zankaon

September 17, 2016

JunoCam polar jovian images – turbulence suggestive of upwelling? In contrast, a possible underlying Saturnian ice surface?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , , , , , — zankaon @ 12:34 pm

Might NASA JunoCam images of Jupiter’s polar region, from 23,000 miles, suggest turbulence and upwelling? Altenatively, rather than just atmospherics, might one be seeing in part a rock/ice surface (percentage ice and/or rock)? Or perhaps more ice crystalization in atmosphere?

Closer images are less suggestive of an underlying ice surface. Do recent Juno close up images suggest turbulence, and hence an upwelling of hotter gases; hence not consistent with an underlying surface? So seemingly are Jupiter and Saturn respective poles quite dfferent? Would synthetic aperture radar (SAR) distinguish any underlying ice surface?

Would rapid rotation (~10 hrs) of Jupiter affect polar region atmospheric circulation etc., giving rise to a different presentation?

However wouldn’t the lower density of Jupiter, compared to density of terrestrials, seem consistent with a gaseous predominance, and not even just a predominant ice/liquid interior?

Might one even entertain the possibility of just a gaseous jovian ‘moon’? Is the Great Red Spot (GRS) more than just a cyclonic-like disturbance? Is it’s density extremely different (5-10x ?) than ambient clouds; hence a much greater (terrestrial scale) mass? Sufficient mass to designate it a gaseous object in fixed co-rotation with visible ambient clouds? More specifically, consider it’s depth equal to it’s diameter, giving ellipsoid volume. Could ellipsoid shape, vs conical or cylindrical, be ascertained by oblique SAR radar imaging? That is, might an underlying curvature vs flat surface be consisent with such ellipsoid shape?

Then for ascertained density, obtain mass. Then compare such mass to a Titan’s estimated all ice density mass, to see if GRS has comparable mass.

Might past ‘comet’, or jovian moon icebergs, collision suggest hitting a surface, rather than atmospheric/liquid explosions?

Just as there are external rings/bands, might there also possibly be a somewhat interior orbiting band(s), or spherical shell, of rock/ice of sufficient density and thickness to constitute a surface, at a certain depth beneath clouds? Hence accounting for ‘comet’ impact pattern?

Perhaps consider a primordial scenario, wherein one has extreme higher angular momentum forming icy clouds, with impurities forming denser conglomerates aggregating (i.e. ice condensation from millimeter grains to decimeter pebbles in 1000 years; the latter constituting protoplanetary disks?) (1), giving sediment-like icy layering accumulating gradually over 4.6 Byrs; resulting in a surface of certain density and structural thickness, in orbit between cloud layers?

Perhaps aeolian effect of high velocity winds contributing to surface formation, as on earth. Might such surface have initially formed much deeper, and then vis a vis exchange of momentum have migrated to outward region? Yet over all planet density unaffected; hence maintaining a non-terrestial profile?

Might one even have other variations for different hot (and for ours) Jupiter’s, such as interior solid ‘moon’ formation, co-rotating with planet, but in the clouds?

Would a Cassini like Saturnian orbit sweeping up obliquely from lower latitude to poles be suitable for detecting via synthetic aperture radar any interior bands, interior ‘moon’, or even planetary wide thick spherical shell? Perhaps redirect Cassini to Jupiter – a 1-2 year voyage?

Might Saturnian circumpolar hexagonal pattern of supposed jet(s) flow be guided (or about?) by an underlying surface , such as water ice with ammonium hydrosulfide  (all of interior area of hexagon?) at a certain depth below cloud top? Analogy to circumpolar Antarctica current (fluid) and it’s enclosed surface?

Or perhaps an analogy to polygon subsurface formation in permafrost? Perhaps utilize synthetic aperture radar (SAR) of Cassini for such possible surface detection? Or for an ice surface (i.e. object), perhaps infrared spectroscopy would be more suitable. Also polygon formatiion has been observed on Mars; from sub-surface ice.

One could consider rotation of such polygon, but at a rate slower than for any south pole markers in gaseous mileau. That is, such solid ice surface would have a moment of inertia, and hence a slower angular velocity than for gaseous south saturnian pole.

Do such two examples, one of Saturnian icy polygon surface (1/2 continental diameter?), and the other of markedly different gas density (Great Red Spot), represent objects in ‘orbit’ within atmospheric fluid mileau of 2 gas giants?

Since Jupiter/earth radius is ~11/1, then for Jupiter circumference of ~66 times greater, but with rotation period of ~ 10 hrs, what would the top layer cloud velocity be; and would it be in step with observed clouds’ high velocities? Lesser velocity for near poles?

Might strong magnetic fields of Mercury, Earth, and Jupiter all suggest similarities to their interiors? That is, perhaps a surface with a deeper liquid (iron?) inner core, rheologically flowing; in addition to a solid core? Contrast to comparatively lesser magnetic field of Sun, perhaps due to a circulating plasma, rather than liquid? However see above density argument caveat.

If upwelling of gases at jovian pole (suggested by turbulence?), then detectable ammonia or ammonium? All resulting from higher temperature breaking of triple high energy bond of N_2 molecule, with formation of lower energy NH bond and HCN at deeper sources?

If one has such fixed nitrogen in the jovian atmosphere, together with upwelling heat (infrared radiation), together with water vapour, HCN etc., might this seem suitable for catalytic synthesis of organic compounds (amide dehydration polymerization?) and even possible nascent life – such as on particulate matter surface? (1)

Might analogy to methane hydrates provide a way to preserve functional organics, encased in ice, with intermittent melting for different convection induced temperature changes – an earlier way? Perhaps the inner ice surface also providing some stability. Also perhaps later fatty acid ether linkage dehydration polymerization? Another alternative origin of life scenario?

many and strange are the universes, that float like bubbles in the foam, upon the river of time.                                   A. C. Clark

Incidentally might jovian lightning, and hence charge seperation, involve NH_4 ammonium cation; what would be a suitable anion – hydrosulfide/sulfate, or hydroxyl?

Ice condensation as a planet formation mechanism

Saturnian composition  arXiv:1609.06324v1 [astro-ph.EP] 20 Sep 2016.

Juno instrumentation

www.nasa.gov/

Saturn’s polar atmosphere

synthetic aperture radar (SAR)

Mar’s polygon formation,  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronilus_Mensae 

Juno’s close up view of Jupiter pole.      nasa

(1) astrochemistry

Jupiter’s interior and deep atmosphere: The initial pole-to-pole passes with the Juno spacecraft
S. J. Bolton, A. Adriani, V. Adumitroaie, M. Allison, J. Anderson, S. Atreya, J. Bloxham, S. Brown, J. E. P. Connerney, E. DeJong, W. Folkner, D. Gautier, D. Grassi, S. Gulkis, T. Guillot, C. Hansen, W. B. Hubbard, L. Iess, A. Ingersoll, M. Janssen, J. Jorgensen, Y. Kaspi, S. M. Levin, C. Li, J. Lunine, Y. Miguel, A. Mura, G. Orton, T. Owen, M. Ravine, E. Smith, P. Steffes, E. Stone, D. Stevenson, R. Thorne, J. Waite, D. Durante, R. W. Ebert, T. K. Greathouse, V. Hue, M. Parisi, J. R. Szalay, R. Wilson.

Science26 May 2017 : 821-825 

polygon at Saturnian pole nasa

July 8, 2016

Calculations and gravitational potential tapering – a problem? Motion for our Sun, as part of a binary system? Parallax resolution?

Might gravitational potential, instead of inversely dropping off linearly, perhaps have a different (exponential like?) tapering? Differently, does the electric field, and also radioactivity, have a sudden drop off? Thus is there perhaps precedence for differences in field strength, and decreases in other phenomenon?

Might such conjecture be consistent with the continued apparent gravitational binding of Proxima centauri in it’s triple star system, even though seeming, through calculations, being too far from other 2 stars? Likewise is gravitational potential seemingly too weak, via calculations, to keep our moon in orbit? Hence might our gravitational potential have a different gradual tapering, not reflected in our calculations or modeling?

Also might any sister red dwarf star actually still be in orbit with our sun, if still far out in weak tapering gravitational potential; not unlike Proxima centauri? If so, then a center of mass for such binary stellar system would be much closer to our sun. Hence might there be an additional detectable motion for our sun, if part of such binary system? Might parallax of a masked sun, giving apparent shifting position of background stars, actually be a composite of earth’s and sun’s respective orbit/motion?

For example, one could compare parallax results for vernal and autumnal equinoxes, which should be periodic. If not, then consistent with such additional parallax being due to a binary stellar companion.

Might one re-measure and reconsider Doppler spectroscopy radial velocity line of sight technique to detect any inapparent periodic frequency shifting  (of absorption lines) due to sun’s position at line of sight opposite sides of any motion? So rather than attributing such radial motion solely to our gas giant (~ 1/1000 of solar mass), might one have a larger component contribution from such considered center of mass for a binary stellar system?

For hot Jupiter’s, periodicity is over days. For our sun, might it be for over years, consistent with period of red dwarf companion?

Since approximately 1000 Jupiter masses equal mass of sun; thus for red dwarf of .04 solar mass, then ~40 Jupiter masses. Where would the center of gravity be, for such binary system? And what would motion for our sun look like, for such binary system? One could seemingly work both ways, deriving mass of system from doppler radial velocity effect; or conversely.

For movement of Sun, because of a binary companion for such system, one might consider a simplified circular motion; then would entire system (planets, asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, any neutrino belt, Oort cloud) all shift over a period of years (?), for a red dwarf binary companion with period of years? That is, most of mass (95% for our ex.) is associated with our sun; hence such motion of sun would have associated changing center of mass.

Would rate of parallax changing give period of such primary stellar motion? Also no adjustments to gravitational potential values for various objects’ locations, for system moving as a whole, for massive sun’s location. So no relative change for inside overall system; but for comparison to outside environment, sun’s change in location would have effect of gradual change in curvature. Not unlike a rogue black hole binary moving into our system?

Doppler spectroscopy. incorrect drawing at beginning of link? CM should move?

Blog at WordPress.com.