Wet / topographical Mercury

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
Post Reply
User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 6785
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:22 am

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautifu ... this_is_a/

Looks super unlike any map of earth I've ever seen. I guess the role of tectonics is pretty key for creating earth-like continents?

It always amazes me that tectonics was still controversial within my mum's lifetime. By the time I did geography at school it was just a fact, with no mention that the boffins had only figured it out a few decades ago.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
basementer
Dorkwood
Posts: 1015
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Location: Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by basementer » Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:38 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:22 am
It always amazes me that tectonics was still controversial within my mum's lifetime. By the time I did geography at school it was just a fact, with no mention that the boffins had only figured it out a few decades ago.
My 1963(ish) Britannica mentions it as a theory, and says something about it being diffcult to suggest a plausible source of energy for something of that scale. The author of that article hadn't realised there were huge quantities of fissile elements quietly fissing away down there.
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell

User avatar
Grumble
After Pie
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by Grumble » Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:39 am

basementer wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:38 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:22 am
It always amazes me that tectonics was still controversial within my mum's lifetime. By the time I did geography at school it was just a fact, with no mention that the boffins had only figured it out a few decades ago.
My 1963(ish) Britannica mentions it as a theory, and says something about it being diffcult to suggest a plausible source of energy for something of that scale. The author of that article hadn't realised there were huge quantities of fissile elements quietly fissing away down there.
We need rockdoctor or someone, but I thought most of the heat was primordial?
You’ve got no chutzpah, your organisational skills are lacklustre and your timekeeping is abysmal.

User avatar
JQH
Dorkwood
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by JQH » Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:27 am

There are three main sources of heat in the deep earth: (1) heat from when the planet formed and accreted, which has not yet been lost; (2) frictional heating, caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet; and (3) heat from the decay of radioactive elements.
From here:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-core-so/
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
shpalman
Light of Blast
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by shpalman » Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:29 am

Kelvin's calculation of the age of the earth gave too short a time by a few orders of magnitude because he didn't account for heat from radioactive decay.
molto tricky

User avatar
Grumble
After Pie
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by Grumble » Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:57 am

shpalman wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:29 am
Kelvin's calculation of the age of the earth gave too short a time by a few orders of magnitude because he didn't account for heat from radioactive decay.
According to Steve Novella at SGU the main factor was actually that he didn’t account for the fact that the earth is cooling mainly by convection rather than conduction. The story about radioactive decay is commonly repeated but doesn’t stand up. Now I haven’t got the data and methods to double check this, but it sounds plausible.

First segment in this show: https://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcasts/episode-825
You’ve got no chutzpah, your organisational skills are lacklustre and your timekeeping is abysmal.

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2817
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by jimbob » Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:38 pm

Grumble wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:57 am
shpalman wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:29 am
Kelvin's calculation of the age of the earth gave too short a time by a few orders of magnitude because he didn't account for heat from radioactive decay.
According to Steve Novella at SGU the main factor was actually that he didn’t account for the fact that the earth is cooling mainly by convection rather than conduction. The story about radioactive decay is commonly repeated but doesn’t stand up. Now I haven’t got the data and methods to double check this, but it sounds plausible.

First segment in this show: https://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcasts/episode-825
I would assume that convection is faster within a fluid than conduction would be.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2817
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by jimbob » Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:40 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:22 am
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautifu ... this_is_a/

Looks super unlike any map of earth I've ever seen. I guess the role of tectonics is pretty key for creating earth-like continents?

It always amazes me that tectonics was still controversial within my mum's lifetime. By the time I did geography at school it was just a fact, with no mention that the boffins had only figured it out a few decades ago.
Yes, Dad told me that he saw it in the first copy of New Scientist as an interesting theory
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

nezumi
Catbabel
Posts: 844
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:43 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by nezumi » Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:49 pm

Speaking of, what the heck happened to rockdoctor? He needs to come back sharpish.
Non fui. Fui. Non sum. Non curo.

User avatar
Grumble
After Pie
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by Grumble » Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:20 pm

jimbob wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:38 pm
Grumble wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:57 am
shpalman wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:29 am
Kelvin's calculation of the age of the earth gave too short a time by a few orders of magnitude because he didn't account for heat from radioactive decay.
According to Steve Novella at SGU the main factor was actually that he didn’t account for the fact that the earth is cooling mainly by convection rather than conduction. The story about radioactive decay is commonly repeated but doesn’t stand up. Now I haven’t got the data and methods to double check this, but it sounds plausible.

First segment in this show: https://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcasts/episode-825
I would assume that convection is faster within a fluid than conduction would be.
Depends on the fluid, surely?
You’ve got no chutzpah, your organisational skills are lacklustre and your timekeeping is abysmal.

User avatar
shpalman
Light of Blast
Posts: 5386
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by shpalman » Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:38 pm

I'd never appreciated that Kelvin's calculation was based on the temperature gradient at the surface, I'd assumed it was a calculation of heat loss (and convection would accelerate that).
kevin-and-perry.jpg
kevin-and-perry.jpg (223.34 KiB) Viewed 432 times
Kelvin and Perry, earlier.
molto tricky

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2817
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by jimbob » Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:43 pm

shpalman wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:38 pm
I'd never appreciated that Kelvin's calculation was based on the temperature gradient at the surface, I'd assumed it was a calculation of heat loss (and convection would accelerate that).

kevin-and-perry.jpg

Kelvin and Perry, earlier.
I hadn't thought of it until now, but pretty much that.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Grumble
After Pie
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by Grumble » Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:49 pm

jimbob wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:43 pm
shpalman wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:38 pm
I'd never appreciated that Kelvin's calculation was based on the temperature gradient at the surface, I'd assumed it was a calculation of heat loss (and convection would accelerate that).

kevin-and-perry.jpg

Kelvin and Perry, earlier.
I hadn't thought of it until now, but pretty much that.
Convection would accelerate it - which only shows how slow it is.
You’ve got no chutzpah, your organisational skills are lacklustre and your timekeeping is abysmal.

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2817
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by jimbob » Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:04 pm

Grumble wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:49 pm
jimbob wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:43 pm
shpalman wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:38 pm
I'd never appreciated that Kelvin's calculation was based on the temperature gradient at the surface, I'd assumed it was a calculation of heat loss (and convection would accelerate that).

kevin-and-perry.jpg

Kelvin and Perry, earlier.
I hadn't thought of it until now, but pretty much that.
Convection would accelerate it - which only shows how slow it is.
Exactly, so it would give a younger age for the Earth, wouldn't it?
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
rockdoctor
Clardic Fug
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:52 am
Location: Paddington, London

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by rockdoctor » Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:39 pm

nezumi wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:49 pm
Speaking of, what the heck happened to rockdoctor? He needs to come back sharpish.
I'm always here. Watching

User avatar
Gfamily
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2901
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by Gfamily » Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:43 pm

rockdoctor wrote:
Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:39 pm
nezumi wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:49 pm
Speaking of, what the heck happened to rockdoctor? He needs to come back sharpish.
I'm always here. Watching
Gneiss
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Trinucleus
Snowbonk
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by Trinucleus » Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:30 pm

basementer wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:38 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:22 am
It always amazes me that tectonics was still controversial within my mum's lifetime. By the time I did geography at school it was just a fact, with no mention that the boffins had only figured it out a few decades ago.
My 1963(ish) Britannica mentions it as a theory, and says something about it being diffcult to suggest a plausible source of energy for something of that scale. The author of that article hadn't realised there were huge quantities of fissile elements quietly fissing away down there.
I did geology at uni in 1973 when it had been pretty much proved by Dan Mackenzie, who was one of the academics there. Prior to that it was considered interesting that Africa and south America fitted together, but when they started looking at the topography of the ocean beds, and particularly saw that the magnetic field orientations in the rocks where completely symmetrical leading away from the central ridge, that pretty much nailed it

Allo V Psycho
Snowbonk
Posts: 457
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: Wet / topographical Mercury

Post by Allo V Psycho » Fri Aug 06, 2021 9:10 pm

shpalman wrote:
Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:38 pm
I'd never appreciated that Kelvin's calculation was based on the temperature gradient at the surface, I'd assumed it was a calculation of heat loss (and convection would accelerate that).

kevin-and-perry.jpg

Kelvin and Perry, earlier.
Little known fact: William Thompson named the units of absolute temperature after the River Kelvin flowing past Glasgow University, because it is absolutely freezin'.

Spoiler:


Spoiler:


Spoiler:

Post Reply