zankaon

September 17, 2016

JunoCam polar jovian images – suggestive of a surface in part? Also a possible underlying saturnian 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 a surface; or just an underlying surface? Rather than just atmospherics, might one be seeing in part a liquid or rock/ice surface (percentage ice and/or rock)? Or perhaps more ice crystalization in atmosphere? Would synthetic aperture radar (SAR) distinguish a predominantly rock surface? Do such polar images look more like icy Jovian moon surfaces, or like Pluto; or in part more like a rocky/ice surface; or just lower velocity winds’ effect?

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 (GRT) more than just a cyclonic-like disturbance? Is it’s density extremely different than ambient clouds; hence a much greater mass? Sufficient mass to designate it a gaseous moon, in fixed co-rotation with the rest of visible ambient clouds? More specifically, consider it’s depth equal to it’s diameter, giving volume. Then for ascertained density, obtain mass. Then compare such mass to a Titan’s estimated all ice density mass, to see if GRT has comparable mass.

Might past ‘comet’, or jovian moon icebergs, collision impact pattern 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 ice (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.

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.

Ice condensation as a planet formation mechanism (1)

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

Juno instrumentation

www.nasa.gov/

Saturn’s polar atmosphere

synthetic aperture radar (SAR)

(more…)

July 16, 2016

Internal luminosity source for Jovian cloud bands?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , — zankaon @ 11:53 am

If no external lighting source for apparent brightness of Jovian cloud bands, might such lighting be from emission radiation of ionized plasma at a somewhat deeper layer? Might such emission radiation have some association with ionized gas (plasma) moving along so described magnetic field lines at a somewhat deeper layer? Is there any relationship of luminosity intensity to density of so-called magnetic field lines?

Might any variation of band luminosity be due to cloud band density, and perhaps composition, rather than variation in luminosity source?
In an informal sense, might one entertain an analogy of a luminous corona associated with mass injection and magnetic re-connect i.e. stressed magnetic field? And adapt such processes to deeper jovian layered plasma?

Might also there be no ice crystals in upper cloud layers; since if there were, then any alleged backlighting would seem to result in refraction observable effects.

 

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?

December 13, 2013

‘Frozen’ plastic surface if one had Titan methane ‘lakes’ and/or for Jovian ‘cloud’ strata?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , , — zankaon @ 11:40 am

Might one have ‘frozen’ plastic surface if Saturn’s Titan’s ‘lakes were methane ‘lakes’? Hence still a smooth surface via radar? So no additional contaminant required for such process? That is, like for our synthetics etc., which just have a large number of fixed hydrogen bonds; hence it’s strength. But what’s the heat source for such synthesis? Formation at a depth, and then floating to a strata wherein the density of plastic surface is low enough to float; also any high wind effect? Plastic bags, anyone?

If liquid methane on Titan’s surface, then why not also for ‘cloud’ layers of Jupiter? For deeper ‘cloud’ layers, might one have a methane liquid surface? And at still deeper layers (or blown by winds to a higher level) might one have sufficient heat source so as to make a hydrogen bonded plastic surface strata from methane? Or plastic raindrops or snowflakes? Could one use ground penetrating radar, for lower frequency and hence greater penetration, or higher frequency for increased resolution, to determine if there is a deeper (or shallower) Jovian  smooth surfaceliquid or plastic? However wouldn’t water ice surface in principle be more common?

Also why should Titan’s atmosphere differ from that of Pluto’s? Or are there differences in surface water ice contaminants?

Also compare to short period comet 67P surface ice, via spectroscopy. If comet 67P surface ice is 4 Byr old, then might it be like alleged 4 Byr old Martian rock ice? Utilize infrared spectroscopy to measure hydrogen bonding between molecules, indicating mainly vibration, and perhaps rotation. Use space station as temperature control experiment, with external platform or bay, or tether; then do infrared spectroscopy to measure isolated temperature effect upon earth ice hydrogen intermolecular bond. also see Dec. 28, 2013 cryochemistry blog: Measuring temperature of space via molecular vibration etc.? Dark Age Cryochemistry?

Observations of the Icy Universe  http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1501.05317v1  [astro-ph.GA] 21 Jan 2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_%28moon

March 4, 2013

Jovian ‘comets’ i.e. icebergs? Martian-like rock ice for comet 67P?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , , , — zankaon @ 8:06 pm

Might it be a just so argument that we saw a comet crashing into Jupiter? Or does it indicate a larger data base and more common incidence? How likely (easy) is it for Jupiter to capture a comet? How is it de-stabilized from orbit?

Alternatively, might such ‘comet’ represent just large sections of ice (i.e. ‘icebergs’) breaking off from moon(s), with quick resurfacing? Then stronger gravitation of Jupiter predominating over it’s moons’ negligible gravity? Might it be sufficient for just spontaneous fracturing of moon’s ice surface, and resultant release of ‘icebergs’ ? Might the heat content of such large ‘icebergs’, or frictional collisions, account for infrared signature detected for such supposed ‘comet’? Might this represent a more plausible scenario than Jupiter catching comets? Might continuous observation from orbit, of our gas giant Jupiter, be worthwhile for this and other reasons?

Likewise might Pluto’s major satellite Charon, and/or other satellite moons, represent a breaking off of ice from Pluto rather than any less likely capturing of a body? Thus is Charon just a broken off large portion from Pluto; or is such satellite too large?

Might ice from short period comet 67P be compared to Jovian and Saturnian moons’ ice, and to Pluto/Charon ice? If 67P comet ice is just from early solar nebula, then might it represent 4 Byr old Martianlike rock ice, with essentially covalent hydrogen bonding for between molecules? Infrared spectroscopy, looking at (and earthly comparisons) hydrogen bond?

Pluto

December 23, 2011

Stable orbits for hot Jupiters?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: — zankaon @ 12:53 am

Would it seem reasonable that so-called ‘hot jupiters’ have some sort of stable resonance i.e. have a stable orbit? If one utilized our stellar system as a simulation, with the addition of a hot jupiter, then what would the resonance be? Would it be calculated as ~non-integral? Then if our cold gas giant were discarded, would this then seem to change the resonance; and hence change the possibility of a stable orbit? Thus might the data set of hot jupiters of approximately 70-100, all have systems with no cold gas giants? Would this then also be consistent with a 3-body scenario, with ejection (or effectively, since thrown into wide orbit?) of a cold gas giant and inward migration of what becomes a hot jupiter in stable orbit? Hence would one have the prediction of no cold gas giants for any hot Jupiter system? TMM

3- body gas giants

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

Might gas giant planets in wide orbit, or free from stellar gravitational well, be the result of 3-body interactions, inclusive of gas giants? Might a similar process account for hot Jupiters? TMM

Blog at WordPress.com.