An unknown source of planetary energy?

[Moreno]

On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 7:17 PM, Moontanman said:

Yes,  I would in fact like a real citation not some anonymous source on another forum... In fact the next anonymous source on your page puts the first in question. I didn't suggest the core reactor was a consensus of mai stream science I was pointing out that other ideas are out there that do not require some mysterious sorce you cannot name,  that you cannot even give a coherent account of much less a citation from any science based source that agrees with you. 

You do not get to simply piss on established science because you don't "believe" or need to believe some fairy tail... 

At present level of science it is practically impossible to know Earth core composition exactly. Wikipedia article about Earth inner core doesn't contain any mention of radioactive elements. 

Quote

The most popular model of radioactive heating is based on the bulk silicate Earth (BSE) model, which assumes that radioactive materials, such as uranium and thorium, are found in the Earth’s lithosphere and mantle – but not in its iron core. The BSE also says that the abundance of radioactive material can be estimated by studying igneous rocks formed on Earth, as well as the composition of meteorites.

https://physicsworld.com/a/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat/

[beecee]

Once again 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

 

In addition it certainly appears you have some other possibility in mind. OK, all you need is some evidence to support what ever it is that you seem to be pushing for all you are worth. In the meantime, scientists do have a reasonable handle on the planets and there geoactivity, and many have been listed here, with some unknown aspect. What you need to do is take this "unknown aspect" research it, form an hypothesis, and then write up a paper for proper scientific peer review.

[Moreno]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Once again 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.

Pluto, Triton and Enceladus aren't a Gas giants. Neither is Earth and Venus.

[Area54]

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

Pluto, Triton and Enceladus aren't a Gas giants. Neither is Earth and Venus.

Let's focus on Earth. What data causes you to suspect there is a significant unknown source of geothermal energy here? Citations of good quality, peer reviewed papers from reputable journals that supporting this suspicion would be a good starting point. You have not offered anything that meets these criteria thus far. (Please correct me if I have missed it.) What you have offered has, in case, been adequately refuted.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Moreno said:

Pluto, Triton and Enceladus aren't a Gas giants. Neither is Earth and Venus.

No, they obviously are not, but it still leaves open a myriad of other explanations and reasons.

[Moreno]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

No, they obviously are not, but it still leaves open a myriad of other explanations and reasons.

It was exactly my point. 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Moreno said:

It was exactly my point. 

What is your point? Remember this is mainstream science.

[Moontanman]

On 3/14/2018 at 3:13 AM, Moreno said:

At present level of science it is practically impossible to know Earth core composition exactly. Wikipedia article about Earth inner core doesn't contain any mention of radioactive elements. 

from your own link: 

Quote

One possibility that has been mooted in the past is that a natural nuclear reactor exists deep within the Earth and produces heat via a fission chain reaction. Data from KamLAND and Borexino do not rule out the possibility of such an underground reactor but place upper limits on how much heat could be produced by the reactor deep, if it exists. KamLAND sets this limit at about 5 TW, while Borexino puts it at about 3 TW.

On 3/14/2018 at 3:13 AM, Moreno said:

https://physicsworld.com/a/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat/

We are unlikely to ever know anything exactly about the Earth's core, it's forever out of direct observation due to the extreme conditions that exist there. All we can do is run experiments too build models that closely resemble what we observe. 

You still do not get to make up your own "mystery" to explain something your personal incredulity makes you doubt. skepticism is a good thing but being a skeptic doesn't allow you to simply make up stuff to explain what you cannot personally understand..  

Edited March 15, 2018 by Moontanman

[Area54]

On 14/03/2018 at 2:36 PM, Area54 said:

Let's focus on Earth. What data causes you to suspect there is a significant unknown source of geothermal energy here? Citations of good quality, peer reviewed papers from reputable journals that supporting this suspicion would be a good starting point. You have not offered anything that meets these criteria thus far. (Please correct me if I have missed it.) What you have offered has, in case, been adequately refuted.

Moreno, please respond to the above. You wish to discuss this topic. Let's do it systematically.

[Moreno]

Quote

 

The Galileo craft made six close flybys of Ganymede from 1995–2000 (G1, G2, G7, G8, G28 and G29)^[20] and discovered that Ganymede has a permanent (intrinsic) magnetic moment independent of the Jovian magnetic field.^[83] The value of the moment is about 1.3 × 10¹³ T·m³,^[20] which is three times larger than the magnetic moment of Mercury.

Despite the presence of an iron core, Ganymede's magnetosphere remains enigmatic, particularly given that similar bodies lack the feature.^[4] Some research has suggested that, given its relatively small size, the core ought to have sufficiently cooled to the point where fluid motions, hence a magnetic field would not be sustained. One explanation is that the same orbital resonances proposed to have disrupted the surface also allowed the magnetic field to persist: with Ganymede's eccentricity pumped and tidal heating of the mantle increased during such resonances, reducing heat flow from the core, leaving it fluid and convective.^[52] Another explanation is a remnant magnetization of silicate rocks in the mantle, which is possible if the satellite had a more significant dynamo-generated field in the past.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon)

Edited March 18, 2018 by Moreno

[Moontanman]

21 minutes ago, Moreno said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon)

I have to ask, what is your point here? 

[Moreno]

13 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I have to ask, what is your point here? 

Despite the presence of an iron core, Ganymede's magnetosphere remains enigmatic.

An unsolved enigma.

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Moreno said:

Despite the presence of an iron core, Ganymede's magnetosphere remains enigmatic.

An unsolved enigma.

 Yes but unsolved doesn't mean supernatural... 

[Moreno]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:04 AM, Essay said:

...just to point out there are a lot of different reasons planets don't all behave the same.  Heck, just look at the major similarities in formation, yet big differences now, between Earth and Venus.  Venus, due to its closer proximity to the sun, should be about 80 degrees warmer than Earth, iirc, and yet it is very different.

Venus is very strange indeed.

Quote

Venus has more volcanoes than any other planet in the solar system. Over 1600 major volcanoes or volcanic features are known (see map), and there are many, many more smaller volcanoes. (No one has yet counted them all, but the total number may be over 100,000 or even over 1,000,000) !!!

Quote

 

Second, Venus shows no evidence for plate tectonics. There are no long, linear volcano chains. There are no clear subduction zones. Although rifts are common, none look like the mid-ocean ridges on Earth. Also, continent-like regions are rare, and show none of the jigsaw fits seen on Earth. Thus, where volcanism on Earth mostly marks plate boundaries and plate movements, volcanism on Venus is much more regional and much less organized.

Third, volcanism on Venus shows fewer eruptive styles than on the Earth. Almost all volcanism on Venus seems to involve fluid lava flows. There is no sign of explosive, ash-forming eruptions on Venus, and little evidence for the eruption of sludgy, viscous lavas. This may reflect a combination of several effects. First, due to the high air pressure, venusian lavas need much higher gas contents than Earth lavas to erupt explosively. Second, the main gas driving lava explosions on Earth is water, which is in very short supply on Venus. Lastly, many viscous lavas and explosive eruptions on Earth occur near plate subduction zones. Thus, the lack of subduction zones should also reduce the likelihood of such eruptions on Venus.

 

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/oldroot/volcanoes/planet_volcano/venus/intro.html

[Moontanman]

27 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Venus is very strange indeed.

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/oldroot/volcanoes/planet_volcano/venus/intro.html

 

Again I ask what is your point? Do you not know how to use google? 

https://www.psi.edu/epo/faq/venus.html

Quote

5. What are the differences in tectonic activity between Venus and the Earth?

Venus does have tectonic activity: faults, folds, volcanoes, mountains, and rift valleys. However, it does not have global tectonics as there is on Earth—plate tectonics. This is thought to be due to the fact that Venus is hot and dry. To have true plate tectonics, you need to have subduction zones so that one plate can ride over the other. This happens on Earth, but not on Venus.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/on-venus-tectonics-without-the-plates/

Quote

The authors go on to look at two specific coronae, Artemis and Quetzalpetlatl, and show that they have many of the features found in the model. Obviously, not all of these features are identical (Artemis, for example, seems to be an agglomerate of five individual volcanic rises), but the general outlines all line up.

The end result is a form of tectonics distinct to Venus—at least at the present. As the authors note, the temperature conditions within Venus at the present look a lot like what the Earth probably did for much of its early history. Thus, there could have been a period of time when the Earth experienced a Venus-style form of tectonics before shifting over to its present plate system.

And that's rather informative regarding our past. There's ongoing debate within the geosciences community regarding when it was that plate tectonics started on Earth. If some form of subduction could take place prior to the formation of solid, moving plates, then it would create evidence that looked like it came from plate tectonics, but didn't. So while the results are directly relevant to Venus, they could inform arguments about our own planet's past, as well

 Again where are you going with this? 

[Area54]

On 18/03/2018 at 2:59 AM, Moreno said:

Despite the presence of an iron core, Ganymede's magnetosphere remains enigmatic.

An unsolved enigma.

Do you intend to endlessly vomit your uniformed incredulity in post after post, or do you actually want  to resolve some of your uncertainty. For the second time I ask for a response to this post. I would be obliged if you would do so.

On 15/03/2018 at 10:15 PM, Area54 said:

Let's focus on Earth. What data causes you to suspect there is a significant unknown source of geothermal energy here? Citations of good quality, peer reviewed papers from reputable journals that supporting this suspicion would be a good starting point. You have not offered anything that meets these criteria thus far. (Please correct me if I have missed it.) What you have offered has, in [any] case, been adequately refuted.

 

[jlowe22]

On 3/17/2018 at 9:59 PM, Moreno said:

Despite the presence of an iron core, Ganymede's magnetosphere remains enigmatic.

An unsolved enigma.

There are plenty of unsolved enigmas in life, I don't understand your point.  

Or is this a thread where we get to post random unsolved enigmas?

Edited March 31, 2018 by jlowe22