An unknown source of planetary energy?

[Moreno]

There are many phenomenons of planetary activity which seem can't be explained by modern science.

For example the origins of all geothermal energy components can't be properly explained.

Quote

The new measurements suggest radioactive decay provides more than half of Earth's total heat, estimated at roughly 44 terawatts based on temperatures found at the bottom of deep boreholes into the planet's crust. The rest is leftover from Earth's formation or other causes yet unknown, according to the scientists involved.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/#

Neptune and Saturn.

Quote

Neptune is the farthest planet from the Sun, yet its internal energy is sufficient to drive the fastest planetary winds seen in the Solar System. Depending on the thermal properties of its interior, the heat left over from Neptune's formation may be sufficient to explain its current heat flow, though it is more difficult to simultaneously explain Uranus's lack of internal heat while preserving the apparent similarity between the two planets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune#Storms

Quote

"The fact that Saturn actually emits more than twice the energy it absorbs from the sun has been a puzzle for many decades now," said study co-author Kevin Baines, a Cassini scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "What generates that extra energy? This paper represents the first step in that analysis."

https://www.space.com/9537-saturn-surprises-scientists-varying-energy-output.html

Enceladus

Quote

 

Data from Cassini's composite infrared spectrometer of Enceladus' south polar terrain, which is marked by linear fissures, indicate that the internal heat-generated power is about 15.8 gigawatts, approximately 2.6 times the power output of all the hot springs in the Yellowstone region, or comparable to 20 coal-fueled power stations. This is more than an order of magnitude higher than scientists had predicted, according to Carly Howett, the lead author of study, who is a postdoctoral researcher at Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., and a composite infrared spectrometer science team member.

"The mechanism capable of producing the much higher observed internal power remains a mystery and challenges the currently proposed models of long-term heat production," said Howett.

 

Io

Quote

"The hundreds of volcanoes on Jupiter's moon Io aren't where they're supposed to be, [...] Io's major volcanic activity is concentrated 30 to 60 degrees farther east than models of its internal heat profile predict".

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Volcanoes/Io#Volcanisms

Pluto
 

Quote

 

This week marks the 47th Division of Planetary Sciences meeting and if today is any indication, Pluto is going to steal the show. From potential cryovolcanoes to varied terrain, NASA’s New Horizons team is presenting over 50 incredible Pluto discoveries this week at the meeting in National Harbor. Yes, you read that right, New Horizons has spotted not one, but two potential icy volcanoes on the surface of Pluto’s south pole. 

When the world laid eyes on Pluto for the first time back in July, everyone expected to see a “lifeless” icy world. So you can imagine the surprise when we saw evidence instead that indicated Pluto and Charon were geologically active. Four months later, we are just beginning to comprehend this enigmatic, icy world. 

 

http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa-think-they-found-enormous-volcanoes-plutos-surface-spew-ice-instead-lava-and-ash/

Ceres
 

Quote

 

The mystery of the dwarf planet Ceres' lonely ice volcano may have just been solved.

NASA's Dawn probe discovered the 2.5-mile-high (4 kilometers) cryovolcano, named Ahuna Mons, in 2015. There's nothing else remotely like it on the 590-mile-wide (950 km) Ceres — a fact that has had scientists scratching their heads.

 

https://www.space.com/35571-ceres-ice-volcano-ahuna-mons.html

Triton

Quote

Triton is geologically active; its surface is young and has relatively few impact craters. Although Triton's crust is made of various ices, its subsurface processes are similar to those that produce volcanoes and rift valleys on Earth, but with water and ammonia as opposed to liquid rock.^[6] Triton's entire surface is cut by complex valleys and ridges, probably the result of tectonics and icy volcanism. The vast majority of surface features on Triton are endogenic—the result of internal geological processes rather than external processes such as impacts. Most are volcanic and extrusive in nature, rather than tectonic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(moon)#Cryovolcanism

Mercury

Quote

Earth is no longer the only planet with confirmed geological activity

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/236342-earth-is-no-longer-the-only-planet-with-confirmed-geological-activity

[Silvestru]

Hmm It would be helpful if you could guide the conversation in a certain direction. Is there any question you want to ask or anything particular you want to discuss.

To me it looks like you should post this in the Science News section if you just want us to read these info.

[Area54]

On 15/09/2017 at 6:48 PM, Moreno said:

There are many phenomenons of planetary activity which seem can't be explained by modern science.

Well, if this wasn't the case there would be little need for planetary science. Science is, after all, a process for explaining what currently cannot be explained, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

So, to dip into some of your examples a little, here are some observations:

Earth's Geothermal Energy

I found it odd that, in a blog confirming the importance of radioactive decay to the Earth's heat balance, you should single out one short sentence: " The rest is leftover from Earth's formation or other causes yet unknown, according to the scientists involved." 

It seems clear to me that the "other causes yet unknown" was simply a cautious recognition that we never know everything. Nowhere in the article was there any suggestion that there is any evidence pointing to unknown causes. I am not aware of any serious, recent research suggesting that may be the case. Do you have any? If not, this instance can be dismissed.

Ceres

The words you quoted " The mystery of the dwarf planet Ceres' lonely ice volcano may have just been solved" kind of gave me the impression that " the mystery of the dwarf planet Ceres' lonely ice volcano may have just been solved" and consequently this was a phenomenon of planetary activity which can be explained by modern science.

Mercury

Likewise, I do not see how an article expanding our knowledge can be used to support a thesis that " there are many phenomenons of planetary activity which seem can't be explained by modern science". Moreover, I would question the claim that other planets are lacking geological activity. Mars has evidence of recent vulcanicity and I believe some researchers claim the same for Venus.

 

I'll defer comments on your other examples until you have clarified what direction you wish to take this in.

[Moreno]

On 2017-09-18 at 2:04 PM, Area54 said:

 

I'll defer comments on your other examples until you have clarified what direction you wish to take this in.

How would you explaine evidence of geological activity on Pluto?

It can't be explained by tides, can it be explained by radioactivity?

[Area54]

My remark, which you have quoted, that I would defer comments on other examples until you had clarified your intent, was meant to convey to you that I would defer comments on other examples until you had clarified your intent. I'm not sure why you didn't get that.

You appear to accept that there are no major issues with Earth, Ceres or Mercury. Will you confirm thatis so? If not, specify what you find unsatisfactory about my earlier rebuttals.

Will you also now state clearly what your basic point is? Are you - as your title suggests - claiming an unknown source of planetary energy?  Or, something else?

Pluto

You reported this quote in the OP.

On 15/09/2017 at 6:48 PM, Moreno said:

When the world laid eyes on Pluto for the first time back in July, everyone expected to see a “lifeless” icy world. So you can imagine the surprise when we saw evidence instead that indicated Pluto and Charon were geologically active.

The author of that quote was either misinformed or lying. For example, here is an extract from the website Mysterious Universe. Note that, contrary to the claim in your quotation, there is expectation and speculation that there will be evidence for geological activity onn Pluto. 

So when you catch wind of scientists credibly speculating that Pluto might have plate tectonics, “who cares?” might feel like a reasonable response—but this is actually a very important question. The existence of plate tectonics would bring us very close to proving that Pluto has an underground ocean kept warm by geological activity, much as Enceladus does (the key difference being that Pluto is nearly five times as large as Enceladus).

If you had bothered to follow the first link in the above quote, it would have led to this blog, which in turn would have led to this paper. What does this paper have to say? The concluding remark of the abstract is this: "If New Horizons finds evidence of ancient tidally-driven tectonic activity on either body, the most likely explanation is that Pluto had an internal ocean during Charon’s orbital evolution."

In short your link both anticipates geological activity on Pluto and provides the most probable explanation for it. Once again, your attempt to introduce some mysterious unknown falls down in the face of evidence. In this case, evidence you have provided yourself, but not bothered to study. A bit sloppy don't you think?

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, Moreno said:

How would you explaine evidence of geological activity on Pluto?

It can't be explained by tides, can it be explained by radioactivity?

 

Actually everything I've read seems to indicate the gravitational flexing between Charon and Pluto is more than enough to explain the heating on not only Pluto but other small bodies orbiting larger ones. Radioactivity wouldn't be enough to cause basalt lavas on Pluto due to Pluto being so small it loses heat fast but it is more than enough to explain cryovolcanism.  Radioactivity, some sources actually posit a five mile wide ball of uranium and thorium acting as a natural nuclear reactor at the Earth's core, explains heat on the Earth and Venus as well as Mars and Mercury.

Venus has completely resurfaced itself in the last 500,000,000 years or so driven by internal heat from radioactivity and the leftover heat of accretion.  The surface of Venus is covered by shield volcanos. You should also consider that the gas giants and ice giants still contain rock, metals and radioactive metals, more so than earth and they lose heat much more slowly than the Earth does. 

On Jupiter and Saturn Neon rain exchanges heat and creates heat from gravitational contraction as well as containing much or more radioactive elements than the Earth. 

As for Uranus and Neptune, they may externally look similar but the discrepancies in heat would, at least at first blush, indicate some significant differences we cannot see from the outside at this time.

Ceres still puzzles some but recent impacts could explain the localised cryovolcanism... 

[Moreno]

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

Actually everything I've read seems to indicate the gravitational flexing between Charon and Pluto is more than enough to explain the heating on not only Pluto but other small bodies orbiting larger ones. 

 

Can you provide any link to a serious scientific assumptions of that kind? It seems for now they prefer to talk about "misterious source of energy".

 

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Can you provide any link to a serious scientific assumptions of that kind? It seems for now they prefer to talk about "misterious source of energy".

 

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/webprogram/Paper81031.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/pluto-alive-where-heat-coming

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AGUFM.P51A2044W

I would appear that tidal heating and a possible geological recent impact are the two contenders at the moment... 

[Area54]

15 hours ago, Moreno said:

Can you provide any link to a serious scientific assumptions of that kind? It seems for now they prefer to talk about "misterious source of energy".

Who are the "they" you refer to? Certainly not any responsible scientist documenting their work in a peer reviewed journal. Are you being misled by second rate science reporting?

[Moreno]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 12:26 PM, Moontanman said:

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/webprogram/Paper81031.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/pluto-alive-where-heat-coming

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AGUFM.P51A2044W

I would appear that tidal heating and a possible geological recent impact are the two contenders at the moment... 

Some sites state otherwise. I do not claim they provide a very reliable date, but still they still take it from somewhere? For example:

Quote

However, it’s not orbiting a nearby giant planet, which raises a thorny issue for planetologists : what is the source of internal heat that allowed the dwarf planet remain geologically active until the present day ? Before you ask - gravitational tidal interaction between Pluto and Charon is insufficient to account for the required internal heat. Right now, nobody is guessing how to explain this internal heat : not even me !

https://www.simonhanmer52.ca/pluto-2015.html

I think gravitational tidal interaction between Pluto and Charon is not that difficult to estimate, at least approximately. Could you provide a citation which claims it is sufficiently large?

Edited March 1, 2018 by Moreno

[Moontanman]

6 hours ago, Moreno said:

Some sites state otherwise. I do not claim they provide a very reliable date, but still they still take it from somewhere? For example:

https://www.simonhanmer52.ca/pluto-2015.html

I think gravitational tidal interaction between Pluto and Charon is not that difficult to estimate, at least approximately. Could you provide a citation which claims it is sufficiently large?

Radioactive decay would appear to be the main source of heat on Plunto 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Quote

Internal structure

Internal structure of Pluto[102]

1. Frozen nitrogen[88]

2. Water ice

3. Rock

Pluto's density is 1.860±0.013 g/cm3.[6] Because the decay of radioactive elements would eventually heat the ices enough for the rock to separate from them, scientists expect that Pluto's internal structure is differentiated, with the rocky material having settled into a dense core surrounded by a mantle of water ice. The diameter of the core is hypothesized to be approximately 1700 km, 70% of Pluto's diameter.[102] It is possible that such heating continues today, creating a subsurface ocean of liquid water 100 to 180 km thick at the core–mantle boundary.[102][103][104] In September 2016, scientists at Brown University simulated the impact thought to have formed Sputnik Planitia, and showed that it might have been the result of liquid water upwelling from below after the collision, implying the existence of a subsurface ocean at least 100 km deep.[105] Pluto has no magnetic field.[106]

Some sources do suggest gravitational flexing as at least part of the source of Pluto's heat. 

https://www.plutorules.com/page-78-wobble.html

Quote

On Pluto the polar axis is tilted 120 degrees, Earth's axial tilt is 23.5 degrees.
Pluto's Milankovitch cycles oscillate up and down 24 degrees, Earth's is 2 degrees.
Pluto's eccentricity is 0.2488 while Earth's is a mere 0.0167.
The conditions on Pluto that set up Milankovitch cycles are extremely extreme compared to Earth. The small changes in Earth's orbit, tilt and preccesion are enough to turn Earth into an ice ball or blazing hot wasteland. Consider how much more extreme the climatic changes would be on Pluto.

As Pluto's pole wobbles 24 degrees, it torques on Charon and a circular stress is felt encompassing Sputnik Planitia at zero latitude and 180 longitude. I'm not aware of any data that suggests Pluto and Charon experience short term nutation wobbles but based on the fact that Pluto experiences extreme Milankovitch conditions and there are four small satellites in bizarre spins with polar misalignment to Pluto/Charon its highly probable there is some short term nutation wobble taking place.

As Pluto's north pole experiences its 24 degree Milankovitch cycle it also has to turn Charon's poles such that the two maintain their polar alignment.

This torquing twisting effect will generate heat energy at the central point between the two planets.

Since they are tidally locked and their poles wobble 24 degrees a circle of tidal flex energy (wandering bulge) would occur with a radius of 12 degrees around this central point.

Since these two planets are so close to each other in size and distance the torque stress forces are relatively extreme.

Quote

Milankovitch cycles and nutation wobble creating tidal flex is my best guess as to what currently drives the geology on Pluto. A previous elliptical orbital dance between Pluto and Charon along with spin down initiated these conditions at Sputnik Planitia but now the long and short term wobble combined with layered water ice compression forces and an eccentric orbit around the Sun creating radical weather shifts probably sustains the triple point state of nitrogen in turn driving the geology on Pluto.
 

 

[Moreno]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Radioactive decay would appear to be the main source of heat on Plunto 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Some sources do suggest gravitational flexing as at least part of the source of Pluto's heat. 

https://www.plutorules.com/page-78-wobble.html

 

At first sight it looks very unlikely. Compare the size of Earth and Pluto.

There are mountain picks on Pluto which are estimated to reach 3500 km. We don't know exactly the composition of this mountains, but even if we assume it is the ice, it has to be as hard as a rock on Earth. Can you imagine how much energy is needed to erect mountains of that height compared to the size of this icy dwarf planet? There are indications that Pluto has to be poorer on radioactive elements than Earth, but even if we assume it is as rich as Earth, its internal heat flow per square area has to be much smaller than on Earth. Because of its relation of the total mass to the total surface area. It suppose to loose heat much faster than Earth.

 

[Moontanman]

Just now, Moreno said:

At first sight it looks very unlikely. Compare the size of Earth and Pluto.

There are mountain picks on Pluto which are estimated to reach 3500 km. We don't know exactly the composition of this mountains, but even if we assume it is the ice, it has to be as hard as a rock on Earth. Can you imagine how much energy is needed to erect mountains of that height compared to the size of this icy dwarf planet? There are indications that Pluto has to be poorer on radioactive elements than Earth, but even if we assume it is as rich as Earth, its internal heat flow per square area has to be much smaller than on Earth. Because of its relation of the total mass to the total surface area. It suppose to loose heat much faster than Earth.

 

I would suggest you give a citation to support your incredulity...

[beecee]

Moreno, your incredulity in general is unfounded: Besides gravitational interactions, tidal perturbations, radioactivity, thermo-nuclear fusion etc, the Gaseous giants energy output can be explained by continued gravitational shrinking or collapse.

https://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/interior/S_evolution_contraction.html

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by beecee

[Moreno]

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Moreno, your incredulity in general is unfounded: Besides gravitational interactions, tidal perturbations, radioactivity, thermo-nuclear fusion etc, the Gaseous giants energy output can be explained by continued gravitational shrinking or collapse.

https://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/interior/S_evolution_contraction.html

 

Can you explain why Neptune produces much more energy than Uranus? They are very similar in mass, size, age and should be in chemical composition. Is gravitational shrinking of both planets too different? 

18 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I would suggest you give a citation to support your incredulity...

1) New close-up images of a region near Pluto’s equator reveal a giant surprise: a range of youthful mountains rising as high as 11,000 feet (3,500 meters) above the surface of the icy body. The mountains likely formed no more than 100 million years ago -- mere youngsters relative to the 4.56-billion-year age of the solar system -- and may still be in the process of building, says Geology, Geophysics and Imaging (GGI) team leader Jeff Moore of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.. That suggests the close-up region, which covers less than one percent of Pluto’s surface, may still be geologically active today. Moore and his colleagues base the youthful age estimate on the lack of craters in this scene. Like the rest of Pluto, this region would presumably have been pummeled by space debris for billions of years and would have once been heavily cratered -- unless recent activity had given the region a facelift, erasing those pockmarks. “This is one of the youngest surfaces we’ve ever seen in the solar system,” says Moore. Unlike the icy moons of giant planets, Pluto cannot be heated by gravitational interactions with a much larger planetary body. Some other process must be generating the mountainous landscape. “This may cause us to rethink what powers geological activity on many other icy worlds,” says GGI deputy team leader John Spencer of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. The mountains are probably composed of Pluto’s water-ice “bedrock.” Although methane and nitrogen ice covers much of the surface of Pluto, these materials are not strong enough to build the mountains. Instead, a stiffer material, most likely water-ice, created the peaks. “At Pluto’s temperatures, water-ice behaves more like rock,” said deputy GGI lead Bill McKinnon of Washington University, St. Louis. The close-up image was taken about 1.5 hours before New Horizons closest approach to Pluto, when the craft was 47,800 miles (77,000 kilometers) from the surface of the planet. The image easily resolves structures smaller than a mile across.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-icy-mountains-of-pluto

2) It is assumed that Pluto's internal composition includes lot of ice, which make it lighter than Earth and unlikely makes it richer than Earth on radioactive elements (per mass unit). Probably even much less.

 

3) Pluto mass is just 0.22% of Earth. And its surface area is very approximately 1/30 of the Earth (17 mln. km2 vs. 510 km2.). Or 3.3%. It is well known that the larger the body is, the better it preserves heat inside, because its surface area to volume ratio changes when volume increases. Do you have any objections against it? This is why huge steam turbines and diesel engines have higher efficiency than a smaller ones just because they are huge. Therefore Pluto looses any internal heat energy much faster than Earth, before temperature can rise inside it and heat energy can accumulate in sufficient amounts to cause an eruption. Therefore Pluto needs to have a much, much higher concentration of radioactive elements or some other yet unknown energy sources.

The same major issue seem to be with Enceladus.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Moreno

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

Can you explain why Neptune produces much more energy than Uranus? They are very similar in mass, size, age and should be in chemical composition. Is gravitational shrinking of both planets too different? 

1) New close-up images of a region near Pluto’s equator reveal a giant surprise: a range of youthful mountains rising as high as 11,000 feet (3,500 meters) above the surface of the icy body. The mountains likely formed no more than 100 million years ago -- mere youngsters relative to the 4.56-billion-year age of the solar system -- and may still be in the process of building, says Geology, Geophysics and Imaging (GGI) team leader Jeff Moore of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.. That suggests the close-up region, which covers less than one percent of Pluto’s surface, may still be geologically active today. Moore and his colleagues base the youthful age estimate on the lack of craters in this scene. Like the rest of Pluto, this region would presumably have been pummeled by space debris for billions of years and would have once been heavily cratered -- unless recent activity had given the region a facelift, erasing those pockmarks. “This is one of the youngest surfaces we’ve ever seen in the solar system,” says Moore. Unlike the icy moons of giant planets, Pluto cannot be heated by gravitational interactions with a much larger planetary body. Some other process must be generating the mountainous landscape. “This may cause us to rethink what powers geological activity on many other icy worlds,” says GGI deputy team leader John Spencer of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. The mountains are probably composed of Pluto’s water-ice “bedrock.” Although methane and nitrogen ice covers much of the surface of Pluto, these materials are not strong enough to build the mountains. Instead, a stiffer material, most likely water-ice, created the peaks. “At Pluto’s temperatures, water-ice behaves more like rock,” said deputy GGI lead Bill McKinnon of Washington University, St. Louis. The close-up image was taken about 1.5 hours before New Horizons closest approach to Pluto, when the craft was 47,800 miles (77,000 kilometers) from the surface of the planet. The image easily resolves structures smaller than a mile across.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-icy-mountains-of-pluto

2) It is assumed that Pluto's internal composition includes lot of ice, which make it lighter than Earth and unlikely makes it richer than Earth on radioactive elements (per mass unit). Probably even much less.

 

3) Pluto mass is just 0.22% of Earth. And its surface area is very approximately 1/30 of the Earth (17 mln. km2 vs. 510 km2.). Or 3.3%. It is well known that the larger the body is, the better it preserves heat inside, because its surface area to volume ratio changes when volume increases. Do you have any objections against it? This is why huge steam turbines and diesel engines have higher efficiency than a smaller ones just because they are huge. Therefore Pluto looses any internal heat energy much faster than Earth, before temperature can rise inside it and heat energy can accumulate in sufficient amounts to cause an eruption. Therefore Pluto needs to have a much, much higher concentration of radioactive elements or some other yet unknown energy sources.

Thank you for the citation. 

Quote

The same major issue seem to be with Enceladus.

 

This is wrong and including it without differentiating from the quote is misleading. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus

Quote

Tidal heating[edit]

Tidal heating occurs through the tidal friction processes: orbital and rotational energy are dissipated as heat in the crust of an object. In addition, to the extent that tides produce heat along fractures, libration may affect the magnitude and distribution of such tidal shear heating.[33] Tidal dissipation of Enceladus's ice crust is significant because Enceladus has a subsurface ocean. A computer simulation that used data from Cassini was published in November 2017, and it indicates that friction heat from the sliding rock fragments within the permeable and fragmented core of Enceladus could keep its underground ocean warm for up to billions of years.[112][113][114] It is thought that if Enceladus had a more eccentric orbit in the past, the enhanced tidal forces could be sufficient to maintain a subsurface ocean, such that a periodic enhancement in eccentricity could maintain a subsurface ocean that periodically changes in size.[111] A more recent analysis claimed that "a model of the tiger stripes as tidally flexed slots that puncture the ice shell can simultaneously explain the persistence of the eruptions through the tidal cycle, the phase lag, and the total power output of the tiger stripe terrain, while suggesting that eruptions are maintained over geological timescales."[88] Previous models suggest that resonant perturbations of Dione could provide the necessary periodic eccentricity changes to maintain the subsurface ocean of Enceladus, if the ocean contains a substantial amount of ammonia.[4] The surface of Enceladus indicates that the entire moon has experienced periods of enhanced heat flux in the past.[115]

 

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

Can you explain why Neptune produces much more energy than Uranus?

http://education.seattlepi.com/planet-gives-off-2-times-much-heat-receives-sun-5420.html

 

Quote

Astronomers have a few different theories on Neptune’s internal heat, including the conversion of methane into hydrogen and diamond under enormous pressure; the diamond sinks into the planet, releasing energy as heat.

Not quite as mysterious as suggested. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Moontanman

[Moreno]

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Thank you for the citation. 

 

This is wrong and including it within the quote is misleading. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus

 

http://education.seattlepi.com/planet-gives-off-2-times-much-heat-receives-sun-5420.html

 

Not quite as mysterious as suggested. 

 

Do you think there is no major issue with Enceladus? According to some estimations gravitational flexing it experiences is around 100 times smaller to explain 15-20 GigaWatt  it releases into the otter space. 

Those assumptions about Neptune heat origins almost awoke a smile, especially the one about diamond rains inside it... And Uranus got lot of methane too.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Moreno

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Do you think there is no major issue with Enceladus? According to some estimations gravitational flexing it experiences is around 100 times smaller to explain 15-20 GigaWatt  it releases into the otter space.

If you think I am incorrect please give a citation for that assertion. 

 

2 minutes ago, Moreno said:

 

Those assumptions about Neptune heat origins almost awoke a smile, especially the one about diamond rains inside it... And Uranus got lot of methane too.

I am curious, did you not read the page i linked you to? if so then please give a citation as to why you think these assumptions are wrong... 

[Moreno]

35 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

If you think I am incorrect please give a citation for that assertion. 

 

I am curious, did you not read the page i linked you to? if so then please give a citation as to why you think these assumptions are wrong... 

The hypothesis about methane which converts to the diamonds and falls down to the planet center as a diamond rain is a wild hypothesis and can awoke only a smile, just by intuition... Which citations do you think, can I provide? The same is about liquid Helium rains on Saturn. How can I disprove something that is just a someone's wild imagination? 

[Moontanman]

Just now, Moreno said:

The hypothesis about methane which converts to the diamonds and falls down to the planet center as a diamond rain is a wild hypothesis and can awoke only a smile, just by intuition... Which citations do you think, can I provide? The same is about liquid Helium rains on Saturn. How can I disprove something that is just a someone's wild imagination? 

so you going with baseless assertions?

[Moreno]

Quote

Data from Cassini's composite infrared spectrometer of Enceladus' south polar terrain, which is marked by linear fissures, indicate that the internal heat-generated power is about 15.8 gigawatts, approximately 2.6 times the power output of all the hot springs in the Yellowstone region, or comparable to 20 coal-fueled power stations. This is more than an order of magnitude higher than scientists had predicted, according to Carly Howett, the lead author of study, who is a postdoctoral researcher at Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., and a composite infrared spectrometer science team member.

"The mechanism capable of producing the much higher observed internal power remains a mystery and challenges the currently proposed models of long-term heat production," said Howett.

It has been known since 2005 that Enceladus' south polar terrain is geologically active and the activity is centered on four roughly parallel linear trenches, 130 kilometers (80 miles) long and about 2 kilometers (1 mile) wide, informally known as the "tiger stripes." Cassini also found that these fissures eject great plumes of ice particles and water vapor continually into space. These trenches have elevated temperatures due to heat leaking out of Enceladus' interior.

A 2007 study predicted the internal heat of Enceladus, if principally generated by tidal forces arising from the orbital resonance between Enceladus and another moon, Dione, could be no greater than 1.1 gigawatts averaged over the long term. Heating from natural radioactivity inside Enceladus would add another 0.3 gigawatts.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2926

Edited March 2, 2018 by Moreno

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2926

Cherry pick much? 

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2926

Quote

A possible explanation of the high heat flow observed is that Enceladus' orbital relationship to Saturn and Dione changes with time, allowing periods of more intensive tidal heating, separated by more quiescent periods. This means Cassini might be lucky enough to be seeing Enceladus when it's unusually active. 

The new, higher heat flow determination makes it even more likely that liquid water exists below Enceladus' surface, Howett noted. 

Recently, scientists studying ice particles ejected from the plumes discovered that some of the particles are salt-rich, and are probably frozen droplets from a saltwater ocean in contact with Enceladus' mineral-rich rocky core. The presence of a subsurface ocean, or perhaps a south polar sea between the moon's outer ice shell and its rocky interior would increase the efficiency of the tidal heating by allowing greater tidal distortions of the ice shell.

Again in my former link. Somewhat more recent data suggests... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus

Quote

A more recent analysis claimed that "a model of the tiger stripes as tidally flexed slots that puncture the ice shell can simultaneously explain the persistence of the eruptions through the tidal cycle, the phase lag, and the total power output of the tiger stripe terrain, while suggesting that eruptions are maintained over geological timescales."^[88] Previous models suggest that resonant perturbations of Dione could provide the necessary periodic eccentricity changes to maintain the subsurface ocean of Enceladus, if the ocean contains a substantial amount of ammonia.^[4] The surface of Enceladus indicates that the entire moon has experienced periods of enhanced heat flux in the past.^[115]

Quote

Chemistry[edit]

Because no ammonia was initially found in the vented material by INMS or UVIS, which could act as an antifreeze, it was thought such a heated, pressurized chamber would consist of nearly pure liquid water with a temperature of at least 270 K (−3 °C), because pure water requires more energy to melt.

In July 2009 it was announced that traces of ammonia had been found in the plumes during flybys in July and October 2008.[116][117] Reducing the freezing point of water with ammonia would also allow for outgassing and higher gas pressure,[118] and less heat required to power the water plumes.[119] The subsurface layer heating the surface water ice could be an ammonia–water slurry at temperatures as low as 170 K (−103 °C), and thus less energy is required to produce the plume activity.

However, the observed 4.7 gigawatts heat flux is enough to power the cryovolcanism without the presence of ammonia.[108][119]

 

2 hours ago, Moreno said:

The hypothesis about methane which converts to the diamonds and falls down to the planet center as a diamond rain is a wild hypothesis and can awoke only a smile, just by intuition... Which citations do you think, can I provide? The same is about liquid Helium rains on Saturn. How can I disprove something that is just a someone's wild imagination? 

Btw, these assertions of things like diamond rain is not just someone's wild imagination, they were not jerked out of someone's retum last weekend while on a tequila binge. You seem to have an agenda here, could you tell us what it is so we can work it out a bit more efficiently? 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Moontanman

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Moreno said:

Do you think there is no major issue with Enceladus? According to some estimations gravitational flexing it experiences is around 100 times smaller to explain 15-20 GigaWatt  it releases into the otter space. 

Those assumptions about Neptune heat origins almost awoke a smile, especially the one about diamond rains inside it... And Uranus got lot of methane too.

I'm rather curious that you seem to want to reject some of the admittedly assumptions and hypotheticals with regards to the bodies in the solar system, with your own assumptions and wild guesses. 

Since the Voyagers, and more recently the HST, we have learnt much about the outer planets and moons, but just as obviously, we have had to assume other aspects to exxplain what is observed. I believe NASA and the professional cosmologists are pretty close to the mark. Perhaps more to the point, since you reject these explanations,  perhaps you would like to give your own "scientific view" as to what is causing what we observe? Perhaps we can then have a "smile" 

 

In the meantime here are some more links......

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-missions-provide-new-insights-into-ocean-worlds-in-our-solar-system

 

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/enceladus-hydrothermal-heating-confirmed-1304201723/

 

and of course the soon to be launched JWST will give us even more clues.

[Moreno]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

You seem to have an agenda here, could you tell us what it is so we can work it out a bit more efficiently? 

The agenda here could be to do a discovery which leads to harnessing of a new and cheap way of energy generation. Just like once it was radioactivity. Regarding to what could it be, I do not like to engage in a pseudoscientific speculations. But if you want a cautious assumptions, I may assume it could be a specific chemical composition or yet unknown form of matter which is one of the constituents which serves under specific physical conditions as an energy generation catalyst.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Moreno

[Area54]

6 minutes ago, Moreno said:

The agenda here could be to do a discovery which leads to harnessing of a new and cheap way of energy generation. Just like once it was radioactivity. Regarding to what could it be, I do not like to engage in a pseudoscientific speculations. But if you want a cautious assumptions, I may assume it could be a specific chemical composition or yet unknown form of matter which is one of the constituents which serves under specific physical conditions as an energy generation catalyst.

And yet each of the supposed anomalies you have raised has been easily refuted, or shown to be insignificant in magnitude by a number of members. Are you disagreeing with the refutations*? If so, on what grounds. If not, why would you persist in this belief?

 

* I ask this because you have not, that I can see, directly addressed any of my arguments refuting specific points. You merely went off on a tangent, so that I am unable to tell if you agree or disagree.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Area54