Tidal locking of planets and atmospheric gradients

PB666 · May 2, 2016

before we can discuss Tidal locking effects, we need a set of commonly agreed upon points with which one can do analysis.

Characteristics of Atmospheric Gases.
kPa = 0.145 PSI, 1 ATM = 101.325 kPa
STP is 101.325 kPa at 273k

Elemental
Helium : Boiling point 4.2 K , Lambda point 2.2 K 5.048 kPa, Critical point 5.19 K , 227 kPa
Neon: Boiling point 27.1 K , Triple point 24.6 K, 43.37 kPa, Critical point 44.4918 K, 2769 Kpa
Argon : Boiling point 7.302 K, Triple point 83.81 K, 68.9 kPa, Critical point 150.8 K, 4,870 kPa

Molecular
Hydrogen:Boiling point 20.271 K , Triple point 13.8033 K, 7.041 kPa Critical point 32.938 K, 1286 KPa
Nitrogen: Boiling point 77.355 K, Triple point 63.151 K, 12.52 kPa, Critical point 126.2 K, 3.4 MPa
Oxygen: 90.188 K, Triple point 54.361 K, 0.1463 kPa, Critical point 154.581 K, 5043 KPa

Heteroatomic.
Methane, Melting point 90.7 K Boiling point 111.66 K, Triple point 90.68 K 11.7 kPa, 190.8 K 4,640 kPa
Carbon Dioxide, MP 216.6 K, Triple point 216.55 K 517 kPa, Critical point 304.19 K 7,380 kPa
Water, MP 272.16, BP Triple point 273.16 K, 0.61kPa, Critical point 647.096 K, 22.06 MPa

Bold pressures indicat the possibility for periodic liquid precipitation of the gas type as pressure falls, as pressures fall below the pressure limit, snowing of the gas.

What is the point here. Bioneogenic planets start with atmospheres of CO2, Water, Methane, Nitrogen and other gases. If major surfaces of the planet are below the triple point temperature (216.5K, 273.16 K, 90.68, 273.16 K).

If temperature falls below the temperature of one of the gases, say water, you have the formation of Ice, but the atmosphere can create a dynamic equilibrium. If two are below, for example carbon dioxide, the atmospheric pressure drops as CO2 accumulates in the cold spot and sublimates with circulation. If temperature falls below three, water will become locked by liquid carbon dioxide, which will be stabilized by a sea of methane. At still lower temperature methane freezes, the atmospheric pressure drops further still, if the temperature falls below the triple point for nitrogen there will first be a rain of nitrogen, but as pressure drops it will start snowing essentially locking these on the cold side of the planet.

If there are enough of these, the planet might, over time rotate and boil them onto the other side creating a very slow rotation phenomena, but not so fast as to prevent sublimation on the slow moving side, even if life were to form it complex life would be routinely crushed my massive rolling glaciers of ice that melt and reform.

However because the pressure on the exposed side is so low, stellar winds and flares will almost certainly kick the isolated gases out of the atmosphere, some will condense on the other side, others will end up speeding out to space.

How cold to dark sides of tidally locked planets get.

Mercury- closer than the habitable zone. On the dark side of mercury, whose lit side reaches 700K the temperature is average of 100K, if mercury had a primordial atmospheric it would
Move 7/8ths of the Argon, Helium and Hydrogen to the dark side, prior to their expulsion
No water on the sun facing side, all Water would be locked in ice on the dark side and at poles.
No carbon dioxide on sun facing side, carbon dioxide would sublimate on the dark side.
Freeze or rain methane in spots.
Rain Nitrogen (Oxygen would never form because all CO2 is locked up in ice), which would transfer heat from the surface to space, and further cool down the atmosphere.

Our moon, and imperfectly locked example of a Habitable zone planet.
Lets go a little colder, lets look at the moon, which is heated up every 30 days on one side.
At this distance from its stars, so called habitable zone the dark side has a basal temperature of 30K to 50K degrees. Lets argue that the moon was tidally locked with the sun,

Water would boil and sublimate (snow) on dark side.
Followed by carbon dioxide.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram.svg/330px-Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram.svg.png

First if that atmospheric pressure were high enough it would rain CO2, then as the pressure fell temperature would fall and snow of carbon dioxide would coat the ice, this would be followed by methane which would eventually freeze on top of the CO2, later Ntirogen and Oxygen would rain and then freeze on the dark side.
Surprisingly Argon and Neon might join the club. The planet would conduct heat to the surface, and this would potentially result in subterrestrial lakes with hot vents, while these potentially melt the most volatile substances on top, the level of insulation spreads this out and limits it they will sublime after melting and vaporization on other areas and at the edges. This will drive eventually water from the edges to the center, the volatiles will flow to the edges and be blow off by solar winds, the pressure would drop keeping ice and carbon dioxide perpetually frozen or sublimating.

Caveots, larger planets, better hold atmosphere have greater thermal heat retention and lower surface area to mass, higher potential for subglacial oceans.

Edited May 2, 2016 by PB666

AngelLestat · May 2, 2016

not sure if I understand you..
You are talking about atmospheres mechanics, but your example was vacuum bodies like moon and mercury, those extreme temperature differences can only happen on planets with less pressure than mars. If you have a decent atmosphere, you will have a super rotation with fast winds (depending how close you are from the sun) that will decrease the thermal gradient between dark and light sides.

PB666 · May 2, 2016

50 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

not sure if I understand you..
You are talking about atmospheres mechanics, but your example was vacuum bodies like moon and mercury, those extreme temperature differences can only happen on planets with less pressure than mars. If you have a decent atmosphere, you will have a super rotation with fast winds (depending how close you are from the sun) that will decrease the thermal gradient between dark and light sides.

1) mars is not tidally locked

2) energy moves fromnthe position of highest to lowest density. PV=nRT.. If you raise the temperature on one side, volume will increase, if volume increases it will rise and flow in the direction of lower energy.

3) as the gas radiates heat into space, it cools, as it cools it shrinks, A warm planet with a long daylight period will create alot of humidity from water, CO2 is insoluble in hot water so its in a gaseous state, There mibpght be rain an clouds on the warm side, as soon as thae water wapor moves to that side it will precipitate it will rain ou, the, snow out.

4) moisture will keep the atmosphere warm until it sublimates, at that point carbon dioxide will begin to precipitate at high pressure and sublimate at low pressures. As this occurs total system pressure will fall and grrenhouse gases effect will fall.

5) this cycle will continue until most of the water and all of the CO2 is depleted from the warm side, some of the water will be at the termination, next methane will begin to preciptate out at which point atmosphere pressure will drop and the remaing greenhouse gas will be depleted. You could see cyclones like those seen on earth, saturn and jupiter, which are dynamos that drive surface energy to the high elevations.

6) Nitrogen will not precipitate everywhere at the beginning but heat and vacuum are great drivers of energy flow, once its starts precipitating you will see a rapid transfer of surface energy on the dark side until the surface temperature over large areas on the dark side are as cold as liquid nitrogen at pressure nitrogen, the rain itself carries energy, but as the atmosphere thins, it will carry less energy until finally nitrogen will largely be trapped

7) as the surface pressure drops on the warm side, solar winds will no longer be absorbed on the surface of the atmosphere, now these gases are being ionized and as ions are being kicked out of the atmosphere. This will lower pressure further and driving gas into interplanetary space as plasma. The will go through the gases in reverse order of solidification until most of the water is gone, the reainder will be as ice. Once the nitrogen is gone all life one the planet will cease.

AngelLestat · May 3, 2016

13 hours ago, PB666 said:

1) mars is not tidally locked

This is what I wrote:
"those extreme temperature differences can only happen on planets with less pressure than mars"

I am talking about the pressure, no the planet.

Quote

2) energy moves fromnthe position of highest to lowest density. PV=nRT.. If you raise the temperature on one side, volume will increase, if volume increases it will rise and flow in the direction of lower energy.

Yeah, and this generates a super rotation like venus.

Quote

3) as the gas radiates heat into space, it cools, as it cools it shrinks, A warm planet with a long daylight period will create alot of humidity from water, CO2 is insoluble in hot water so its in a gaseous state, There mibpght be rain an clouds on the warm side, as soon as thae water wapor moves to that side it will precipitate it will rain ou, the, snow out.

Well, this may happen in a certain range of parameters, like pressure, type of gases, rotation, albedo, etc.
So we can not start to talk about certain climate aspects before reduce the range of those parameters.

Quote

4) moisture will keep the atmosphere warm until it sublimates, at that point carbon dioxide will begin to precipitate at high pressure and sublimate at low pressures. As this occurs total system pressure will fall and grrenhouse gases effect will fall.

Until moisture sublimates? Only ice can sublimate, moisture is water. when in this case you are talking of special temperature and pressure conditions, and what happen after sublimates? you still have vapor which is your moisture.

But I can not think straight if I dont know exactly in what conditions we are talking about, because different gases had very different triple and critical points and I dont know either the amount of thermal change you are talking about.

Quote

5) this cycle will continue until most of the water and all of the CO2 is depleted from the warm side, some of the water will be at the termination, next methane will begin to preciptate out at which point atmosphere pressure will drop and the remaing greenhouse gas will be depleted. You could see cyclones like those seen on earth, saturn and jupiter, which are dynamos that drive surface energy to the high elevations.

6) Nitrogen will not precipitate everywhere at the beginning but heat and vacuum are great drivers of energy flow, once its starts precipitating you will see a rapid transfer of surface energy on the dark side until the surface temperature over large areas on the dark side are as cold as liquid nitrogen at pressure nitrogen, the rain itself carries energy, but as the atmosphere thins, it will carry less energy until finally nitrogen will largely be trapped

7) as the surface pressure drops on the warm side, solar winds will no longer be absorbed on the surface of the atmosphere, now these gases are being ionized and as ions are being kicked out of the atmosphere. This will lower pressure further and driving gas into interplanetary space as plasma. The will go through the gases in reverse order of solidification until most of the water is gone, the reainder will be as ice. Once the nitrogen is gone all life one the planet will cease.

Ok.. I will leave this hanging until we define better out world conditions.
Sun distance, tidal locking, % mixture of each element, pressure and gravity.
Then we can start to analyse from the same perspective, because in other way is harder try to imagine the same conditions that you are imagining.

Or just tell me what kind of right conditions you want to achieve and less find out what could be the exact parameters to allow that.
Also.. what is "Bioneogenic planets"? I cant find that term in any place.

Edited May 3, 2016 by AngelLestat

PB666 · May 3, 2016

22 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

This is what I wrote:
"those extreme temperature differences can only happen on planets with less pressure than mars"

I am talking about the pressure, no the planet.

Yeah, and this generates a super rotation like venus.

Well, this may happen in a certain range of parameters, like pressure, type of gases, rotation, albedo, etc.
So we can not start to talk about certain climate aspects before reduce the range of those parameters.

Until moisture sublimates? Only ice can sublimate, moisture is water. when in this case you are talking of special temperature and pressure conditions, and what happen after sublimates? you still have vapor which is your moisture.

But I can not think straight if I dont know exactly in what conditions we are talking about, because different gases had very different triple and critical points and I dont know either the amount of thermal change you are talking about.

Ok.. I will leave this hanging until we define better out world conditions.
Sun distance, tidal locking, % mixture of each element, pressure and gravity.
Then we can start to analyse from the same perspective, because in other way is harder try to imagine the same conditions that you are imagining.

Or just tell me what kind of right conditions you want to achieve and less find out what could be the exact parameters to allow that.
Also.. what is "Bioneogenic planets"? I cant find that term in any place.

The most important point you miss, a close orbiting tidally locked planet is a big machine, a dynamo. The heat absorbed on one side is realeased on the other. First nothing will happen, but as soon as you start precipitating greenhouse gases you drive the directive. It is impossible not to have precipitation, and as the rate increases its impossible for it not to reach the ground, and once it hits the ground it undergoes evaporative cooling, sooner or later, that material accumulates, just like glaciers on pur poles.

Somehow you dont get the point, with out the sun, those poles would continue to build ice. In the summer the ice in the arctic ocean melts, in the winter the sea ice around antarctica melts. On the dark side of a tidally locked planet whose equalibrium surface temperature is 30 K, there is no 'summer' melting, once the surface cools to preciptation temperature, stuff accumulates until its patial pressure is so low that evaporatio rate equals precipitation rate and surface cools further.

There is no end point until there is only left atmosphere that vaporizes at a lower temperature than the equilibrium temperature of the dark side minimum. That leaves volatile hydrogen, which as we know is easily kicked by solar winds.

The vaporization temperature of ice is dependent on temperature, as temperature falls the rate falls untilmthe rate is zero, as you deplete one gas from the atmosphere, the next gas will rain or snow out,mthe pressure drops,mthe temperature drops, ding you have monster glaciers.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating, show one example of life on a tidally locked planet, on a single star system show one example where a tidally locked planet has a credible atmosphere.

mercury, nope, lots of gas passes by mercury, none is captured in a credible atmoshere.

AngelLestat · May 3, 2016

34 minutes ago, PB666 said:

The most important point you miss, a close orbiting tidally locked planet is a big machine, a dynamo. The heat absorbed on one side is realeased on the other. First nothing will happen, but as soon as you start precipitating greenhouse gases you drive the directive. It is impossible not to have precipitation, and as the rate increases its impossible for it not to reach the ground, and once it hits the ground it undergoes evaporative cooling, sooner or later, that material accumulates, just like glaciers on pur poles.

Venus is very similar to a tidal locked planet, because its sunlight day takes 120 earth days.
Below 30 km altitude, temperatures are exactly the same at any coordinates, even at 65km, where the pressure is very low, the temperature only changes a few degrees between day and night.
One might said that it is because the lower atmosphere layers are heating the above layers in the night, which is partially true, but the true is that most of the thermal flux happens from 60km to 100km range, because almost not sunlight reach the lower layers due its high albedo at cloud level.
And not sure why you said that I miss the point when in fact I was the first to come out with the super rotation, which depending the pressure and gases mix it will crash the high temperature gradient that you need in some of your examples.

34 minutes ago, PB666 said:

On the dark side of a tidally locked planet whose equalibrium surface temperature is 30 K, there is no 'summer' melting, once the surface cools to preciptation temperature, stuff accumulates until its patial pressure is so low that evaporatio rate equals precipitation rate and surface cools further.

30k dark side temperature? again.. this is not enough information to said nothing about its atmosphere if I dont know all the other details that I ask you.. for example this planet has h2o like an ocean (solid or liquid surface) that it is connected with its dark side?
All those questions I am asking you are very important, because they change your assumptions in a very drastic way.

34 minutes ago, PB666 said:

There is no end point until there is only left atmosphere that vaporizes at a lower temperature than the equilibrium temperature of the dark side minimum. That leaves volatile hydrogen, which as we know is easily kicked by solar winds.

The vaporization temperature of ice is dependent on temperature, as temperature falls the rate falls untilmthe rate is zero, as you deplete one gas from the atmosphere, the next gas will rain or snow out,mthe pressure drops,mthe temperature drops, ding you have monster glaciers.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating, show one example of life on a tidally locked planet, on a single star system show one example where a tidally locked planet has a credible atmosphere.

mercury, nope, lots of gas passes by mercury, none is captured in a credible atmoshere.

Tidal locked planets had more chances to develop life (in the whole planet or in certain places) than normal planets.
Again.. it all depends on the circumstances and parameters, for example just gravity helps to avoid gases to escape depending its strenght or its magnetic field.
I can make infinities of different examples of tidal lock planets with life.. But I dont wanna enter in a huge long discussion.. I just wanted to focus in one case.. one of your choice, so then we can be both discuss the effects in the same page.

You think that I am not understanding you, but I am, I just need more data to start analyze if your conclusions are correct or not.
After that, if you want.. I will let you choose planet size and distance to the sun and I will choose the other parameters to allow complex life in it.

PB666 · May 3, 2016

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

Venus is very similar to a tidal locked planet, because its sunlight day takes 120 earth days.
Below 30 km altitude, temperatures are exactly the same at any coordinates, even at 65km, where the pressure is very low, the temperature only changes a few degrees between day and night.

Venus may be an example where so much material built up on one side of the planet that it started to roll over, therefore ending the tidal locking. It is not like a tidally locked planet because it is not a tidally locked planet, period. However it got to that state, its not tidally locked now. The most current research regarding venus poles suggest it could have lower temperatures if it locked up. The atmosphere of Venus has a huge greenhouse effect, Irradiance on the sun facing side heats up the ground and drives high bioling point anionic volatiles out, during the night period these react, The high level of sulfate and C02 in the atmosphere are reflective of intense destabilization (thermodynamic potential) of the Venusian soil, on the night side any cooling results in recombination adding heat back. If you remove the source of ground heating, you would over long periods of time achieve ground chemical equilibrium, I estimate it would take years if not decades because the effects are so deep in the Venusian soils, the ground would begin to cool only slowly. The temperature over the Venusian poles for instance is 100'K colder than models predict. If we extended the poles to cover one half of the planet the depth of coldness would eventually increase. Once stable recombination of sulfate and metals in the venusian soil occurs, the vapor pressure of sulfate would drop, followed by CO2. It would take a very long time for one major reason, Venus has had 5 billion years of geological turbulation to pump high temperature volatiles out, it would take another 5 billion years to recombine them, these were made at a time when water was a catalyst, but hence water is no longer present.

Quote

Venus may have formed from the solar nebula with a different rotation period and obliquity, reaching its current state because of chaotic spin changes caused by planetary perturbations and tidal effects on its dense atmosphere, a change that would have occurred over the course of billions of years. The rotation period of Venus may represent an equilibrium state between tidal locking to the Sun's gravitation, which tends to slow rotation, and an atmospheric tide created by solar heating of the thick Venusian atmosphere. -wikipedia

If you accumulate solid mass of volatiles on one side of a planet to the point that the mass is attracted to the sun it will begin to rotate once that process begins it cannot be stopped only slowed. Venus may have accumulated mass at one point in its history, but rotation eventually cause this process to stop. You need to think things through, it took 1000s of years to build earths glaciers, if Venus termination has a surface period of even a year, it suffices to severly counter glaciation because during the 220 day cycle 110 days are spend under intense direct irradiation.

You give Venus, Mercury is almost completely tidally locked, where is its atmosphere, it about in the same position as the two tidally locked planets in the other thread, if they can have an atmosphere so should Mercury.

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

One might said that it is because the lower atmosphere layers are heating the above layers in the night, which is partially true, but the true is that most of the thermal flux happens from 60km to 100km range, because almost not sunlight reach the lower layers due its high albedo at cloud level.
And not sure why you said that I miss the point when in fact I was the first to come out with the super rotation, which depending the pressure and gases mix it will crash the high temperature gradient that you need in some of your examples.

Clouds have limits also. Take an earth size planet, place winds of 100 m/s (a very strong jet stream) on the surface now drive them along the equator at high altitude to the other side where they collapse, the travel time is 2.3 days, 1.3 days with no irradiance during that time that air loses kinetic energy, at convergence the velocity has dropped considerably, the gas has shrunk, The energy that kept water vaporized falls, the water rains out, then snows and cools the spot at the convergence. All you need is 1 spot as a nucleus, and formation begins.

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

30k dark side temperature? again.. this is not enough information to said nothing about its atmosphere if I dont know all the other details that I ask you.. for example this planet has h2o like an ocean (solid or liquid surface) that it is connected with its dark side?

K = kelvin, that is the equilibrium temperature for that body at that distance from the Sun, there is energy flow under the surface of a planet, albeit slow that prevent ultimately from kitting 0K, Zero degree Kelvin is difficult to reach because there is incoming radiation in space. For example if you measure the temperature for an airliner at 33,000 feet (10000 meters) it is typically around -65'F (-58'C) this are the points at which water is no longer stable. In the ITZ the temperature at this altitude is slightly higher, and clouds range much higher, in a polar vortex they can be considerably lower. At the venutian poles the temperature is about 100'K below expectation, I suspect the reason for that is that there is some recombination of sulfate and rock below because local irradiation is insufficient to maintain the instability of S02 in the presence of reactive metals.

You can see what happens every year plain as day and night when an ocean is exposed to the absence of sunlight for 6 months, Antarctica's ice area almost doubles by September 15th. If insolance never came to Antarctica, the sea ice would continue to grow and thicken, the life that feeds on the algae would die, eventually the ice would grow to the bottom of the seafloor, the glaciers would begin to slow, ice would begin to thicken to 3 kilometers thick the radius of equilibrium thickness would increase slowly and eventually lower sea levels. In the center of Antarctica you would see the cap reach a level where temperatures where below the sublimation temperature of CO2, CO2 would begin precipitating from the atmosphere, this would cause global cooling, the would be isostatic decline in sea-level and the ice thickness would grow. Antarctic would eventually cover everything from 68'latitutude south, while greenland Ice would melt it would be miniscule compared to sea level falls induced. If we turned Antarctica and locked the northpole to the sun, Antartica would then consume all the water, the sunfacing side would dry up, you would have pools of brine, then salt flats. Life would die, the sunfacing side would have a wholescale burning of hydrocarbons, oxygen would fall somewhat, the hydrocarbons on the 'southern hemisphere' would be perpetually locked in the earth as well as the trees and vegetation in the southern hemisphere, would fall over and form coal fields. C02 would undergo depletion in the coldest artactic regions. Because earth now no longer has a magnetic field (its no longer spinning and tides are no longer slowing the earth down), this causes nitrogen to be knocked out of the atmosphere and it thins. Before to long it thins to the degree that nitrogen starts liquifying at higher antartic layers, followed by oxygen. Then makes atmosphere loss due to radiation and solar winds accelerate. Eventually the earth becomes sterile. It is too far from the sun to become a mercury, so it would retain water and CO2. Earth might, with enough load, turn over slowly because of the mass, and become more like Venus.

Why do you feel the need to argue against what is obvious?

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

All those questions I am asking you are very important, because they change your assumptions in a very drastic way.

So far you are providing support of what I am saying, you brought up water, deprive water of sunlight for 6 months and the surface area of Antarctica markedly grows. The only thing you don't do is extrapolate this to its equilibrium point, what if the Earth was around a large star and had a year of 1500 days, how big would Antarctica grow. In fact given what you have said I doubt you understand what an equilibrium point is. Let me help you, If I take a piece of metal that is completely reflective on one side, well insulated in the middle and just a grey/black surface on the other, face the reflective side to the sun, how long does it take for the space facing side to cool in the vacuum of space, now replace the metal with a planet.

How long does one side of a planet take to equilibrate. So on earth over night if you live near an ocean it drops 10'C if you live in the mountains it drops 25'C. Thats in 12 hours, if you let the temperature drop say 50'C then certain vapors are no longer stable in the air. If you are setting on a hot world and you have an kilamanjero poking out on the back side of some tidally locked planet you can bet every dollar you have that there is going to be cascade of precipitation that is going to start nucleating precipitation given kilamanjero at the equator also had glaciers. you can assume it will be snow, and given time you have glaciers, and given glaciers tendency to lengthen when sunlight is not present you can expect the phenomena to continue until equilibrium or that that isotatic structure of the dark side is so massive that the planet begins to turn, at which case you prolly will have a Venus, either way the planet is dead. You best case scenario is that the star burns off some of the atmosphere, it doesn't turn and you have lakes of water under mountains of CO2 and methane that have volcanic. The other thing is that CO2 like cold ice water, its going to start building up in the snow and snow melts just like it does at the arctic, so green house gases will fall.

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

Tidal locked planets had more chances to develop life (in the whole planet or in certain places) than normal planets.

You have absolutely no evidence. The conversation is over.

AngelLestat · May 3, 2016

PB666, try to not spread in different discussions, because I will be not able to find time to answer.

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Venus may be an example where so much material built up on one side of the planet that it started to roll over, therefore ending the tidal locking. It is not like a tidally locked planet because it is not a tidally locked planet, period. However it got to that state, its not tidally locked now.

So you change the definition of tidal locked planets then. Ok.. so in your definition a tidal locked planets does not have atmosphere? Or the atmosphere is the one that should be tidal locked? even when is a fluid and that is impossible?

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

The most current research regarding venus poles suggest it could have lower temperatures if it locked up.

no.. that only happens at 130 to 160 km height, at that height the pressure is so low that is harder to call it an atmosphere, so the temperature of few particles up there means nothing to any conclusion you want to reach, the difference start at 130 with few degrees of difference and at 160km you have 70 degrees. But again.. if harder to define temperature and expect this will behave with the models when you have only few particles.

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

The atmosphere of Venus has a huge greenhouse effect, Irradiance on the sun facing side heats up the ground and drives high bioling point anionic volatiles out, during the night period these react,

No.. Those 17w/m2 is the amount that is absorbed by the ground, the top clouds absorb 146w/m2, the rest 490 is all reflected due sulphuric acid.
The real thermal flux that balance venus temperature is the layer at 60 to 100 km, you can see how the wind gradient start to rise by a lot after that point.
So not sure why you want to explain with your ground theories. That place is of course hot due the greenhouse effect, but this is not a source of energy that produce work (moving hot fluid from one place to the other).

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

If you accumulate solid mass of volatiles on one side of a planet to the point that the mass is attracted to the sun it will begin to rotate once that process begins it cannot be stopped only slowed. Venus may have accumulated mass at one point in its history, but rotation eventually cause this process to stop. You need to think things through, it took 1000s of years to build earths glaciers, if Venus termination has a surface period of even a year, it suffices to severly counter glaciation because during the 220 day cycle 110 days are spend under intense direct irradiation.

So your theory (and only apply to planets with almost vacuum) said that all planets should start rotation due this effect? so tidal locked planets should not exist?
Also the amount of material in on the planet surface is nothing compared to the whole planet mass, the planet shape or different minerals concentrations deep in the planet might have a stronger effect.
And if you have a lot of fluids elements, then you have an atmosphere, and that atmosphere will start rotation (in most of the cases).

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

You give Venus, Mercury is almost completely tidally locked, where is its atmosphere, it about in the same position as the two tidally locked planets in the other thread, if they can have an atmosphere so should Mercury.

I dont understand your question.. why mercury does not have an atmosphere? what other planets?

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Clouds have limits also. Take an earth size planet, place winds of 100 m/s (a very strong jet stream) on the surface now drive them along the equator at high altitude to the other side where they collapse, the travel time is 2.3 days, 1.3 days with no irradiance during that time that air loses kinetic energy, at convergence the velocity has dropped considerably, the gas has shrunk, The energy that kept water vaporized falls, the water rains out, then snows and cools the spot at the convergence. All you need is 1 spot as a nucleus, and formation begins.

These winds continue over the night side meanwhile the thermal gradient that produce the pressure gradient continues.. yeah these winds lose heat, so they sink, but lower winds are also losing heat, so they keep their thermal gradient, so you get something like this:

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

You can see what happens every year plain as day and night when an ocean is exposed to the absence of sunlight for 6 months, Antarctica's ice area almost doubles by September 15th. If insolance never came to Antarctica, the sea ice would continue to grow and thicken, the life that feeds on the algae would die, eventually the ice would grow to the bottom of the seafloor, the glaciers would begin to slow, ice would begin to thicken to 3 kilometers thick the radius of equilibrium thickness would increase slowly and eventually lower sea levels. In the center of Antarctica you would see the cap reach a level where temperatures where below the sublimation temperature of CO2, CO2 would begin precipitating from the atmosphere, this would cause global cooling, the would be isostatic decline in sea-level and the ice thickness would grow. Antarctic would eventually cover everything from 68'latitutude south, while greenland Ice would melt it would be miniscule compared to sea level falls induced. If we turned Antarctica and locked the northpole to the sun, Antartica would then consume all the water, the sunfacing side would dry up, you would have pools of brine, then salt flats. Life would die, the sunfacing side would have a wholescale burning of hydrocarbons, oxygen would fall somewhat, the hydrocarbons on the 'southern hemisphere' would be perpetually locked in the earth as well as the trees and vegetation in the southern hemisphere, would fall over and form coal fields. C02 would undergo depletion in the coldest artactic regions. Because earth now no longer has a magnetic field (its no longer spinning and tides are no longer slowing the earth down), this causes nitrogen to be knocked out of the atmosphere and it thins. Before to long it thins to the degree that nitrogen starts liquifying at higher antartic layers, followed by oxygen. Then makes atmosphere loss due to radiation and solar winds accelerate. Eventually the earth becomes sterile. It is too far from the sun to become a mercury, so it would retain water and CO2. Earth might, with enough load, turn over slowly because of the mass, and become more like Venus.

You are trying to explain a theory you have including very complex effect that happen in the earth, that are related to also thousands of other variables, which does not help in this discussion.
Try to resume and simplify concepts, the science is not above examine a complex system and try to explain it with the first theory.. no.. you need to break that problem in the root of the basic principles, and start to study those principles segregated from all the other variables.

So going back to your theory.. a vacuum planet that is tidal locked, receives heat in one of its sides, then water and other elements become gas and travel due pressure gradient to the other side of the planet, so they gather mass there.. so in your theory this is enough to start the rotation until all that mass in the dark side enters receive light due rotation, so then for some reason this increase the rotation momentum because the process is repeated until some gases are lose due solar wind (because the planet does not have magnetic field, or because is not big enough or because is very close to the sun...)
But that effect is so complex that we can not even guarantee that it will behave like that.
Because depending the conditions and elements may behave different, or maybe all these elements condence in the limit between light and dark, so the rotation does not start because is balance.. i dont know.

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Why do you feel the need to argue against what is obvious?

I made a question and after hundreds of words in your reply, you did not answer the simple question.

I ask you details on pressure, distance, gravity, magnetic field, oceans, etc.. and you still dont give me any, because for you all those things are not related.

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

So far you are providing support of what I am saying, you brought up water, deprive water of sunlight for 6 months and the surface area of Antarctica markedly grows.

If that happens in a tidal locked planet, wind and oceans may transport heat so efficient that it may counter the whole effect, depends on the case.. In the antartica case, is on the poles and the planet already has a rotation that produce coriolis effects, of course in winter you get more mass in one pole and then is reverse in summer. This proves your theory? noo.. or I will like to hear how this proves your theory.

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

The only thing you don't do is extrapolate this to its equilibrium point, what if the Earth was around a large star and had a year of 1500 days, how big would Antarctica grow. In fact given what you have said I doubt you understand what an equilibrium point is. Let me help you, If I take a piece of metal that is completely reflective on one side, well insulated in the middle and just a grey/black surface on the other, face the reflective side to the sun, how long does it take for the space facing side to cool in the vacuum of space, now replace the metal with a planet.

if it will be further from the sun you will have the snowball effect.. that already happen in the earth. but again.. what this has to do with your theory?
your second example is also obvious and is not related to what I am asking you..

24 minutes ago, PB666 said:

How long does one side of a planet take to equilibrate. So on earth over night if you live near an ocean it drops 10'C if you live in the mountains it drops 25'C. Thats in 12 hours, if you let the temperature drop say 50'C then certain vapors are no longer stable in the air. If you are setting on a hot world and you have an kilamanjero poking out on the back side of some tidally locked planet you can bet every dollar you have that there is going to be cascade of precipitation that is going to start nucleating precipitation given kilamanjero at the equator also had glaciers. you can assume it will be snow, and given time you have glaciers, and given glaciers tendency to lengthen when sunlight is not present you can expect the phenomena to continue until equilibrium or that that isotatic structure of the dark side is so massive that the planet begins to turn, at which case you prolly will have a Venus, either way the planet is dead. You best case scenario is that the star burns off some of the atmosphere, it doesn't turn and you have lakes of water under mountains of CO2 and methane that have volcanic. The other thing is that CO2 like cold ice water, its going to start building up in the snow and snow melts just like it does at the arctic, so green house gases will fall.

You have absolutely no evidence. The conversation is over.

You have a real problem with your attitude.. I enter here to talk to you, if you want to discuss this with nobody.. be my guess.
Oceans move a huge amount of heat, if you have something like laythe at mercury distance, you will have fast ocean currents like a super rotation (similar to the venus picture but with water) that it will keep the dark side at almost the same temperature. Only 5 meters of water absorb more heat that our atmosphere.
In fact a normal planet so close without a high albedo would be not able to sustain life if it rotates as the earth.

PB666 · May 3, 2016

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

PB666, try to not spread in different discussions, because I will be not able to find time to answer.

Tell me, who brought up Venus, a non-tidally locked planet? And is now trying to pass it off as tidally locked, claiming I changed the definition of tidal locking? In this point I agree, since Venus is not tidally locked by definition it should not be part of the debate at all, its immaterial. It is likely that since Venus rotates retrograde that its orbit was perturbed, since tidal affects can only slow the orbit down but cannot stop it, some alternative force had to be applied to reverse that process.

Quote

All the planets in the Solar System orbit the Sun in an anti-clockwise direction as viewed from above Earth's north pole. Most planets also rotate on their axes in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise in retrograde rotation once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation of any planet. Because its rotation is so slow, Venus is very close to spherical.^[94] A Venusian sidereal day thus lasts longer than a Venusian year (243 versus 224.7 Earth days). Venus's equator rotates at 6.5 km/h (4.0 mph), whereas Earth's is approximately 1,670 km/h (1,040 mph).^[95] Venus's rotation has slowed down by 6.5 min per Venusian sidereal day in the 16 years between the Magellan spacecraft and Venus Express visits.^[96] Because of the retrograde rotation, the length of a solar day on Venus is significantly shorter than the sidereal day, at 116.75 Earth days (making the Venusian solar day shorter than Mercury's 176 Earth days).^[97]One Venusian year is about 1.92 Venusian solar days.^[98] To an observer on the surface of Venus, the Sun would rise in the west and set in the east,^[98] although Venus's opaque clouds prevent observing the Sun from the planet's surface.^[99]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

Technically Mercury is not tidally locked it has a 3:2 rotation–orbit resonance has a longer period around 174 Earth days per Mercurian day as opposted to Venus's 116.7 days. its the closest to being tidally locked in our system.

Quote

Mercury is tidally or gravitationally locked with the Sun in a 3:2 resonance,^[14] and rotates in a way that is unique in the Solar System. As seen relative to the fixed stars, it rotates on its axis exactly three times for every two revolutions it makes around the Sun.^[15] As seen from the Sun, in a frame of reference that rotates with the orbital motion, it appears to rotate only once every two Mercurian years. An observer on Mercury would therefore see only one day every two years.

OK, you have supplied no evidence for your assertion that tidal locking increases chance of life. I will apply mine, two bodies tidally locked, slow orbits, both Sterile, lifeless worlds. We can include your Venus example. it and the moon are in the habitable zone and both are lifeless. Two of the bodies have lost all of their atmosphere, one has a runaway green house effect. It also has an unstable rotation and uncertain past rotation suggesting core anomolies. IR stars place the habitable zone closer to the Star, making tidal locking and said anomolies more common.

http://www.space.com/13950-habitable-alien-planets-tidal-lock-life.html

$t_{\text{lock}} \approx \frac{\omega a^6 I Q}{3 G m_p^2 k_2 R^5}$

Edited May 3, 2016 by PB666

peadar1987 · May 3, 2016

@PB666, where's your research on this? You're speaking in certanties, when all the peer reviewed stuff I can find on the internet is merely that the thermal gradient might pose some problems, but depending on the atmospheric composition and energy flux from the star, you could get anything from a runaway greenhouse effect to a snowball with a nitrogen atmosphere, to a Europa.

AngelLestat · May 4, 2016

not sure in what exactly certain conditions that might happen, that study only talks about erotion, no sure how tidal locking planets increase rains, and that depends on many other variables.
If you have seas in places where it rains.. erotion stop.
If you have life, this can also prevent erotion.

The evidence you requested:
https://astrobites.org/2014/11/07/habitability-still-a-go-on-tidally-locked-terrestrial-exoplanets/

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/629.full.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems#Tidal_effects

They find that atmospheres with 0.1 atm are enough to transfer heat to the dark side without a big difference in temperature, oceans are also great for this, because they can trap a lot more heat to counter their low speed.
Clouds can also prevent the heat to leave the dark side.
Tidal world planets will be the most common place to find life for many reasons..

1- we have more chance to discover close planets to small or big stars, these planets had a lot of chance to be tidal lock.
2-even if this planet has places where life is not possible, they had more chance to have a medium range where conditions are ok for life, if your planet rotates then is more possible to have similar temperature in all its places.. this can be the wrong temperature.

If you include other factors like magnetic field, planet albedo, co2, water, pressure, you can have many different cases where the gravity and distance to the star will not matter much.

Rakaydos · May 4, 2016

Wha wouldbe the effect of an otherwise tidally locked world in a slightly eliptical orbit? So each year, the temperatre goes up and down, and the sun outraces the planetary rotatio only to slow and let it catch up... letting the teminator move a few degrees based on season even though on average it stays put.

kerbiloid · May 4, 2016

I'm afraid, the process direction is reversed here.

On 02.05.2016 at 0:41 AM, PB666 said:

If temperature falls below the temperature of one of the gases, say water, you have the formation of Ice

But before any atmosphere can freeze, it first must appear.

Planets appear mostly from the space dust which is, say, a dirty snow.
All gases listed above (except H and He) are mostly frozen snowflakes → snowballs → snow hills → protoplanetary bodies.

If the body is being created far from the Sun, it stays more or less icy, as:

it's enough cold to keep them frozen,
less numerous bodies with large distances between them.

So, we get Kuiper planetinos, icy moons of gas giants, comets, other snowy stuff.

If the body appears close to the Sun, when it's hot, then the dust is hot and looses much of volatile chemicals (hydrocarbons and so on).
Here we receive a rocky planet rich with metal oxides but absolutely poor with H₂O, CO₂ and other volatile substances.
Also, all kept volatiles are bound inside chemicals compounds (hydrates, carbonates, etc) and release when they get molten under 1500 K temperatures and release as volcanic gases.

So, if the space body is far and cold, the ice stays icy, just permanently loosing into space the most volatile or "UV-splittable" compounds.
If the space body is hot, it had lost all volatile substances billions years ago.
It's atmosphere is more or less greenhouse, the Sun luminosity is constantly increasing, so why would it freeze?
And even if so (say, ice creation enforces albedo) — what can be frozen here except of H₂O, CO₂ and SO_x if there is nothing more except very cryogenic O₂/N₂, which anyway stay gaseous on such distances.

So, we can't get a frozen ice from a gas which is gone far ago — on Mercury or Venus.

Edited May 4, 2016 by kerbiloid

PB666 · May 4, 2016

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm afraid, the process direction is reversed here.

But before any atmosphere can freeze, it first must appear.

Planets appear mostly from the space dust which is, say, a dirty snow.
All gases listed above (except H and He) are mostly frozen snowflakes → snowballs → snow hills → protoplanetary bodies.

If the body is being created far from the Sun, it stays more or less icy, as:

it's enough cold to keep them frozen,

less numerous bodies with large distances between them.

So, we get Kuiper planetinos, icy moons of gas giants, comets, other snowy stuff.

If the body appears close to the Sun, when it's hot, then the dust is hot and looses much of volatile chemicals (hydrocarbons and so on).
Here we receive a rocky planet rich with metal oxides but absolutely poor with H₂O, CO₂ and other volatile substances.
Also, all kept volatiles are bound inside chemicals compounds (hydrates, carbonates, etc) and release when they get molten under 1500 K temperatures and release as volcanic gases.

So, if the space body is far and cold, the ice stays icy, just permanently loosing into space the most volatile or "UV-splittable" compounds.
If the space body is hot, it had lost all volatile substances billions years ago.
It's atmosphere is more or less greenhouse, the Sun luminosity is constantly increasing, so why would it freeze?
And even if so (say, ice creation enforces albedo) — what can be frozen here except of H₂O, CO₂ and SO_x if there is nothing more except very cryogenic O₂/N₂, which anyway stay gaseous on such distances.

So, we can't get a frozen ice from a gas which is gone far ago — on Mercury or Venus.

They speculate that once venus had stabilized it was struck by a large impactor and through the orbit in reverse. The critical problem I have with Venus is that sulfate doesn't get into the atmosphere easily,.

A true tidally locked planet is both hot and cold, universe is not black and white. If Venus is hot and if atmosphere was the reason for its slow rotation, it should have a greater magnetic field than earth.

So it current rotation is what you would call a black sheep. Mercury once had an atmosphere of sorts, but its proximity to the sun drove it off.

kerbiloid · May 4, 2016

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

They speculate that once venus had stabilized it was struck by a large impactor and through the orbit in reverse.

But what makes to think that this is Venus whose rotation is reverse, rather than Earth?

A planet appears from a swarm of snowballs orbiting the Sun on more or less same distance with more or less same speed.

So, when a protoplanet continues its way through its native swarm, with orbit radius R and orbital speed V,
there are snowballs more distant from the Sun,with orbits R+dR and V - dV
and there are snowballs closer to the Sun,with orbits R-dR and V + dV.

So, when the protoplanet gathers them:
It chases the first ones, hits them by its "forehead" (i.e. the planet prograde part distant from the Sun), and this adds an angular momentum in backwards direction.
The second ones chase the planet themselves and hit it into its "back" (i.e. the planet retrograde part close to the Sun), and this adds an angular momentum in... also backwards direction.

So, if nothing large hits the planet, it must rotate exactly like the Venus does: slowly, almost tidally locked, in backwards direction.

While the Earth and Mars as we probably know were either directly hit or tidally rotated (doesn't matter in this case) and we can be absolutely sure that their "normal" rotation is in fact a "post-traumatic" one.

Also, afaik, there is no real continents on Venus, but there are la-arge fields of so-called tesseras., appeared due to the crust compression, which tells us that it was never molten at once as a significant part of the Earth body was, so we can hardly presume that it was hit by something.

In fact, Venus looks like the most natural and untouched planet of the rocky ones. The vanilla planet as it is.

Edited May 4, 2016 by kerbiloid

PB666 · May 5, 2016

On 5/4/2016 at 8:36 PM, AngelLestat said:

not sure in what exactly certain conditions that might happen, that study only talks about erotion, no sure how tidal locking planets increase rains, and that depends on many other variables.
If you have seas in places where it rains.. erotion stop.
If you have life, this can also prevent erotion.

The evidence you requested:
https://astrobites.org/2014/11/07/habitability-still-a-go-on-tidally-locked-terrestrial-exoplanets/

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/629.full.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems#Tidal_effects

They find that atmospheres with 0.1 atm are enough to transfer heat to the dark side without a big difference in temperature, oceans are also great for this, because they can trap a lot more heat to counter their low speed.
Clouds can also prevent the heat to leave the dark side.
Tidal world planets will be the most common place to find life for many reasons..

1- we have more chance to discover close planets to small or big stars, these planets had a lot of chance to be tidal lock.
2-even if this planet has places where life is not possible, they had more chance to have a medium range where conditions are ok for life, if your planet rotates then is more possible to have similar temperature in all its places.. this can be the wrong temperature.

If you include other factors like magnetic field, planet albedo, co2, water, pressure, you can have many different cases where the gravity and distance to the star will not matter much.

Im not sure what point you are trying to make. Just as I am not sure the point you are trying to make with Venus.

0.01 ATM is insufficient to support life, the biosphere on earth only extends up to about 20,000 feet (6000 meters). about 0.5 ATM. More importantly at termination, a deep vent in the water

I would argue with the conclusions of the paper on several accounts

1. Lop sided planets that are tidally locked are unlikely to have enough non-inertial rotational energy to support a magnetic field.
2. The position close to a red star, with a greater tendency to flare.
3. Recent studies of red star flares indicate these are manifested in sun-like solar flares,

planets in tight rotation would likely have their atmospheres repeated 'burned' by flares resulting in more mercurian scenarios. Such planets should suffer from constant loss of atmosphere.

A couple of other points,

The situation with Venus, venus itself may have been more like a gas giant than it is today, it may have lost a considerable amount of its atmosphere due to solar flares, the lower elements, hydrogen, helium, neon, argon, nitrogen ions, oxygen ions may have been the first dispelled. Following this the higher inertia gases like S03 and C02 would have been left by a cosmic distillation process. It does not seem likely to me that Venus's atmosphere in its current state would suffice to slow its orbit down.

There is a metric that occurs, the mass loss per unit mass in bright stars is higher due to the increase relative mass of the hydrogen fusion zone, this is what eventually shortens the life of a star. Red stars produce less light per unit mass drawing in the habitable zone, placing the habitable zone close to the destructive tendencies of stars. This increases the likelihood of tidal locking, which makes Venus and Earth type planets unlikely. Flaring in brown dwarfs is not out of the question either, because strikes of extrastellar material can cause a brown dwarf to flare because of lithium decomposition and because brown dwarf internal structure is not uniform.

In answer to Pedar, the basic problem I have with the Venusian dynamic is the high presence of sulfate dehydrants relative to the other Venusian gases. There is for example a tremendous amount of water on earth, and sulfate is only 8 percent of that, if we assume the similar on Venus, then the original atmosphere of Venus was 10 times more massive than today. Sulfate would be one of the last gases to evaporate if Venus ever had water. The bigger problem still is that on earth there is alot of carbonate and sulfate in the earths crust that is in multibillion year flux, this would basically mean that Venus formation was very different from earth, or that its atmosphere was far thicker than on earth. You could argue that if Venus was loosing atmosphere then we should see it happening today, the problem is that it would loose the most volatile ions first followed by things like sulfer dioxide and carbon dioxide, so in essense the atmosphere may have equilibrated. The presence of sulfer dioxide in the atmosphere is troubling because it drives the volatiles away from the planets gravitational field.

Again, I state my basic prospectus on the matter of life, enthusium about life on other planets is NOT a predictor of how abundant or distributed life is, taking a conservative scientific model I approach the distribution of life by starting with the premise that life is most likely around earth sized planets with natural satellites that orbit sun-like stars. From that I think that boundary for life is

1. Inhibited by brighter stars, despite tidal locking in the habitable zone being less likely because hotter stars die more quickly, and stars greater than 2 solar mass die catastrophically. If there is a stellar formation dynamic in nebula and larger star formatoin is more likely, surrounding stars are more likely to be affected by stellar explosions.

2. inhibited by dimmer stars
a. because power wavelengths are diminished, on earth plants have choices between which sprectra to use for chlorophyll
b. because of higher flare potential to the goldilocks zone.
c. because the potential for tidal locking increases.

As you can see I am not very optimistic about finding habitable planets close to earth.

On 5/4/2016 at 11:56 AM, kerbiloid said:

But what makes to think that this is Venus whose rotation is reverse, rather than Earth?

A planet appears from a swarm of snowballs orbiting the Sun on more or less same distance with more or less same speed.

So, when a protoplanet continues its way through its native swarm, with orbit radius R and orbital speed V,
there are snowballs more distant from the Sun,with orbits R+dR and V - dV
and there are snowballs closer to the Sun,with orbits R-dR and V + dV.

So, when the protoplanet gathers them:
It chases the first ones, hits them by its "forehead" (i.e. the planet prograde part distant from the Sun), and this adds an angular momentum in backwards direction.
The second ones chase the planet themselves and hit it into its "back" (i.e. the planet retrograde part close to the Sun), and this adds an angular momentum in... also backwards direction.

So, if nothing large hits the planet, it must rotate exactly like the Venus does: slowly, almost tidally locked, in backwards direction.

While the Earth and Mars as we probably know were either directly hit or tidally rotated (doesn't matter in this case) and we can be absolutely sure that their "normal" rotation is in fact a "post-traumatic" one.

Also, afaik, there is no real continents on Venus, but there are la-arge fields of so-called tesseras., appeared due to the crust compression, which tells us that it was never molten at once as a significant part of the Earth body was, so we can hardly presume that it was hit by something.

In fact, Venus looks like the most natural and untouched planet of the rocky ones. The vanilla planet as it is.

Venus's crust would be an amourphous solid, it it was struck by an asteroid the shockwave produce would flatten things still much like liquifaction during an earth quake. The crust is not solid like earth and is not like a magma stream either, but over geological time frames one can expect the surface is in slow motion.

Its current motion could be a reflex from locking also, again, I am not selling an impact model, Venus I think qualifies as a 'we don't know' problem.

AngelLestat · May 6, 2016

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

Im not sure what point you are trying to make. Just as I am not sure the point you are trying to make with Venus.

I didn't mention venus in my last reply.. so not sure what are you talking about.

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

0.01 ATM is insufficient to support life, the biosphere on earth only extends up to about 20,000 feet (6000 meters). about 0.5 ATM. More importantly at termination, a deep vent in the water

I said 0.1 atm.. which is different than 0.01 atm, time to use glasses

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

I would argue with the conclusions of the paper on several accounts

1. Lop sided planets that are tidally locked are unlikely to have enough non-inertial rotational energy to support a magnetic field.
2. The position close to a red star, with a greater tendency to flare.
3. Recent studies of red star flares indicate these are manifested in sun-like solar flares,

1-you dont really need planet rotation to produce a magnetic field, it helps due coriolis effect (but this is secundary).
Magnetic fields are mostly created due heat convection, heat due radiative decay (mostly from the internal core where most heavy elements are) is transferred to the melted conductive layer (which it moves super slowly), this conductive layer gets cooled due higher layers which eventually release that heat in the planet surface.
This produce a magnetic field which induce and helps to maintain this dynamo effect.
In addition a tidal locking planet rotates at the same period of its orbit, and if we are talking about a red or brown dwarf then that rotation is fast, more talking into account that you can be closer than normal planets and still have a good template zone in the planet.
If your planet is not totally tidal lock (this mean that it has a wobble), then you get tidal heating which can increase the magnetic field.

2- only when the red star is in its infancy, after some billions its flare tendency is highly reduced.

3- This is not the same than your reason 2? even if it flares, there are many reasons why life could go on:
1) Life can evolve to survive that
2) you have always half of the planet shielded (or life under water)
3) you can have a strong magnetic field or you can have a thick atmosphere.
Last.. no sure why you mention so much red dwarf.. a tidal locking planet can also be in a normal star like the sun.

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

planets in tight rotation would likely have their atmospheres repeated 'burned' by flares resulting in more mercurian scenarios. Such planets should suffer from constant loss of atmosphere.

This depend on many parameters.. its gravity, its magnetic field, the amount of atmosphere (maybe is a good thing for some planets), or the case that the planet orbit moved or was captured later on.
Another factor.. the closer a planet is from its star, less frequent and stronger are their flares. (because is harder to hit it)

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

A couple of other points,

The situation with Venus, venus itself may have been more like a gas giant than it is today, it may have lost a considerable amount of its atmosphere due to solar flares, the lower elements, hydrogen, helium, neon, argon, nitrogen ions, oxygen ions may have been the first dispelled. Following this the higher inertia gases like S03 and C02 would have been left by a cosmic distillation process. It does not seem likely to me that Venus's atmosphere in its current state would suffice to slow its orbit down.

not sure if normal solar wind has a major effect than solar flares, but well if venus would have a magnetic field this could be a different story.. about how venus lose it, all points to its lack of convective heat flow, that it seems is caused due its greenhouse and mostly its apparent lack of tectonic plates (which account for the 60% of heat lost in earth).

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

There is a metric that occurs, the mass loss per unit mass in bright stars is higher due to the increase relative mass of the hydrogen fusion zone, this is what eventually shortens the life of a star. Red stars produce less light per unit mass drawing in the habitable zone, placing the habitable zone close to the destructive tendencies of stars. This increases the likelihood of tidal locking, which makes Venus and Earth type planets unlikely. Flaring in brown dwarfs is not out of the question either, because strikes of extrastellar material can cause a brown dwarf to flare because of lithium decomposition and because brown dwarf internal structure is not uniform.

drawing the "habitable zone".. and the size of that habitable zone was defined by the most closed-minded scientists, who think that earth atmosphere is the only kind of atmosphere in the universe.
The atmosphere together with other parameters is the most important feature to decide the environment condition and temperature that the planet has.
You can have a planet at jupiter distance and still support life as we know it.

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

In answer to Pedar, the basic problem I have with the Venusian dynamic is the high presence of sulfate dehydrants relative to the other Venusian gases. There is for example a tremendous amount of water on earth, and sulfate is only 8 percent of that, if we assume the similar on Venus, then the original atmosphere of Venus was 10 times more massive than today. Sulfate would be one of the last gases to evaporate if Venus ever had water. The bigger problem still is that on earth there is alot of carbonate and sulfate in the earths crust that is in multibillion year flux, this would basically mean that Venus formation was very different from earth, or that its atmosphere was far thicker than on earth. You could argue that if Venus was loosing atmosphere then we should see it happening today, the problem is that it would loose the most volatile ions first followed by things like sulfer dioxide and carbon dioxide, so in essense the atmosphere may have equilibrated. The presence of sulfer dioxide in the atmosphere is troubling because it drives the volatiles away from the planets gravitational field.

my chemistry level is super basic.
But venus is losing atmosphere all the time, but it is in certain equilibrium because comets, volcanism and space dust restore the water levels.

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

Again, I state my basic prospectus on the matter of life, enthusium about life on other planets is NOT a predictor of how abundant or distributed life is, taking a conservative scientific model I approach the distribution of life by starting with the premise that life is most likely around earth sized planets with natural satellites that orbit sun-like stars. From that I think that boundary for life is

1. Inhibited by brighter stars, despite tidal locking in the habitable zone being less likely because hotter stars die more quickly, and stars greater than 2 solar mass die catastrophically. If there is a stellar formation dynamic in nebula and larger star formatoin is more likely, surrounding stars are more likely to be affected by stellar explosions.

2. inhibited by dimmer stars
a. because power wavelengths are diminished, on earth plants have choices between which sprectra to use for chlorophyll
b. because of higher flare potential to the goldilocks zone.
c. because the potential for tidal locking increases.

As you can see I am not very optimistic about finding habitable planets close to earth.

You know.. you are taking the anthropological approach.. like earth center of the universe, in which everything on earth is a perfect combination of causes that if one fails, then life would not be possible.
This perspective is always searching the pretext to prove that something cant work, this blind the researcher who usually ignore all the other possibilities with new parameters in which all those issues are solved in a different way.
I remember your first comments in the forum, they were less accurate in many ways.. now I read you in most of the cosmology or high end physics topics and I can not follow you of how much you improve.
So now you understand most of the basic physics rules.. why instead search the conditions in which something will fail.. you don't try to imagine the special conditions in which something could work, for this you need to embrace your creativity and push your abilities without limiting your self.

Start now.. tell me what parameters and conditions you will give to a tidal locking celestial body in a red dwarf system which periapsis is enough to heat the earth surface at 100c, it should sustain life as we know it.
That question gives you enough room to play with many possibilities.

PD: By the way.. from the whole quote you did from my comment, your answer was cero related XD
I guess you was answering an old comment mine but you quote the new one.

PB666 · May 6, 2016

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

I didn't mention venus in my last reply.. so not sure what are you talking about.

I said 0.1 atm.. which is different than 0.01 atm, time to use glasses

\

In either case the pressure is off by a factor of 5 to sustain life.

I may not need it, but earths magnetic field is believed to be created by the tidal locking of the moon with earths tides, causing the solid iron core to rotate relative to the earths outer mantle and creating outer core heating and melting.

Quote

Tidal forces between celestial orbiting bodies cause friction that heats up their interiors. This is known as tidal heating, and it helps keep the interior liquid. A liquid interior that can conduct electricity is required to produce a dynamo. Saturn's Enceladus and Jupiter's Io have enough tidal heating to liquify their inner cores, but they may not create a dynamo because they cannot conduct electricity. ^[10]^[11] Mercury, despite its small size, has a magnetic field, because it has a conductive liquid core created by its iron composition and friction resulting from its highly elliptical orbit.^[12] It is theorized that the Moon once had a magnetic field, based on evidence from magnetized lunar rocks, due to its short-lived closer distance to Earth creating tidal heating. ^[13] An orbit and rotation of a planet helps provide a liquid core, and supplements kinetic energy that supports a dynamo action.

.

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

If your planet is not totally tidal lock (this mean that it has a wobble), then you get tidal heating which can increase the magnetic field.

Nope, not enough, the only situation where you might see this is with a highly eccentric orbit whereby the tidally locked downfacing vector wobbles. But then highly eccentric orbits are not conducive to life.

On your comment about only young red stars flaring, Red stars live to be very old, most of the red stars flare, IOW, this sounds like B.S.

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

3- This is not the same than your reason 2? even if it flares, there are many reasons why life could go on:

But not without an atmosphere and not if it starts with 0.1 ATM, you have mars.

I was responding to your post and pedars, don't be so vain.

Couple of points, its not me that needs to provide proof, its you, there is no evidence of life on other planets or moons, this is not to say it exists, but the burden of proof likes on the individual making the fantastic claims.

You have stated that Locked planets around red stars and dwarfs are more likely to support life than earth-like planets around sun-like stars. That is a fantastic claim and your support is completely inadequate. You have claimed that life can exist at 0.1 ATM on these, but you have no evidence that life can exist, survive and reproduce. That is a fantastic claim and your support is completely inadequate. The claim has been made that there are 3 potentially habitable planets outside the habitable zone of a red star, again this is a fantastic claim that the authors have made with no support, ITS HYPE and should be summarily disregarded by other scientist.

When someone shows me evidence that life exists on other worlds (oxygen signature in the atmosphere, lots of water) im inclined to believe them, pretty much whatever you say, based on all past threads, nope, you are incredulous.

AngelLestat · May 6, 2016

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

In either case the pressure is off by a factor of 5 to sustain life.
But not without an atmosphere and not if it starts with 0.1 ATM, you have mars.

Ok.. is time you start to recognize your errors because all the things that I correct you, were ignored, so this mean you are not learning from your mistakes.
0.1 atm = 10% earth atmosphere, mars atmosphere = 0.6% earth atmosphere. So this pressure is 17 times higher than mars.
The boiling point of water at 35 degrees is half of that.

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

I may not need it, but earths magnetic field is believed to be created by the tidal locking of the moon with earths tides, causing the solid iron core to rotate relative to the earths outer mantle and creating outer core heating and melting.
*Tidal heating quote*

Why you are posting something that I said? I was the one who said that a wobbling will generate heat and a possible magnetic field due tidal heating... But as I said before, in the earth case is radioactive decay the main source of heating.

Much of the heat is created by decay of naturally radioactive elements. An estimated 45 to 90 percent of the heat escaping from the Earth originates from radioactive decay of elements mainly located in the mantle.^[4]^[8]^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

Nope, not enough, the only situation where you might see this is with a highly eccentric orbit whereby the tidally locked downfacing vector wobbles. But then highly eccentric orbits are not conducive to life.

?? you dont need highly eccentric orbits.. the orbit period may have few days, also you can have a perfect eccentric orbit with tidal lock like Io and still generates a lot of tidal heating due the other jupiter moons.
So a natural sattelite, other planets, etc.. everything can provide tidal heating. As I said before.. try to spent more time finding circumstances where it works instead pointing the only special case where that could not work.

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

On your comment about only young red stars flaring, Red stars live to be very old, most of the red stars flare, IOW, this sounds like B.S.

Ok.. this is BS? I expect an apology then:
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems

"the violent flaring period of a red dwarf's lifecyle is estimated to only last roughly the first 1.2 billion years of its existence."
Earth has 4.5 billions years.

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

Couple of points, its not me that needs to provide proof, its you, there is no evidence of life on other planets or moons, this is not to say it exists, but the burden of proof likes on the individual making the fantastic claims.

lol.. excuse me.. you was trying to convince us that tidal lock planet could start to rotate again due your volatile theory, you also want to prove that there is no chance of life in other type of planets that are slightly different than earth.
Meanwhile I saying that it may be different conditions were life as we know it could develop. What claim is more crazy? more taking into account that I prove with reason and logic all the points that I made, but I correct many points you made.

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

The claim has been made that there are 3 potentially habitable planets outside the habitable zone of a red star, again this is a fantastic claim that the authors have made with no support, ITS HYPE and should be summarily disregarded by other scientist.

haha.. the only hype here is your posture.
The earth would have 30 degrees less if did not have a greenhouse effect, if you add the venus albedo due sulfate aerosols or stratus clouds at high altitude the earth would receive 40% less sunlight, so you need to reduce that temperature way more.. so the habitable zone means nothing.

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

When someone shows me evidence that life exists on other worlds (oxygen signature in the atmosphere, lots of water) im inclined to believe them, pretty much whatever you say, based on all past threads, nope, you are incredulous.

Haha.. Now the only way you have to reject my arguments is asking me for direct evidence which you know our technology can not provide yet.

Bravo well done!

PB666 · May 6, 2016

55 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Ok.. is time you start to recognize your errors because all the things that I correct you, were ignored, so this mean you are not learning from your mistakes.
0.1 atm = 10% earth atmosphere, mars atmosphere = 0.6% earth atmosphere. So this pressure is 17 times higher than mars.
The boiling point of water at 35 degrees is half of that.

Childish. Life didn't evolve on Mars under the current atmosphere, the sun blasted aways the martian atmosphere, and therefore mars is relatively unsuitable for life now, there are probably some forms left in a deep hot pit someplace, thats about it. If you has read the actual link they make the point about mars.

Quote

Why you are posting something that I said? I was the one who said that a wobbling will generate heat and a possible magnetic field due tidal heating... But as I said before, in the earth case is radioactive decay the main source of heating.

Much of the heat is created by decay of naturally radioactive elements. An estimated 45 to 90 percent of the heat escaping from the Earth originates from radioactive decay of elements mainly located in the mantle.^[4]^[8]^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient

The earths core is actually slowly spinning, as the moons orbit moves further from earth, the iron core moves more slowly, this creates a bit of a dynamo itself, but more importantly the friction that the process creates keeps the outer core from solidifying. I know its difficult for you to understand, but if you make an effort you might.

Quote

?? you dont need highly eccentric orbits.. the orbit period may have few days, also you can have a perfect eccentric orbit with tidal lock like Io and still generates a lot of tidal heating due the other jupiter moons.

Planets are not moons. aside from that you are conditioning one argument with another. In a world full of unicorns you might find one that flies.

Quote

So a natural sattelite, other planets, etc.. everything can provide tidal heating. As I said before.. try to spent more time finding circumstances where it works instead pointing the only special case where that could not work.

The moons relative tidal heating is based on a relative mass 1/80th the mass of the earth at 300,000,000 meters. For a red dwarf the next planet would be 1000 times further away, to have the same affect that planet would have to be massive, In which case the tidal heating effects would be the least of your worries. Anyway its a moot point, you misrepresented the authors and they agree with me, retaining a spinning core is highly unlikely, see mars evidence, it has two moons, on moves very close to its surface.

Quote

Ok.. this is BS? I expect an apology then:
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems

"the violent flaring period of a red dwarf's lifecyle is estimated to only last roughly the first 1.2 billion years of its existence."
Earth has 4.5 billions years.

The actual link is here, is not peer-reviewed. Cain, Fraser; Gay, Pamela (2007). "AstronomyCast episode 40: American Astronomical Society Meeting, May 2007". Universe Today. Retrieved 2007-06-17.[A DEADLINK that AL did not read] The actual link I found and presented.

Violent flaring is a problem, but red dwarfs can dim to 40% of there luminosity for months at a time. Something your site did not mention. Even if you get rid of the most violent you still have to deal with catasrophic drops in insolance. Second, with the number of flaring red dwarfs detected I challenge the accuracy of that number.

Earth has 4.5 billion years, but it has and more diverse chemoactive spectrum. This contributes to diversity that drives evolution.

Quote

However, the violent flaring period of a red dwarf's lifecyle is estimated to only last roughly the first 1.2 billion years of its existence. If a planet forms far away from a red dwarf so as to avoid tidelock, and then migrates into the star's habitable zone after this turbulent initial period, it is possible that life may have a chance to develop.[35] wikipedia-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems#Variability

This is actually what the source wikipedia to your link said, the odds of this actually happening, nearly zero. Maybe late in a red stars life, 10s of billions of years after the star formed, this might happen.

You haven't provided any evidence. Scientist are looking so many of the stars detected that have planets are red dwarfs and we can see the absorption of atmospheres, so by now oxygen should have been detected. At least we know at least one yellow star has a planet with significant amounts of oxygen, and these stars are much less common than red dwarves.

So if you had done your work instead of popping off . . you were grossly misrepresenting what the original meeting attendants said.

Quote

[The content of the link has been cut to comply with fair use copyright rules, these rules do not apply to wikipedia because its open so different standard. only that materially pertinent to what AL said has been retained, Im just abiding by the copyright laws, if you want to read the whole thing then link here . http://www.astronomycast.com/2007/06/episode-40-american-astronomical-society-meeting-may-2007/]

Dr. Ed Guinan: We found the relationships between coronal x ray machine. With age the young ones are very active â€“ they have flares and lots of x rays. By the time they get to the age of Proxima Centauri, which is 6 billion years old, they’ve died down by a factor of 2 or 3 hundred, and then beyond that even more. This is mainly because the stars are spinning down; they’re losing their angular momentum.

Pamela: . . . .to have a habitable world around an M-type star, you have to place the planet right next to the star. When you do that, you end up with tidal locking. Just like we have the Moon always shows its same face at the planet Earth, these planets always show the same face to their star. To get a magnetic field, you have to be rotating quickly. To be rotating quickly, you can’t be tidally locked to your star, so there’s this weird conundrum of how do you make something that survives this violent 1.2ish billion years of the star’s early life so you can have a civilization . . . . . . .

Pamela: . . . . These bouts of radiation also blow away chunks of the atmosphere. We’re able to hold onto our atmosphere because our magnetosphere protects us from having all of these high energy particles raining down on the upper parts of our atmosphere. . . . .

Pamela: Mars is representative: poor Mars has no magnetosphere, it’s core already cooled off and its magnetic field already faded out as the core froze. So it’s losing its atmosphere not just because its small and can’t hold onto the fastest moving gas particles, but also because the solar wind is blowing away parts of its atmosphere.

Pamela: The results were sort of like, “oh dear, we need to find a different way to get these planets into the habitable zone other than they form there initially.”

One of the possible solutions is: if you have a planet that forms far away from the M star, and stays there for the initial few billion years, or creeps in very slowly and enters the habitable zone after the M star has stopped having these huge flares . . . . .it’s just a matter of figuring out how to get everything where it needs to be in the proper timescales.

Note: do not copy or otherwise distribute without providing the link to the original material. http://www.astronomycast.com/2007/06/episode-40-american-astronomical-society-meeting-may-2007/ Hosted by: Fraser Cain & Pamela Gay Episode 40: American Astronomical Society Meeting, May 2007

Doesn't sound to me like the experts whom you are very indirectly quoting agree with you, sounds like they are in diametric opposition of what you are saying, that the conditions for get a planet through the hostile phase is quite difficult, if not impossible? In that one link that I validated for you they refuted just about everything you have said. You should be the one apologizing for so badly misrepresenting these speakers.

Hypothesis that draw on fantastic claims need all the more evidence to be treated as credible.

AngelLestat · May 7, 2016

Are you ok? seriously I am asking.. because most of your answers are absolutely not related to the quotes. Is scary.. something is wrong there.

Your other answers just avoid, ignore, forget and lack of any trace of logic or reason (totally needed to have smart and profitable discussion), which at this point, the remaining esteem that I had of you was evaporated.

well, let's conclude this discussion and possible future discussions because I don't see the point if these ends being incoherent.

PB666 · May 7, 2016

You lost the argument, your ego has been hurt but you can stop with the diversions now.

15 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Are you ok? seriously I am asking.. because most of your answers are absolutely not related to the quotes. Is scary.. something is wrong there.

Your other answers just avoid, ignore, forget and lack of any trace of logic or reason (totally needed to have smart and profitable discussion), which at this point, the remaining esteem that I had of you was evaporated.

well, let's conclude this discussion and possible future discussions because I don't see the point if these ends being incoherent.

Nope, I found that your reference was drawn from wikipedia, but you purposefully did not provide the reference and wikipedia reference was an unmarked deadlink, both articles references are, in fact, deadlinks. I then tracked down the source of the deadlink (otherwise known as a low performance duck-duck go web search), which absolutely refuted what you said; and so to conclude, and I understand your reply, its emotive. Next time when you enter these conversations with others I will simply reference them back to my previous post, in this way maybe you will do better research and stop carelessly using hype.

In the past we have entered these conversations, they typically evolve the same way, you are refuted and get your feelings hurt, I understand, the way to prevent this is to do better research.

Tidal locking of planets and atmospheric gradients

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation