Wet / topographical Mercury
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Wet / topographical Mercury
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.
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.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- basementer
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
- Location: 8024, Aotearoa
- Contact:
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
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.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:22 amIt 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.
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
We need rockdoctor or someone, but I thought most of the heat was primordial?basementer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:38 amMy 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.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:22 amIt 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.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
From here: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.
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
Fintan O'Toole
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8428
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
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.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
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
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
I would assume that convection is faster within a fluid than conduction would be.Grumble wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:57 amAccording 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
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
Yes, Dad told me that he saw it in the first copy of New Scientist as an interesting theoryBird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:22 amhttps://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.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
Speaking of, what the heck happened to rockdoctor? He needs to come back sharpish.
Non fui. Fui. Non sum. Non curo.
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
Depends on the fluid, surely?jimbob wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:38 pmI would assume that convection is faster within a fluid than conduction would be.Grumble wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:57 amAccording 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
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8428
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
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).
Kelvin and Perry, earlier.
Kelvin and Perry, earlier.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
I hadn't thought of it until now, but pretty much that.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
Convection would accelerate it - which only shows how slow it is.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
Exactly, so it would give a younger age for the Earth, wouldn't it?
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- rockdoctor
- Clardic Fug
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:52 am
- Location: Paddington, London
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
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!
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!
- Trinucleus
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
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 itbasementer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:38 amMy 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.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:22 amIt 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.
-
- Catbabel
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am
Re: Wet / topographical Mercury
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: