Re: Jupiter (was PERIHELION etc.)

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

"At the bottom is a massive rock & ice core of 10-15 MEarth & ~1.5 REarth."
[from LK's reference.]


Rock includes radioactive nuclei?

Why is the contraction slow -- is the outer shell so non-conductive the
gravitational pressure is balanced by high temperature?

Core is much more massive than earth's mass tho only ~ 3.4 X volume;
dense elements? e.g. Th, U, etc.?  K-40 would do it?   It's earth's
claimed energy source.

Helps:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph121/js19.html

"Thus, this extra heat is leftover energy from the time of Jupiter's
formation."


A simple matter to calculate the rate of energy from core to space and
determine if "really" from original creation?


bc



Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> Jupiter radiates into space more "heat" than
> it receives from the Sun. How can this be
> explained? According to:
>
> http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit6/jupiter.html
>
> "Jupiter radiates about 2.5x more energy at
> Infrared wavelengths than it receives from
> the Sun. . . .  Jupiter is slowly contracting
> under its own weight. Slow contraction
> releases gravitational energy, heating the
> deep interior."
>
> I have no doubt that the radiation difference
> (emitted versus received) is an experimental
> fact. But what evidence do we have that the
> planet is still undergoing slow contraction? Is
> this only a hypothesis (what else can it be?)
> or is it a fact based on observations?
>
> It seems to me that the rate of contraction
> would be too small to measure. Yes, the
> liquid metallic hydrogen (below the thick
> atmosphere) should be a good conductor
> of heat and electricity. But this does not
> explain the origin of conducted heat.
>
> By the way, the percentage of hydrogen
> in Jupiter is nearly the same as in the Sun.
> But the mass of the planet is about ten
> times smaller than what would be needed
> to start thermonuclear burning.
> Ludwik Kowalski