures. It affects it so much that the Tokamak temperature drops
by more than 1/2.

I am not saying that a comet plunging into the Sun is going to drop the Sun's
radiation by 1/2.

What I am saying is that if you plunge a heavy metal
asteroid or the planet Mercury into the Sun and as the
sun melts and vaporizes that metal it begins
to gum up the Sun's interior fusion nuclear furnace.

Now why would it do that? At most, it will drop into the Sun's
core and be forgotten. (The Sun's core is mostly helium, with
some heavier elements, if I'm not mistaken.)

And although it may not drop the Solar radiation by 1/2 which all
the metal of Mercury could possible achieve. Anyway, such a
physical act is way more than enough to drop the Sun's
temperature and create a global Ice Age on Earth.

Shoemaker-Levy was not metallic and was small compared to say the largest
metallic asteroid.

Shoemaker-Levy also ran into something slightly colder than
a 5800-degree stellar hothouse. The results were admittedly
spectacular, to be sure.


You should redo your calculations with a large metallic
asteroid and once it plunges into the Sun compute its
melting and then vaporization as to gumming up the Sun's
interior to the point where it interfers with the fusion
of hydrogen and once this cooling of the Sun begins then
it has a rippling cascade effect upon other fusion processes
such that the Solar Radiation is significantly cut.

I don't think so, Sparky. In any event, the enthalpies of
fusion, vaporization, and atomization are bigger
than those of water (13.8 kJ/mol vs. 6.00 kJ/mol;
347 kJ/mol vs. 40.68 kJ/mol[*]) but not by enough to make all
that much difference. Also, a mole of iron weighs a little more
than 3x a mole of water, canceling much of the effect.


Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
[*] my previous computation used J/kg.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"Bored Huge Krill" wrote in message
...
George,
thanks for the reply. Actually, I wasn't questioning that such impacts
occur, rather I wanted to understand the mechanics that might cause them
to
happen. Are comets typically interacting significantly with other bodies
besides the Sun?

Regards
Krill


The simple fact is that nobody knows. The fact that the comets commonly
impact the sun has only been a recent discovery. Comet Shewmaker-Levy
impacting Jupitar was the first documented impact with another planetary
body. All things being said, I doubt that it is all that rare of an
occurence.


"George" wrote in message
news

"Bored Huge Krill" wrote in message
...
a side question:

I'd seen an earlier post in this thread suggesting that the Sun in
fact
swallows many comets. I'm curious as to why that should be.

Because there are a lot of comets that we didn't know about until the
SOHO
satellite was put up. It monitors the sun constantly. It has spotted
many
comets striking the sun.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/LASCO/

"Joe Rat" wrote in message
.. .
The least said in this case the better...
It is like spitting against a strong wind...

Regards,
Joe Rat

I had a firehose around here somewhere.

George wrote in message
...

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
m...
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in
message ...

Stop this crap. You have no idea what you are talking about! Comets
strike
the sun many times during the year. They have no effect whatsoever on
the
sun's output. Go find a career in a field about which you actually know
something and stop posting these troll messages.

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
om...
(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote in message
om...
(snip)

Where you should start at is Tokamak fusion plasma machines and how much
they are affected by a single BB entered into the chamber once it is at
peak temperatures. It affects it so much that the Tokamak temperature
drops
by more than 1/2.


I never thought a day would come where the tokamak machines can answer
important
questions such as how much of a contaminant can lower the temperature
by 50%.

The important question here relates to the mass extinction of the
Permian and
Cretaceous.

The mass extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous were likely brought about
by a massive asteroid impact. The existence of a gigantic impact crater
(Chixalub) of the correct age combined with a thin layer of iridium rich
sediments at the K/T boundary strongly support this hypothesis. However, I'm
pretty sure you already knew this, and simply chose to disregard it in favor
of your own pet "theory."

We'll get to the Permian in a bit...

How big of a ball falling into the Sun will cut the solar
radiation
by 20% and cause Ice Ages on Earth.

I can't tell you that, but I can tell you that there's no evidence for any
such event, nor is it required to bring about an ice age. While some
scientists do propose a periodic reduction in solar output as a possible
cause of ice ages, most consider the cause of any such "slowdowns", assuming
they exist, unknown at present.


And what material is the best to slow down or stop fusion reactions in
the Sun?

Is it lead? And how big of a ball of lead would cut solar radiation by
20%? About the size of Mercury? And how would it work? Would the lead
vaporize and thus form a blanket inside the Sun and impede the fusion
of hydrogen? Or perhaps there is another weak-point in the fusion
reactions in the Sun for which some other material would be best in
achieving a Sun cooldown.

Question: What is the difference in radiation between the summertime
and the wintertime by the Sun. Is it a 20% reduction in Solar
radiation that distinguishes winter from summer (due to the 23 degree
tilt). I am wondering how
much of a loss in Solar radiation would create a global Ice Age which
the Permian
probably was.

Nope. There was a brief cold period toward the end of the Permian, that's
true, but it's not what did the deed. (in fact, the fossil rich Permian
strata of the Karoo Basin show that the Late Permian ice age, while it did
indeed bring about some extinctions, didn't have as great an impact as might
be expected) The Permian mass extinctions were probably caused not by an ice
age, but by a heat wave. During the Late Permian, the planet's main
continents were coming together to form the supercontinent of Pangaea. With
the majority of Earth's land area fused into one gigantic continent spanning
nearly from pole to pole, the mitigating effects of moisture laden air
moving inland from the oceans could no longer reach most of the dry land
area. Most if not all of the moisture would be lost long before the winds
could reach the interior of the continent. The result was that most of
Pangaea was a vast, hot desert surrounded by a habitable zone at most a few
hundred miles wide. Life forms adapted to the cooler, moister conditions
existing through most of the Permian could not tolerate the hot, dry climate
that was emerging, and by the beginning of the Triassic, most had died out.
Some Permian forms managed to survive a bit longer, but with the emergence
of the dinosaurs in the Middle Triassic, ultimately they too became extinct.
By the end of the Triassic, Pangaea had begun to break up, and by the Late
Cretaceous, most of the major land masses had assumed a form not all that
different from what we see today.



Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

The Sun's radiation output may change by 0.0-0.2% over two decades,
corresponding to the magnetic and sunspot cycles. This may be
enough to affect droughts in the western USA and other parts of the
world. Until there were monitoring satellites, it was difficult to
access this variability from the earth's surface.

The Sun's output may have increased 30% since the earth was formed.
To some degree, life may have altered the atmosphere to compensate
for this (GAIA negative feedback hypothesis). But life may have its
limits as the Sun is predicted to gradually, then aruptly incease
its output over the next several billion years.

wrote:



The calculations (assuming the initial values used are correct) show
that the size of object required to reduce solar output significantly
is very, very large - much larger than Mercury. If you think
differently please show us your calculations - only then can you
seriously propose this as a theory.

Not true. The calculations require the volume of the JET or TFTR
tokamaks. The volume of the hot plasma, and how much of a sprinkling
of dust matter of iron would it take to cool the plasma temperature by
1/2. Those other posters are totally ignorant of that data information
or calculation, as is DP.

Then you find out how much of this iron dust cools a Tokamak plasma
by 1/2 temperature. Then you compute how many JET plasma volumes
are in the Sun which is a very huge number indeed.
And then you multiply that huge number by the amount of iron-dust
that cooled the Tokamak by 1/2. And then you see if this number is
the mass of Mercury. Albeit, Mercury is not a 100% ball of iron but
close enough to it.



I'm not saying that a large object couldn't have impacted the Sun at
some time in the past, but current theories of the causes of ice ages
don't require it. I'd also expect the solar chemistry to still show
the presence of material from such a large impact, and, as far as I'm
aware, it doesn't.

DP


Oh, yes you are. Your pessimistic outlook is so far that you refuse to
realize that swallowing of a planet like Mercury has a **huge** impact
on the Solar radiation.

As far as I know, the Sun has too much of a iron core and other heavier
metals for which is in contradition to the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. If
you compute the difference between a no iron core for the Sun and its
present iron core, would give an amount that was more than thousand
of Mercury sized balls swallowed by the Sun. And Earth has not experienced
a thousand Mass Extinctions in Geological history.

Your trouble, DP is that you cannot think objectively and so your science thoughts are of no merit.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...


wrote:



The calculations (assuming the initial values used are correct) show
that the size of object required to reduce solar output significantly
is very, very large - much larger than Mercury. If you think
differently please show us your calculations - only then can you
seriously propose this as a theory.

Not true. The calculations require the volume of the JET or TFTR tokamaks.

once again you are completely incorrect.

The volume of the hot plasma, and how much of a sprinkling
of dust matter of iron would it take to cool the plasma temperature by
1/2. Those other posters are totally ignorant of that data information
or calculation, as is DP.

JET and the Sun work on completely different principles of fusion.

Then you find out how much of this iron dust cools a Tokamak plasma
by 1/2 temperature. Then you compute how many JET plasma volumes
are in the Sun which is a very huge number indeed.
And then you multiply that huge number by the amount of iron-dust
that cooled the Tokamak by 1/2. And then you see if this number is
the mass of Mercury. Albeit, Mercury is not a 100% ball of iron but
close enough to it.

you can do that calculation until the cows come home, and you still will be
no closer to the answer than if you just sat there with your thumb in your
ass. if you are truly interested in such problems, perhaps you should make
a greater effort to understand the underlying principles so that you can do
relevant calculations.

Raz

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

wrote:

The calculations (assuming the initial values used are correct) show
that the size of object required to reduce solar output significantly
is very, very large - much larger than Mercury. If you think
differently please show us your calculations - only then can you
seriously propose this as a theory.

Not true. The calculations require the volume of the JET or TFTR
tokamaks. The volume of the hot plasma, and how much of a sprinkling
of dust matter of iron would it take to cool the plasma temperature by
1/2. Those other posters are totally ignorant of that data information
or calculation, as is DP.

Sorry, but the interactions of fusion reactor systems with iron dust
are only a very vague approximation of the effects of Mercury, or
another large object, impacting the Sun. If you think it's a close
match then show us how you came to that conclusion instead of just
hand-waving. Conditions in a fusion reactor are very different from
those in the Sun.

Then you find out how much of this iron dust cools a Tokamak plasma
by 1/2 temperature. Then you compute how many JET plasma volumes
are in the Sun which is a very huge number indeed.
And then you multiply that huge number by the amount of iron-dust
that cooled the Tokamak by 1/2. And then you see if this number is
the mass of Mercury. Albeit, Mercury is not a 100% ball of iron but
close enough to it.

If you have the data on tokamak plasma volumes relative to the Sun's
volume, and the effects of dust on it, then show us the calculations
that support your hypothesis.

As far as I can see, the calculations presented so far are perfectly
valid, and show that impacting a Mercury sized boy would have an
almost unnoticeable effect on the Sun. If you think differently it's
up to you to prove it.

I'm not saying that a large object couldn't have impacted the Sun at
some time in the past, but current theories of the causes of ice ages
don't require it. I'd also expect the solar chemistry to still show
the presence of material from such a large impact, and, as far as I'm
aware, it doesn't.

DP


Oh, yes you are.

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? You're putting words in
my mouth here

If you consider the birth and evolution of the Solar System (as
current theories have it anyway) it's almost certain that large bodies
will have impacted the Sun in the past. Whether any have in
relatively recent geological time is another question - but one which
would be very difficult to prove either way.

Your pessimistic outlook is so far that you refuse to
realize that swallowing of a planet like Mercury has a **huge** impact
on the Solar radiation.

Sorry, but the numbers don't add up. You need to present more than
just statements to prove this - you need to do the calculations!

As far as I know, the Sun has too much of a iron core and other heavier
metals for which is in contradition to the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. If
you compute the difference between a no iron core for the Sun and its
present iron core, would give an amount that was more than thousand
of Mercury sized balls swallowed by the Sun. And Earth has not experienced
a thousand Mass Extinctions in Geological history.

I don't follow your logic here, and although I'm not an expert in
cosmology or astrophysics, my understanding is that the Sun's
composition is pretty much as expected by current theories.

Your trouble, DP is that you cannot think objectively and so your science thoughts are of no merit.

LOL - I always try to be objective, and science isn't about holding on
to your ideas blindly in the face of contradictory evidence. I've
often been proven wrong, and learned a lot from it. In fact it's
often more interesting to find your ideas are wrong, and to start
learning something new instead

You should try doing some real science yourself....

DP

--
David_Paterson = ¦ ;

Senior programmer There are three kinds of people in the world -
Visual Science Ltd. those who can count, and those who can't...

Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:53:39 +0100 wrote:
(snip)



Not true. The calculations require the volume of the JET or TFTR
tokamaks. The volume of the hot plasma, and how much of a sprinkling
of dust matter of iron would it take to cool the plasma temperature by
1/2. Those other posters are totally ignorant of that data information
or calculation, as is DP.

Sorry, but the interactions of fusion reactor systems with iron dust
are only a very vague approximation of the effects of Mercury, or
another large object, impacting the Sun. If you think it's a close
match then show us how you came to that conclusion instead of just
hand-waving. Conditions in a fusion reactor are very different from
those in the Sun.

I am not privy to the information of JET or TFTR as to how much of
a perturbation a BB dropped into the peak performance would occur.

It is an approximation, but it is the best we have other than to actually
direct a asteroid into a collision course with the Sun and to measure
the lowering of SolarRadiation. Another test is to place a lead drum
into a collision course with the Sun and measure for decrease in
Solar Radiation.

I offered a 1/2 reduction in temperature of JET when a BB is dropped
only because I am not privy to any of the data that may deliver the answer.
The scientists who work at TFTR or JET would offer more precise
data.

And the difference between a volume of the Sun equal to the volume of
JET is that the Sun is sustained "natural fusion" whereas JET is "artificial
environment fusion". What I mean by that is if JET temperature drops by
1/2 with the dropping of a BB into the plasma, the same volume in the
Sun will not drop by 1/2 temperature due to a BB introduction.

And I am counting on the idea that a BB of iron or copper or lead when
dropped into plasma will vaporize and in the vaporization will spread out
and thus create more of a temperature drop as it interfers with the
fusion reactions. I do not know what chemical element when introduced
into the Sun will drop its temperature by greatest amount. I am guessing
it is lead, but maybe a surprize is in store?



Then you find out how much of this iron dust cools a Tokamak plasma
by 1/2 temperature. Then you compute how many JET plasma volumes
are in the Sun which is a very huge number indeed.
And then you multiply that huge number by the amount of iron-dust
that cooled the Tokamak by 1/2. And then you see if this number is
the mass of Mercury. Albeit, Mercury is not a 100% ball of iron but
close enough to it.

If you have the data on tokamak plasma volumes relative to the Sun's
volume, and the effects of dust on it, then show us the calculations
that support your hypothesis.

Say the BB is made of iron and vaporizes and evenly distributed into the
plasma and that each atom of iron in the BB stops a fusion reaction. So it
becomes almost a linear relationship of the number of atoms for fusion compared to the number of atoms that would thwart the
fusion. Say that a
BB has 10^21 atoms of iron and say the atoms of hydrogen participating
in the fusion process is 10^22; if it were 10^21 then the BB could smother
the fusion completely.



As far as I can see, the calculations presented so far are perfectly
valid, and show that impacting a Mercury sized boy would have an
almost unnoticeable effect on the Sun. If you think differently it's
up to you to prove it.

That is because childish viewpoints of the Sun swallowing are based
on preconceptions that the Sun is huge and that Mercury if swallowed
would just find a home in the core and live happily ever after. We had
childish preconceptions that greenhouse gases do not affect Earth by
much. So it does not surprize me that most scientists would have
childish preconceptions that Sun swallowing seldom if ever affects
its solar radiation output.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies