Turbulence on Jupiter and the graviton

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />I am curious how the idea of graviton bombardment fits into the chaotic atmosphere of Jupiter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitons are perhaps a million times smaller than typical quantum particles. They are incapable of creating turbulence in any direct way.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As I understand it, Jupiter wouldn't be this turbulent on the basis of heat alone, and perhaps not even from the tidal forces of it's moons(though that is a function of gravity...).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Heat flow is in fact one of the major factors in creating turbulence. And gravitons create a lot of heat in the planet's interior -- more than comes in from the Sun. Another major factor for turbulence is differential rotation of the planet -- low latitudes rotate faster than high latitudes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is it possible that we're actually seeing direct turbulence caused by gravitons passing through a gaseous body?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not gravitons. But impacting space debris is probably the biggest factor. There is continuous meteor bombardment, and the occasional asteroid of significant size will really stir things up. -|Tom|-

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. I suppose it wouldn't be that different than throwing a speck of dust at high speed against a grain of sand on the beach and expecting to see disturbance. Even if you threw millions of grains over a large area, it would just push against the sand gently, rather than make it swirl and distort..... The heat from gravity's force makes a lot of sense. I definitely didn't think the sun was able to affect the planet enough.

On another note, could the heat levels of Jupiter be used in any way to help you check your theory on the gravity collapse model of why planets explode? Could you not check the mass of Jupiter, measure the heat from the sun, and the amount generated within the planet itself and make some conclusions about what a solid-body planet would need to self-destruct from the same forces?

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />could the heat levels of Jupiter be used in any way to help you check your theory on the gravity collapse model of why planets explode? Could you not check the mass of Jupiter, measure the heat from the sun, and the amount generated within the planet itself and make some conclusions about what a solid-body planet would need to self-destruct from the same forces?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Have you seen
metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/PlanetExplosions.asp ?
What is needed to trigger an explosion for any size planet is a sudden core collapse. -|Tom|-

While I won't pretend I 100% understand all of what's on that link, I think I get the idea fairly well. Was Jupiter's heat output factored in to your assessment of the LCM concept of energy build-up? Does the amount of excess heat that planet puts off coincide with what you would expect from gravity-induced heat? I mean, that heat does flow away sufficiently for the planet not to blow up, but wouldn't that be detectable as actual heat? Or do you think the idea that it's radiactive decay inside the planet is the most plausible? I guess I don't exactly understand where Meta Research Institute stands on Jupiter's excess heat's cause.....

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />Was Jupiter's heat output factored in to your assessment of the LCM concept of energy build-up?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. The quantitative details for Jupiter and several other planets and our Moon are in the <i>Pushing Gravity</i> book and on our "Gravity" CD.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does the amount of excess heat that planet puts off coincide with what you would expect from gravity-induced heat?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, but not in a way that provides a useful test of the theory because we don't yet know some of the relevant parameters. For example, we have only a lower limit to the average graviton speed, not its actual value.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I mean, that heat does flow away sufficiently for the planet not to blow up, but wouldn't that be detectable as actual heat?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, it is actual heat, and is detected and measured. Jupiter emits a bit more heat from its interior than it takes in and re-emits from the Sun.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Or do you think the idea that it's radiactive decay inside the planet is the most plausible? I guess I don't exactly understand where Meta Research Institute stands on Jupiter's excess heat's cause.....<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">These are not mutually exclusive. Graviton impact energy may be the cause of radioactive decay. So radioactive decay may simply be the vehicle for getting the graviton heat out of the atom prior to getting it out of Jupiter. -|Tom|-

I know I'm all over the place here, but I do appreciate the responses! I have one more quick question, though perhaps not the most simple one. Do you think it's possible that ALL radioactive decay is due to gravity? That is, a single atom reaches a density where it intercepts too many gravitons and thus destabilizes, throwing off sub-atomic particles until it reaches a balanced state again. It would seem to make sense then when one looks at critical mass, since the most interior of the mass's atoms would be the least able to expel their heat at a sufficient rate. I would make an analogy to a campfire, where you must have a certain amount of mass to get a reliable fire(depending somewhat upon the fuel used of course). A tiny fire won't stay lit very well, a big one rages intensely. The core of the fire needing the extents to keep it warm enough for a steady burn. I hope that made sense. I'm a little sleep-deprived right now haha

I've had a theory for a long time that at some point there must be some sort of "super critical mass", but yet I have never actually been able to associate any real mechanism to it. I think gravity-induced heat may be just that mechanism. If I understand a lot of the basic concepts of meta model, the scale dimension would almost certainly demand that if there is critical mass at a small scale, there must be a much larger version of it, and beyond that a larger version still. Am I wrong in this?

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965