planetary heat losses

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

Darrell Lakin wrote:
Consider 8 iron balls taken out of
an
oven in your kitchen.

Now imagine 4 shivering brass monkeys in your freezer.
Some interesting reconstructive surgery could be done here. :-)

Pat

On Aug 10, 2:37 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Darrell Lakin wrote:
Consider 8 iron balls taken out of
an
oven in your kitchen.

Now imagine 4 shivering brass monkeys in your freezer.
Some interesting reconstructive surgery could be done here. :-)

Pat

"Consider a spherical cow."

Neil Gerace wrote:
"Consider a spherical cow."


http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/edtech/BOOST/sphericalcow.gif
That was done by Picasso during his "moo" period.
"Now consider the case of a Mr. Brad Guth, a man with a mission...to
contact life on other worlds...a mission he is about to succeed in...in
a manner he could never have suspected...in a place we call The Twilight
Zone." ;-)

Pat

On Aug 10, 9:56 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Neil Gerace wrote:
"Consider a spherical cow."

http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/edtech/BOOST/sphericalcow.gif
That was done by Picasso during his "moo" period.
"Now consider the case of a Mr. Brad Guth, a man with a mission...to
contact life on other worlds...a mission he is about to succeed in...in
a manner he could never have suspected...in a place we call The Twilight
Zone." ;-)

Pat

How typically right on topic avoidance, and otherwise real funny,
Pat.
- Brad Guth

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:37:39 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Now imagine 4 shivering brass monkeys in your freezer.

"...And a partridge in a pear treeeeeeee!"

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

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

Venus is getting rid of roughly 20.5 w/m2, and that's roughly 256 fold
greater than the core heat loss of Earth. Therefore, Venus is a
relatively newish planet, whereas Mars is likely older than Earth, and
our salty old moon is simply not even made of Earth.

Not all planets or moons are those of our initial solar system,
whereas interstellar migrations have taken place. As you say "There
is room for influences here not yet understood", but we do have
sufficient supercomputers and of their 3D fully interactive orbital
simulators that'll prove out most any theory. Too bad such nifty
applied technology and those our best talents are not being allowed
anywhere near such supercomputers (most of which being public
funded).
- Brad Guth

On Aug 10, 11:05 am, BradGuth wrote:
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

Venus is getting rid of roughly 20.5 w/m2, and that's roughly 256 fold
greater than the core heat loss of Earth. Therefore, Venus is a
relatively newish planet, whereas Mars is likely older than Earth, and
our salty old moon is simply not even made of Earth.

Not all planets or moons are those of our initial solar system,
whereas interstellar migrations have taken place. As you say "There
is room for influences here not yet understood", but we do have
sufficient supercomputers and of their 3D fully interactive orbital
simulators that'll prove out most any theory. Too bad such nifty
applied technology and those our best talents are not being allowed
anywhere near such supercomputers (most of which being public
funded).
- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some models suggest that the surface of Venus was completely re-formed
within the last several hundred million years from an unknown source.
Likely one of the dwarf planets collided with it. Big enough to make a
mess of the entire surface but not so big as to destroy the core.
There should be a large plain at the collision point and a large ridge
with volcanic evidence at the antipedal point on the other side of the
collision. Of course with the aggressive errosion on Venus we may
never know.

On Aug 10, 10:55 am, Darrell Lakin wrote:
On Aug 10, 11:05 am, BradGuth wrote:





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

Venus is getting rid of roughly 20.5 w/m2, and that's roughly 256 fold
greater than the core heat loss of Earth. Therefore, Venus is a
relatively newish planet, whereas Mars is likely older than Earth, and
our salty old moon is simply not even made of Earth.

Not all planets or moons are those of our initial solar system,
whereas interstellar migrations have taken place. As you say "There
is room for influences here not yet understood", but we do have
sufficient supercomputers and of their 3D fully interactive orbital
simulators that'll prove out most any theory. Too bad such nifty
applied technology and those our best talents are not being allowed
anywhere near such supercomputers (most of which being public
funded).
- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some models suggest that the surface of Venus was completely re-formed
within the last several hundred million years from an unknown source.
Likely one of the dwarf planets collided with it. Big enough to make a
mess of the entire surface but not so big as to destroy the core.
There should be a large plain at the collision point and a large ridge
with volcanic evidence at the antipedal point on the other side of the
collision. Of course with the aggressive errosion on Venus we may
never know.

How would encountering Earth fit into that analogy? (even a near miss
should have done the trick)

As far as I can tell, there's not all that much erosion (most
everything looks pretty sharp), other than within the path of mud/lava
flows and in nifty places like the "fluid arch". Otherwise, most of
everything below 25 km off that geothermally toasty deck should be
nearly crystal dry and of calm weather.

There's an even better theory that Venus once upon a time had a moon,
of essentially the same exact size and mass as our moon, though having
been orbiting a bit faster and closer in (say roughly 300,000 km).

Therefore, in addition to having survived many significant impacts, as
well as having been venting all of that geothermally forced gas of
mostly S8 and CO2, plus spitting out a few spare teratonnes worth of
h2o (like a perfectly good little newish planetology orb like Venus
should), apparently some of that impressive terrain is the direct
result of tidal forces, of which because of the unusually slow
rotation of Venus is why we can pretty much rule out any solar gravity/
tidal induced affects.
- Brad Guth

In article . com,
Darrell Lakin wrote:
Some models suggest that the surface of Venus was completely re-formed
within the last several hundred million years from an unknown source.

It's clear that Venus has been globally resurfaced in the last few hundred
million years: there simply are not enough impact craters on it (even
allowing for the screening effect of the thick atmosphere), and they are
too randomly distributed and too consistently fresh (there are no *old*
craters, or regions of old craters). But there is no great mystery about
the cause; there are several theories that account for it well, all based
on episodes of mass volcanic activity produced by internal heat.

There should be a large plain at the collision point and a large ridge
with volcanic evidence at the antipedal point on the other side of the
collision.

Let me guess: you've never actually looked at a map of Venus, right?
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |