Totally wrong, from top to bottom.
On 2024-10-30 06:29:20 +0000, Bertietaylor said:
Totally wrong, from top to bottom.
Well yes, you usually are,
but which of your idiocies are you referring
to here? You provide no context.
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy
surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the
stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa
mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain
perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity
relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result
is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind,
relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards
along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa
were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no
energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so
the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa.
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
On 10/29/24 21:53, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is
interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy
surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the
stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around
Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa
mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain
perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity
relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result
is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind,
relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards
along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside
Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa
were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no
energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so
the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa.
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being
neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking that the standard model for Earth is that supposedly
in the 1800s Lord Kelvin did some calculations.
The outer layers of the Earth have an insulating effect on the inner
layers of the earth.
Then the inner layers even can act as more insulation.
And further down.
And so on.
He calculated that it would take a hot interior literally 10s to
even 100 million years for a hot Earth interior to cool down because
the Earth could retain heat and insulate successive layers so well.
When everything was put together, however, his calculations were not
wrong.
The standard model of geologic time in the present however is that the
Earth is billions of years old.
How is this discrepancy resolved?
I am thinking that the standard modern view is that radiation from
the slow radioactive decay of uranium, potassium, thorium, and other
elements deep in the interior is added to the Earth's insulating
effect to keep the interior of the Earth and other inner solar system
bodies heated.
I am thinking that Io is supposed to be rather seriously affected
in its composition and internal dynamics by tidal forces. I was
thinking however that Ganymede and Callisto were also supposed to
have liquid water mantles.
It might be that there is a combination of insulation, internal
radiation, and tidal forces going on for the different moons
of Jupiter.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:05:55 +0000, x wrote:
On 10/29/24 21:53, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is
interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy
surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the
stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around
Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa
mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain
perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity
relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result
is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind,
relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards
along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside
Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa
were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no
energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so
the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa.
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being
neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking that the standard model for Earth is that supposedly
in the 1800s Lord Kelvin did some calculations.
At that time they had thought the universe was only full of stars.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:05:55 +0000, x wrote:
On 10/29/24 21:53, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is
interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy
surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the
stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around
Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa
mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain
perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity
relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result
is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind,
relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards
along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside
Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa
were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no
energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so
the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa.
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being
neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking that the standard model for Earth is that supposedly
in the 1800s Lord Kelvin did some calculations.
At that time they had thought the universe was only full of stars. They
had no clue about galaxies and intergalactic distances and so they
considered the universe finite as it would be bright if finite.
Throw out Kelvin and Helmholtz and Einstein and Feynman.
Up Galileo and Newton and Maxwell and Tesla.
The outer layers of the Earth have an insulating effect on the inner
layers of the earth.
Then the inner layers even can act as more insulation.
And further down.
And so on.
He calculated that it would take a hot interior literally 10s to
even 100 million years for a hot Earth interior to cool down because
the Earth could retain heat and insulate successive layers so well.
When everything was put together, however, his calculations were not
wrong.
The standard model of geologic time in the present however is that the
Earth is billions of years old.
How is this discrepancy resolved?
I am thinking that the standard modern view is that radiation from
the slow radioactive decay of uranium, potassium, thorium, and other
elements deep in the interior is added to the Earth's insulating
effect to keep the interior of the Earth and other inner solar system
bodies heated.
I am thinking that Io is supposed to be rather seriously affected
in its composition and internal dynamics by tidal forces. I was
thinking however that Ganymede and Callisto were also supposed to
have liquid water mantles.
It might be that there is a combination of insulation, internal
radiation, and tidal forces going on for the different moons
of Jupiter.
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:05:55 +0000, x wrote:
On 10/29/24 21:53, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is >>>> interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy
surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the
stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around
Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa
mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain
perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity
relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result >>>> is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind,
relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards >>>> along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside >>>> Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa
were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no
energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so >>>> the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa.
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being >>>> neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking that the standard model for Earth is that supposedly
in the 1800s Lord Kelvin did some calculations.
At that time they had thought the universe was only full of stars.
Utter nonsense yet again, crackpot.
By 1600 astronmers were well aware of different types of celestial
bodies and beginning to measure distances to such.
<snip lunatic raving unread>
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 0:27:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:05:55 +0000, x wrote:
On 10/29/24 21:53, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is >>>>> interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy
surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the
stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around >>>>> Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa >>>>> mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain
perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity
relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result >>>>> is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind,
relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards >>>>> along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside >>>>> Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa >>>>> were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no >>>>> energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so >>>>> the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa.
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being >>>>> neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking that the standard model for Earth is that supposedly
in the 1800s Lord Kelvin did some calculations.
At that time they had thought the universe was only full of stars.
Utter nonsense yet again, crackpot.
By 1600 astronmers were well aware of different types of celestial
bodies and beginning to measure distances to such.
Did they have a clue about galaxies.
<snip lunatic raving unread>
Penisnino runs away, typical establishment tactics when challenged for astounding stupidity.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 0:27:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:05:55 +0000, x wrote:
On 10/29/24 21:53, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is >>>>>> interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy
surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the
stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around >>>>>> Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa >>>>>> mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain >>>>>> perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity
relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result >>>>>> is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind, >>>>>> relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards >>>>>> along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside >>>>>> Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa >>>>>> were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no >>>>>> energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so >>>>>> the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa.
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being >>>>>> neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking that the standard model for Earth is that supposedly
in the 1800s Lord Kelvin did some calculations.
At that time they had thought the universe was only full of stars.
Utter nonsense yet again, crackpot.
By 1600 astronmers were well aware of different types of celestial
bodies and beginning to measure distances to such.
Did they have a clue about galaxies.
"They" had a clue as early as 450 BCE crackpot.
The first attempts at measuring distant objects where made around 1000
CE crackpot.
The invention of the telescope in 1610 rather clinched the deal
crackpot.
<snip lunatic raving unread>
Penisnino runs away, typical establishment tactics when challenged for
astounding stupidity.
Runs away from what crackpot, your total ignorance of the history of
science?
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:27:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 0:27:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:05:55 +0000, x wrote:
On 10/29/24 21:53, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is >>>>>>> interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy >>>>>>> surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the
stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around >>>>>>> Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa >>>>>>> mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain >>>>>>> perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity >>>>>>> relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result >>>>>>> is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind, >>>>>>> relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards >>>>>>> along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside >>>>>>> Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa >>>>>>> were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no >>>>>>> energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so >>>>>>> the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa. >>>>>>>
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being >>>>>>> neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking that the standard model for Earth is that supposedly >>>>>> in the 1800s Lord Kelvin did some calculations.
At that time they had thought the universe was only full of stars.
Utter nonsense yet again, crackpot.
By 1600 astronmers were well aware of different types of celestial
bodies and beginning to measure distances to such.
Did they have a clue about galaxies.
"They" had a clue as early as 450 BCE crackpot.
No, fool.
They thought the stars were the lights from Heaven.
The first attempts at measuring distant objects where made around 1000
CE crackpot.
The invention of the telescope in 1610 rather clinched the deal
crackpot.
Penisnino, all they found then that crystal spheres MAY NOT exist and
the Earth MIGHT go around the Sun.
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:27:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 0:27:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:05:55 +0000, x wrote:
On 10/29/24 21:53, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is >>>>>>>> interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy >>>>>>>> surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the >>>>>>>> stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around >>>>>>>> Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa >>>>>>>> mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain >>>>>>>> perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity >>>>>>>> relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result
is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind, >>>>>>>> relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards
along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside
Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa >>>>>>>> were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no >>>>>>>> energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so >>>>>>>> the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa. >>>>>>>>
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being
neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking that the standard model for Earth is that supposedly >>>>>>> in the 1800s Lord Kelvin did some calculations.
At that time they had thought the universe was only full of stars.
Utter nonsense yet again, crackpot.
By 1600 astronmers were well aware of different types of celestial
bodies and beginning to measure distances to such.
Did they have a clue about galaxies.
"They" had a clue as early as 450 BCE crackpot.
No, fool.
They thought the stars were the lights from Heaven.
No, not everyone thought that crackpot.
The first attempts at measuring distant objects where made around 1000
CE crackpot.
The invention of the telescope in 1610 rather clinched the deal
crackpot.
Penisnino, all they found then that crystal spheres MAY NOT exist and
the Earth MIGHT go around the Sun.
Utterly wrong crackpot.
<snip remaing insane babble unread>
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 0:24:59 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:27:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
By 1600 astronmers were well aware of different types of celestial >>>>>> bodies and beginning to measure distances to such.
Did they have a clue about galaxies.
"They" had a clue as early as 450 BCE crackpot.
No, fool.
They thought the stars were the lights from Heaven.
No, not everyone thought that crackpot.
Who in Europe did not before Copernicus?
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 0:24:59 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:27:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
By 1600 astronmers were well aware of different types of celestial >>>>>>> bodies and beginning to measure distances to such.
Did they have a clue about galaxies.
"They" had a clue as early as 450 BCE crackpot.
No, fool.
They thought the stars were the lights from Heaven.
No, not everyone thought that crackpot.
Who in Europe did not before Copernicus?
Greek philosopher Democritus (450–370 BCE).
On 10/31/24 18:55, bertietaylor wrote:
crackpot.
Each time he calls you crackpot he means, "My fellow 'engineer'".
You two are made for each other. Didn't you mail your dick to him for transplantation after he got tired of being active in the "Me Too"
movement?
You two not only are the same thing down to your asses, but also from
your dicks up.
Front and back. In and out. Up or lower down! You're the same thing.
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 0:24:59 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:27:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 0:27:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:05:55 +0000, x wrote:Utter nonsense yet again, crackpot.
On 10/29/24 21:53, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is
interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy >>>>>>>>> surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the >>>>>>>>> stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around >>>>>>>>> Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa >>>>>>>>> mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain >>>>>>>>> perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity >>>>>>>>> relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result
is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind, >>>>>>>>> relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards
along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside
Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa >>>>>>>>> were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no >>>>>>>>> energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so
the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa. >>>>>>>>>
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being
neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking that the standard model for Earth is that supposedly >>>>>>>> in the 1800s Lord Kelvin did some calculations.
At that time they had thought the universe was only full of stars. >>>>>>
By 1600 astronmers were well aware of different types of celestial >>>>>> bodies and beginning to measure distances to such.
Did they have a clue about galaxies.
"They" had a clue as early as 450 BCE crackpot.
No, fool.
They thought the stars were the lights from Heaven.
No, not everyone thought that crackpot.
Who in Europe did not before Copernicus?
The first attempts at measuring distant objects where made around 1000 >>>> CE crackpot.
The invention of the telescope in 1610 rather clinched the deal
crackpot.
Penisnino, all they found then that crystal spheres MAY NOT exist and
the Earth MIGHT go around the Sun.
Utterly wrong crackpot.
<snip remaing insane babble unread>
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 2:12:57 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 0:24:59 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:27:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
<snip old crap>
By 1600 astronmers were well aware of different types of celestial >>>>>>>> bodies and beginning to measure distances to such.
Did they have a clue about galaxies.
"They" had a clue as early as 450 BCE crackpot.
No, fool.
They thought the stars were the lights from Heaven.
No, not everyone thought that crackpot.
Who in Europe did not before Copernicus?
Greek philosopher Democritus (450–370 BCE).
Did he say that the stars are suns?
Was that popular belef
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 1:24:33 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 0:24:59 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:27:05 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 0:27:40 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:05:55 +0000, x wrote:Utter nonsense yet again, crackpot.
On 10/29/24 21:53, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is
interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy >>>>>>>>>> surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the >>>>>>>>>> stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around
Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa
mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain >>>>>>>>>> perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity >>>>>>>>>> relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result
is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind, >>>>>>>>>> relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards
along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside
Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa
were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no >>>>>>>>>> energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so
the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa. >>>>>>>>>>
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being
neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking that the standard model for Earth is that supposedly >>>>>>>>> in the 1800s Lord Kelvin did some calculations.
At that time they had thought the universe was only full of stars. >>>>>>>
By 1600 astronmers were well aware of different types of celestial >>>>>>> bodies and beginning to measure distances to such.
Did they have a clue about galaxies.
"They" had a clue as early as 450 BCE crackpot.
No, fool.
They thought the stars were the lights from Heaven.
No, not everyone thought that crackpot.
Who in Europe did not before Copernicus?
The first attempts at measuring distant objects where made around 1000 >>>>> CE crackpot.
The invention of the telescope in 1610 rather clinched the deal
crackpot.
Penisnino, all they found then that crystal spheres MAY NOT exist and
the Earth MIGHT go around the Sun.
Utterly wrong crackpot.
Ignorant fool the Penisnino. Wants to change the past
Apart from lies and nonsense and slander
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy
surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the
stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa
mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain
perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity
relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The result
is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind,
relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force backwards
along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat inside Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if Europa
were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would be no
energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so
the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa.
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa being neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
On 11/1/24 23:52, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 30-Oct-24 12:53 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
NASA has a mission to the Jovian system, to study Europa. That moon is
interesting because it appears to have liquid water under an icy
surface. The heat need to keep the water liquid comes from the
stretching and compression Europa experiences during its orbit around
Jupiter, the orbit not been exactly circular.
So much, so simple.
Some thought made me realise that although the tidal forces on Europa
mean that it is not exactly spherical, its two bulges cannot remain
perfectly aligned with Jupiter, because Europa's angular velocity
relative to Jupiter is higher at periapsis than at apoapsis. The
result is that the nearer bulge is sometimes ahead, and sometimes
behind, relative to Europa's orbital motion, resulting in a net force
backwards along the orbit, or forward along the orbit.
Again, certainly stuff that's already well known.
As far as I can see, the energy that is being dissipated as heat
inside Europa has to come from changes to Europa's orbit. Further, if
Europa were either perfectly rigid, or perfectly elastic, there would
be no energy transfer, and consequently no change to the orbit.
It would make no difference if Jupiter itself were perfectly rigid, so
the transfer cannot involve tides on Jupiter generated by Europa.
So the existence of the orbital energy transfer depends on Europa
being neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly elastic.
What escapes me is the mechanism.
Any thoughts?
Perhaps I was naive to think anyone would address the essence of my
post, rather than going off at massive tangent.
Sylvia.
Yes. You were naive to think sci.physics is a classroom.
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Apart from lies and nonsense and slander
The penis obsessed crackpot with multiple personality disorder raves on incoherently once again...
<snip lunatic raving unread>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 145:42:23 |
| Calls: | 9,477 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 13,610 |
| Messages: | 6,120,522 |