Pyramid Science

This is for researching science-based articles and the contents are for personal use although a wider potential interest is possible and so they are left here to view. No medical advice is given and a qualified medical practitioner should be consulted if any concerns are raised. Comments have been disabled, but any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Precipitation

Areas like deserts rarely have rain though condensation of water from wet air onto a cold surface at night can produce water droplets. Sand is not a good medium to produce water in this way and as a consequence cold air does not produce water in a desert under normal conditions.

Desert
Location

Any moisture in the night or dawn air is quickly lost when the heating by sunlight begins and the air turns dry and a warm, wet atmosphere can support a great deal more water than a cold one. Around 71% of the Earth's surface is sea and constant warming during the day causes a vast amount of evaporation.

The location of these deserts does not intuitively suggest the connection between them, yet there is such a connection and it pertains to the axial tilt of the Earth. Not what it is today, but must have been a very long time ago and be this millions or billions of just a few thousands of years can never be known with any certainty however much the science community would like it.

  • The creationist argument invokes religion and the evolution argument requires the longest time that is speculatively 'acceptable'. The debate between creationism and evolution may well rage on, but actually goes nowhere. It will just descend into more polarised argument with each defending its own. Establishing truth will inevitably be totally impractical if not impossible.

What is not contentious is that evaporation leads to eventual precipitation in some form: rain or snow depends on location temperature and local atmospherics (wind force, pressure). This is cyclical and water will continue to rise and fall endlessly. Until its gets locked up in cement or concrete. Forever. Never to be freed. The irony being that the most essential of essentials for life is systematically being destroyed by those that rely on it. It's not really irony, but simply crass stupidity. Even the greedy need water to survive, though are blinded by their greed. Lethal stupidity.

Another irony exists with the destruction of oil: production of volatile petrol and diesel that produces water as a biproduct along with carbon dioxide upon combustion. The two constituents that would be necessary to produce the oil from carboniferous sources in the first place.

Unusual conditions, attributed to climate change, create the illusion of too much water. A river bursts its banks in one specific region and this can then be 'cherry-picked' as an example to fuel the entire global argument. An argument that is based more in finance than accuracy.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Origin Of Earth's Moon


The following entry is speculative, but blends in with other (unexamined and untestable) argument that has been arrived at using properly reasoned logic. The Earth Moon is very large compared to other moons associated with their planets and the Earth Moon could be considered more like the Pluto and Charon double planet (Pluto is known as a dwarf planet). The origin could even be argued that it is an inner rocky planet, closer to the Sun than Venus or Mercury. The (known) physical properties of the Moon and its appearance are similar to Mercury and Venus. As an ejected object blasted into space by being hit with the force of a coronal mass ejection (CME) this would probably have happened billions of years ago. The object may have been captured by (a primordial) Earth gravity, it being the largest object in the vicinity. Venus would be large enough, but the proximity and velocity would both conspire against possible capture.

Sidereal time reflects the actual time where synodic time describes the apparent time. The relationship between the distance of a planet from the Sun (r =  radius of the orbit) and its orbital period (P) can be estimated using Keplar's Third Law of Planetary Motion.

Verification of values: r = million km and P = days, though as a proportionality, only the relative numbers are necessary and not the absolute magnitude.

Mercury
  • P = 88, r = 57.9

    • P^2/r^3 = 0.0399
Venus
  • P = 224.7, r = 108.2
    • P^2/r^3 = 0.0399
Earth
  • P = 365.25, r =  149.6

    •   P^2/r^3 = 0.0398
Mars
  • P = 687, r = 227.9

    • P^2/r^3 = 0.0399
Jupiter
  • P = 4332.8, r = 778.3

    • P^2/r^3 = 0.0398
Saturn
  • P =10755.7, r = 1427

    • P^2/r^3 = 0.0398
Uranus
  • P =30687.1, r = 2870

    • P^2/r^3 = 0.0398
Neptune
  • P = 60190, r = 4497

    • P^2/r^3 = 0.0398 
The modified Titius-Bode value for Neptune gives:
  • P = 88025.3, r = 5800

    • P^2/r^3 = 0.0397
Within acceptable error limits, these value support Keplar's Third Law of Planetary Motion.

Simplistically, the radius is inversely proportional to the square of the velocity or v^2 * r = constant (k). The nearer one object is to another, the faster it will travel around it. This can be demonstrated by the velocity of each of the eight planets in the solar system and the four inner moons orbiting around Jupiter (Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto).
  • Mercury 
    • 47.9 km/s * 47.9 km/s * 57.9m km = 132,846
  • Venus 
    • 35.03 km/s * 35.03 km/s * 108.2m km = 132,772
  • Earth 
    • 29.8 km/s * 29.8 km/s * 149.6m km = 132,850
  • Mars 
    • 24.1 km/s * 24.1 km/s * 227.9m km = 132,366
  • Jupiter 
    • 13.1 km/s * 13.1 km/s * 778.3m km = 133,564
  • Saturn 
    • 9.6 km/s * 9.6 km/s * 1427m km = 131,512
  • Uranus 
    • 6.8 km/s * 6.8 km/s * 2870m km = 132,709
  • Neptune 
    • 5.45 km/s * 5.45 km/s * 4497m km = 133,572
    Average = 132,774

    Facts relating to the major planets
    • Io 17.334 km/s * 17.334 km/s * 421,700 km = 126,707,168
    • Europa 13.744 km/s * 13.744 km/s * 670,900 km = 126,731,357
    • Ganymede 10.88 km/s * 10.88 km/s * 1,070,400 km = 126,707,958
    • Callisto 8.204 km/s * 8.204 km/s * 1,882,700 km = 126,716,283
      Average = 126,715,692

      Moons of Saturn (inner 7 of 61)
      • Mimas 14 km/s * 14 km/s * 182520 km = 35,773,920
      • Enceledus 12.6 km/s * 12.6 km/s * 237948 km = 37,776,624
      • Tethys 11.35 km/s * 11.35 km/s * 294619 km = 37,953,556
      • Dione 10 km/s * 10 km/s * 377396 km = 37773960
      • Rhea 8.50 km/s * 8.50 km/s * 527000 km = 38,075,750
      • Titan 5.55 km/s * 5.55 km/s * 1221870 km = 37,636,651
      • Iapetus 3.28 km/s * 3.28 km/s * 3560000 km = 38,299,904
      Average = 37,612,909

      Moons of Uranus (inner 5 of 27)
      • Miranda 6.66 km/s * 6.66 km/s * 12390 km = 5,739,171
      • Ariel 5.5 km/s * 5.5 km/s * 191020 km = 5,778,355
      • Umbriel 4.67 km/s * 4.67 km/s * 266000 km = 5,801,167
      • Titania 3.64 km/s * 3.64 km/s * 435910 km = 5,775,633
      • Oberon 3.15 km/s * 3.15 km/s * 583520 km = 5,789,977 
      Average = 5,776,861

      Moons of Neptune (inner 7 of 13)
      • Naiad 11.9 km/s * 11.9 km/s * 48277 km = 6,836,506
      • Thalassa 11.7 km/s * 11.7 km/s * 50075 km = 6,854,767
      • Despina 11.4 km/s * 11.4 km/s * 52526 km = 6,826,279
      • Galatea 10.5 km/s * 10.5 km/s * 61953 km = 6,830,318
      • Larissa 9.6 km/s * 9.6 km/s * 73548 km = 6,778,184
      • Proteus 7.63 km/s * 7.63 km/s * 117647 km = 6,849,044
      • Triton 4.39 km/s * 4.39 km/s * 354800 km = 6,837,741 
      Average = 6,830,406

      The values for each group do not relate to one another as the environments are greatly different and consequently the planetary distance or moon distance (millions of km and km, respectively from the object around which it orbits) is ignored, but they do illustrate the relationship within a group: the greater the distance from the central object the slower the orbital speed within the group and constancy is maintained within that group


      Orbits are elliptical and so the velocity is calculated from an average annual value. Smaller moons provide examples of captured objects. The Earth's Moon is similar, but being larger or approaching from a different direction, entered an orbit closer to the Sun. The Moon has currently an average distance from Earth of 384,600 km (the radius).The monthly (sidereal) distance travelled (animation) : 2 * 3.142 * 384,600 = 2,416,826 km. The time taken is 27.32 days so the velocity (in seconds) is given by distance/time: 2,416,826/27.32 * 24 * 60 *60 = 1.02388 km/sec. v^2 = 1.04834 km/sec and since, v^2 * r = k, the value of k = 1.04834 * 384,600 = 403,191.

      Values for the velocity at different values of radius (circular orbit) can be obtained:

      Radius (km) : velocity (km/sec)
      384,600 : 1.02388
      300,000 : 1.159
      200,000 : 1.42
      100,000 : 2.00
      50,000 : 2.84
      5,000 : 8.98
      500 : 28.4
      5 : 284
      1 : 635
      0.1 : 2008

      The closer an object gets, the faster it moves
      The greater the distance, the slower it moves

      Impact Earth!

      • According to this any impact or close encounter (50,000 - 5,000 km) between a moon 'object' and Earth would be in the region of 2000 km/s and with the Earth orbiting the Sun at almost 30 km/s, this represents a far from negligible difference. Such energy from an impact, would do immense damage and the total destruction of both objects is the most likely outcome. The kinetic energy is proportional to v^2 and for a mass the size of a 'moon object' travelling at 2000 km/s this equates to an enormous value. However, it is possible that a direct hit did not occur and Earth's gravitational attraction pulled the object towards itself, hijacking (partially) the gravitational influence of the Sun. This would have resulted in slowing the object (aerobraking) as it was moved out of a linear trajectory. The new arc angle would allow the slowed object to 'bump' into the Earth and a slingshot effect would have initiated the captured rotation around the Earth. This is likely when the velocity had slowed considerably so reducing the momentum. A 'moon object' would, in fact, not need to be particularly close to have been the cause of any subsequent effects and anywhere between 50,000 km (2.84 km/s) and 5000 km (8.98 km/s) is quite sufficient (before considerable acceleration began).
        • Various scenarios can be reasonably postulated including a fast moving object outside the solar system being pulled out of transit by the eight planets (especially Jupiter) and Sun. Upon entering the system of planets at an angle from below the ecliptic it would be dragged and consequently slowed to a velocity sufficient to effectively 'bump' into the Earth. The very hot early fireball of the cooling 'Earth' would heat the incoming object at its surface, so enabling a slick of molten material to deposit over the surface before being captured in an Earth orbit. Slowing further by gravitational attraction and moving into a close orbit around the planet with which it 'collided'.
          • Alternatively, transit near the Sun and travelling at high speed would prevent capture by the Sun yet melt its surface. Such an approach would then form a slick of molten material that then splashed over the surface of the Earth. A more likely solution to the origin of the Moon is a combination of factors and the effect of aerobraking. The outer planets (gas giants) would one by one reduce the velocity of any incoming object considerably from its initial value. The extent is totally unknowable, as would be the relative positions of the planets, and the associated composite gravitational influence could never be reliably established. The trajectory of such an object could encounter a close-enough approach to be affected by aerobraking. This is a realistic consideration regardless of the likelihood of such a scenario happening. Neither does the approach need to be in the same plane as the ecliptic. The resulting trajectory would be a spiral and the decreasing radius bringing the object closer to the Sun: the probable cause of the approach in the first place. An angular approach to the ecliptic could even result in 'leapfrogging' one or more of the inner planets.
          • The probability of this is no different to considering the chances of an object coming close enough to any specific planet within any solar system contained in the vastness of space. According to the empirical Titius-Bode law, Neptune should not be where it is, but much deeper in the solar system: 38.8AU not 30.1AU or roughly 1.3bn km. Even Saturn and Uranus should be moved further outward (10.0AU vs 9.5AU and 19.6AU vs 19.2AU, respectively). Aerobraking can account for this and represents a potentially huge energy exchange.


            Sunday, November 22, 2009

            Polar Ice


            The effect of melting ice is to cool the liquid within which it floats. Or conversely argued, the ice melts because the liquid is warming up. The latent heat of fusion represents the amount of heat absorbed (endothermic) to raise the temperature of ice and change its physical state from a solid to liquid water. Melting solid ice into liquid water at the same temperature. The same phase transition principle applies when liquid water becomes a vapour (steam): the latent heat of vapourisation (boiling point). Energy is required. The reverse process produces heat (exothermic): steam condensing into liquid water or liquid water into solid ice (freezing or melting point).

            Imagine a drink without ice: it warms up on a hot day and may become unpleasant. So it is with the global seas. To maintain an even temperature (homeostasis), Arctic or Antarctic ice melts and this could be considered the purpose of the ice fields or rather how the Earth systems developed. As the surface area of a particular lump of ice reduces by melting, the (relatively) unchanged heat released from the medium causes an acceleration of the melt process. Very poor coverage promotes the acceleration that is expected as the ice volume (for whatever reason) reduces. The volume gets smaller and the rate of reduction then only appears to increase. This is a classic example of what appears to be deliberate misrepresentation. Consequently, the apparent rate of loss of ice by melting appears to speed up. An illusion. The rate remains the same, but the surface area continues to decline. Another way of looking at this is to envisage a room being heated by a fire. If the same fire were used to heat a smaller room then the atmosphere in the room would get much hotter. Same fire, smaller room.

            When eventual re-freezing occurs, the rate of ice formation will begin at a fast rate and gradually slow as the surface area increases.

            The polar bear species has been swimming to ice rafts over possibly thousands of millennia and will continue to do so in the future. (This does not take into account the evolutionary theory that the brown bear adapted into the polar bear for survival. Before any human activity.) It is highly emotive, though realistic. Images such as these will inevitably catch the human conscience and feed the guilt promoted by the climate change school. Polar bears and other cold water life have been around for a long time. The real threat to the continued existence of the polar bear is the human species. And not through any human-induced change in climate. That is a naturally occurring cycle that the polar bear has been exposed to (and survived) for those thousands of millennia.

            The cyclical warming/cooling caused by the precession of the equinoxes (axial precession) will inevitably lead to global cooling eventually. It should be recognised, however, that carbon dioxide production doesn't help. Neither does a growing population that respires this toxic (to mammals) gas. Increasing numbers of livestock that is used to feed the human population, also generates increasing volumes of methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas generated from peat bogs and similar sources (Earth fart) than carbon dioxide. By about 20 times.

            Methane is eventually oxidised to carbon dioxide and water and has a half-life of around seven years.

            Summers should gradually become hotter
            Winters generally colder

            But the model here does not even begin to touch on the complexity of the many interactions between factors and this is generally ignored by the climate change advocates. Day-to-day or even year-to-year change could never be predicted in any detail.

            Earth conveyor belt (model broken)

            The butterfly effect (chaos theory) partially demonstrates the enormous complexity of the entire issue. The 'extremes' of temperature should eventually actually move (very gradually) to earlier values ('extremes').

            • Those before any taxation was applied as the magic answer to all the 'problems'.

            Create the 'PROBLEM' and provide the 'SOLUTION'

            Sunday, November 15, 2009

            Earth-Moon Relationship (Hypothetical)

            01.12.2015 - this article has been reviewed/changed

            The volume of the Moon is estimated at 21,958,115,460 cubic km and the approximate surface area of the Earth is 4 * π * 6371 * 6371 = 510,064,472 square km. Taking 29% as the proportion being land, this gives an area of 147,918,697 square km. The average depth of the global seas is 3.79 km and so a (very approximate) estimate of the volume of Earth's land areas is:

            147,918,697 * 3.79 = 560,611,861 cubic km

            Comparing theses two volumes for the Moon and Earth land:

            • Volume Earth land: 560,611,861 cubic km
            • Volume Moon: 21,958,115,460 cubic km
            Ratio Earth's land : Moon = 1 : 39.2

            Or only 2.55% Moon mass is necessary to produce all Earth land. The total volume by combining both these quantities produces:


            560,611,861 + 21,958,115,460 = 22,518,727,320 cubic km


            The dimensions of the original (Moon) object can be obtained from this spherical volume using the arithmetic relationship with the radius.


            3/(4 * π) = r^3 = 0.2387 * 22,518,727,320 = 5,375,220,212

            r = 1752 km

            The difference between the radii is before and after a 'close encounter' (a splash of molten 'moon object' over the cooling Earth-planet) a reduction of just 14 km. This would be enough mass to produce all the Earth's land volume. (The actual radius of the Moon is 3475.5/2 = 1737.75km.)


            1752 - 1738 km = 14 km

            The difference in volumes (shell width) between the two spheres of radius 1752 km and 1738 km is sufficient to produce the quantity of Moon mass deposited on the Earth that yielded land raised above true ground level (average ground level beneath the sea).


            Monday, November 02, 2009

            Copyright Notice


            All the entries in the three journals published here (Comment, Philosophical and Science) are protected by copyright and this is assigned to the appropriate website holder. As the owner of these sites (www.creativeacre.co.uk and www.creativeplot.co.uk) I am entirely responsible for all the text and implications of what is written. However, the proviso is described in the journal introduction that disavows all unauthorised comments or additions.

            The maintenance of complete control does have its limits.

            All fictional content is authored under the pseudonym of Louis Brothnias

            Accreditation is clearly noted if originality cannot be claimed.