The Energy source for the Great Red Spot of Jupiter

The most powerful storm structures on Earth are Hurricanes. Typically, 30 of these great swirling distributors of energy form across the oceans every year. The Great Red Spot of Jupiter is a storm large enough to swallow the entire Earth and it has been raging almost continuously for well over 300 years. Where does the energy come from to drive not only the Great Red Spot of Jupiter but also the storms that rage across Jupiter’s entire planet?

If the expansion of space includes matter itself, as proposed by the Uniform expansion of space theory, (www.uniformexpanson.com) then Jupiter actually began life as a red dwarf star. The residual heat and nuclear products found with in the core of the planet is what is proposed to be the source of energy for Jupiter’s atmosphere.

The Great Red Spot of Jupiter was first discovered by Gian Domenico Cassini in 1664 (L'Astronomie (ISSN 0004-6302), vol. 99, Sept. 1985, p. 375-385. In French) It was the first observation of any feature on any planet, other than our own. It is the most prominent feature of Jupiter’s turbulent atmosphere.

A large hurricane storm on the Earth can be as much as 300 miles or 500 km across. The Great Red Spot of Jupiter is 8,000 miles or 13,000 km across; and that is at its narrowest, parallel to the equator it is two to three times larger. The upper and lower boundary of the storm moves at 100 km/hour (60 miles/hour) and the left and right boundaries moves at 430 kilometers per hour (270 miles and hour).

Picture - ( http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960827.html )
More pictures -. http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/images/jupiter/grs.html .
And more pictures ( http://www.the-planet-jupiter.com/ju...-pictures.html ).
(Also ( http://www.space.com/ ) has links to most topics)

Hurricanes are in a way opposite to the Great Red Spot of Jupiter. Hurricanes are associated with relatively low atmospheric pressures, while the Great Red Spot of Jupiter has a relative high atmospheric pressure. The reason for the opposite nature of anti-hurricanes and hurricanes is because of the proportional size and distribution of the source of energy relative to the size of the atmosphere that is absorbing the energy. The energy source for hurricanes is distributed over a vast area. The energy source for Anticyclones (or (anti hurricanes) is from a comparatively small location.

I remember my first exposure to an anticyclone. I was burning a big pile of leaves, back when it was still considered ok to do so. As the hot gasses from the burning leaves rose, a vortex structure formed. While overall there is an increase in atmospheric pressure above the flames, the swirling gas causes a pressure drop with in the core of the rapidly spinning vortex. Burning leaves were sucked up and mixed with hot air creating a miniature tornado of fire. The flames rose from a 3-foot height, to a 20-foot height in a matter of moments. Luckily winds were calm and the ground was moist from past rains so the neighborhood did not burn down.

Since the Great Red Spot of Jupiter is an anti cyclone, the source of the heat must be comparatively small. Although for a planet the size of Jupiter, a small source may be the size of Earth. This also requires the source to be centrally located within the core of the planet since it is the only way to have a stable localized structure within a rapidly rotating, mostly gaseous or liquid, planet. Why is the core of the planet so hot?

There are several different models that have been presented in the past to explain the energy source for the observed atmospheric disturbances. Some of the possible sources of this energy include:

1. Gravitational collapse. As a planet forms, the material falling to the planet transfers kinetic energy to the core thereby creating a hot core.
2. Trapped thermal energy. Matter in the early universe was very hot, and as gas collected around the hot core, the thick atmosphere would slow the rate of energy loss.
3. Continued Gravitational collapse. If the atmosphere is still collapsing then a continued source of energy is possible.
4. Nuclear reactions in the core
5. Gravity waves ( This is best left to be explained by referring to the source “Gravity Wave Heating and Cooling in Jupiter’s Thermosphere”, by Hickey, M , Walterscheid, R and Schubert, G.))
6. Phase transitions. As a gas condenses, heat is liberated. Various liquids may form under specific conditions.
7. Chemical reactions.
8. Tidal influences with moons.


I am sure that there are more models explaining the energy that drives the turbulent atmosphere of Jupiter, this list was quickly scanned out of the Nasa funded site http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html Based simply on the number of possible explanations, it is obvious that the field is ripe for speculation, which is an opportunity to apply the proposed uniform expansion theory.

One of my criticisms I have of the present explanations listed above is that they tend to assume that the energy output from Jupiter is fairly flat or even intermittent. If the energy of Jupiter’s atmosphere conformed to a non-linear relationship that was dramatically greater in the past, then all the proposed explanations above fall short. This is a more reasonable assumption since the rate of energy transfer is dependant upon the temperature differential. How did the center of Jupiter get so hot?

If the atmosphere of Jupiter was even more turbulent in the past, then the source of energy must be intense, more than what could occur from just gravitational collapse. The uniform expansion theory proposes that what drives the great red spot is a reservoir of heat that was formed early in the development of the planet when it almost became a star.

Asserting that Jupiter could have almost been a star is an outrageous proposal; Jupiter has nowhere near enough mass to even come close to becoming a star. The smallest possible star is a red dwarf star, which is believed to have a mass equivalent to 1/4 to 1/10 th the volume of our sun. Jupiter would need to be over 100 times more massive than it is now to have 1/10 th the mass of our sun.

(Based on a chart from Stars Their Birth, Life and Death by Iosif S. Shklovskii it is possible to show the energy output based on today's effect of gravity (or if you wish, today's current gravitational constant) for various sized stars. This HR diagram shows that stars with a solar mass of about 0.25, form red dwarfs. Some estimates place red dwarfs with as little mass as .1 solar masses.)

The effect of gravity is a function of time according to the proposed theory. Would this effect cause Jupiter to have enough mass to become a red dwarf star?


If Jupiter formed when the Universe was 1 billion years old, 5.5 billion years ago in a 6.5 billion year old universe, we have the following proposed increased gravitational effect. (I know that 6.5 is no where near what is accepted as the age of the universe, but in the proposed model the expansion was faster in the past, which decreases the age of the universe from the presently accepted linear relationship).

Increase in the gravitational constant.
"G1/G2" = 1/(T1/T2) ^(4/3)
"G1/G2" = 1/((1.)/6.5) ^(4/3) = 12.1 times


This is not enough of an increase for Jupiter to become a red dwarf star, we are short by a factor of 10.
There are a few ways to address this shortfall. They are to:
1. Assume the date of formation is earlier
2. Assume that the uniform expansion also has an effect on mass itself.
3. Assume that the initial collapse occurred more quickly due to the increased gravitational effects, which resulted in a significant increase in heat of formation.



1. Earlier date of formation

If the date of formation was earlier, significant increases in the effect of gravity result. The following increases are realized when considering a planet date of formation of 500,000 million and 1 million years from the beginning of time.
"G1/G2" = 1/(T1/T2) ^(4/3)
"G1/G2" = 1/((.5)/6.5) ^(4/3) = 30.6 times
"G1/G2" = 1/((.1/6.5) ^(4/3) = 261 times

If Jupiter formed earlier, there is no problem for the present mass of Jupiter to be enough to become a red dwarf star.

This early formation may be unreasonable, particularly since the evidence based upon nuclear dating tends to indicate a formation of something a little less than 1 billion years, not 1 million years. Also the intense heat found within a universe 1 million years old would tend to inhibit the clumping of matter.

2. Increased effect of mass

Another factor to consider is the increased effect of mass predicted by the uniform expansion of space. Since it is proposed that part of the expansion includes motion in an unobserved dimension, which causes the effect associated with mass, then objects in the past were actually more massive. Since the relationships are proposed to define a unifying structure, then mass itself is altered by the same relationship observed with the gravitational constant.

"G1/G2" = 1/(T1/T2) ^(4/3)
"G1/G2" = 1/((1.)/6.5) ^(4/3) = 12.1 times
The effect of mass is increased 12 times and the effect of gravity is also increased 12 times. In terms of today’s relationships, it is as if Jupiter were 140 times more massive in the past than today. This now meets today’s standard for initiating nuclear fusion. Jupiter could have been a red dwarf star.

3. Increased heat of formation.

Since the effect of gravity, (and mass) is proposed to be greater in the past, the resultant heat that is formed as matter falls into the planet is intense. This also dramatically increases the core temperature of proto-planets, which decreases the need for extra mass to initiate nuclear fusion.

While this is not a detailed analysis, the relationships do substantiate the possibility that Jupiter begin life not as a cold planet, but as a star.

The next posting will be a model that explains the energy output from quasars without resorting to black holes.

If there is some flaw or concern the proposed theory causes you, please let me know. Eventually I hope I will be able to convince a few people that it is more reasonable to assume that the expansion of space is a uniform property of the universe that does not stop at the boundary of galaxies, but includes matter itself.

Thankfully yours
snowflake

Red dwarfs have lifespans up to trillions of years according to currently modeling. Fusion in red dwarfs is much more efficient than in larger O-class stars which have main sequence (hydrogen burning phase) lifespans on the order of a few million years.

If Jupiter began its life as a red dwarf (M-class star) it would still be burning as a red dwarf.

But you're saying that it began its life as a red dwarf. Since its much smaller than red dwarfs today, where do you propose the missing mass has gone?


Ok, but does your model account for the measured ages of the oldest stars? (Typically 12-13 billion years). Also, the solar system is dated at 4.57 billion years - which is younger than your proposed age for Jupiter. Are you saying that Jupiter is older than the solar system, or that the age of the solar system is wrong.

I agree with dgruss23. If Jupiter had enough mass to form a red dwarf, it would still be a red dwarf. To rephrase what he said, since they are so tiny compared to normal stars, they fuse hydrogen at a much slower rate. Red dwarf stars have a very, very long lifespan. Also, I'll have to check my book, but even a tiny red dwarf is upwards of 80 Jupiter masses.

Based on that, my opinion is that Jupiter is not a red dwarf.

Hi dgrus23

Thank you for your response.

Should the effect of gravity be a constant, or can it change over time? Why should it be constant? Why should it change?

Could matter itself be expanding? How could you tell if all the rulers also expand?

According to the proposed uniform expansion theory, (which assumes that the expansion of space does not stop at the boundary of galaxies, but includes matter itself), gravity should be a function of time.

For example, If the Earth were to expand to twice it’s size, the surface gravity would be reduced by a quarter. According to the proposed theory, we are gradually losing weight.

If stars were twice as big, with the same amount of mass, the pressure within the stars would be less. This would dramatically reduce the rate of nuclear fusion.

If the theory predicts these things, then there should be evidence of this. I thought it would be interesting to apply the relationships to Jupiter and see what happens. About the time that Jupiter forms, (about 5.5 billion years ago (5.5 x 10^9)), the effect of gravity is so much greater that nuclear fusion could begin. This would provide a significant residual source of energy. Evidence of this residual heat is the atmospheric storms that ravage Jupiter.

Now that the effect of gravity is diminished, nuclear fusion could no long happen. The process of nuclear fusion could not continue very long since the effect of gravity would be diminishing substantially over time periods of millions of years. Now elapsed intervals of time of a million years have little effect on gravity. This was illustrated in the examples showing the increased effect of gravity for dates of formation of 1 million, 500 million, and a billion.

Regarding the date of formation of Jupiter issue, I think present models have a hard time explaining a 14 to 15 billion year old universe. If our solar system formed 5 billion years ago (plus or minus a half a billion) what happened in the previous 10 billion years?

In the proposed model since the effect of gravity is so intense so early in the evolution of the universe, solar systems and galaxies form right from the very beginning, there is no long big ball of gas phase. (Now it takes a long time for gas clouds to collapse into celestial structures, in the past this was not so).

This early formation of galactic structures is validated by observation. Quasars are tightly bound gravitational systems that exist only in the very beginning of our universe. Science news (January 25 2003) reports evidence of galaxy formations when the universe was less than a billion years old. If galaxies are observed to be formed this early in the evolution of the universe, shouldn’t other celestial structures such as solar systems be also similarly formed at about the same time? Should our solar system be assumed to dislike those observed in the past?

The 14/15 billion year old universe is based upon an assumed constant rate of expansion (Hubbell’s constant). The proposed model predicts that the rate of expansion is dependant upon Cosmic time. The expansion was greater in the past than it is now. This reduces the age of the universe to something substantially less than 14 billion years.

The real test of a theory is to see if it conforms to observation. This theory predicts the early formation of celestial systems. Observation substantiates it.

Thankfully Yours,
snowflake.

Forgive some amateur questions . . .

Would that not mean that a galaxy, say, 2 billion light yrs away would be very different looking in structure than a nearby galaxy since the increased mass and gravity would cause it to have a different shape/form?

Could a time-change in gravity not be detected when light from a very distant galaxy is bent by a closer galaxy (i.e. 5 billion year-old light is bent by an intervening galaxy 1 billion light yrs away before reaching us)?

Another, more time-consuming, way to test the theory: would the increased mass of Jupiter not have sucked all of the asteroid belt into it or into orbit around it? (Computer modelling would probably be required)

?? If the models do not explain them adequately then why do most cosmologists go with 14-15 billion years? What are the flaws in current models?

IIRC, other stars formed and died (supernova?), the gas from those stars formed the Sun, which is why the Sun (and the solar system) has elements heavier than lithium in it.

See above, wouldn't early galaxies look very different under such intense mass/gravity conditions? Do they? (I don't actually know.)

Hmmm, since heavier elements wouldn't have formed until the first stars created them then (logic leap here, no links) wouldn't those early galaxies only have hydrogen and helium in them? In other words, no solar systems could have formed since there were no heavy elements to form anything other than more balls of hydrogen/helium.

I don't know enough about Hubble constant and cosmic time to comment further so I'll stop there.

It's just turbulence. Without any land to dissipate its energy, a storm such as the great red spot can continue for a stupendously long time- and similar spots tend to appear spontaneously in computer models of gas giants.

So, long story short, it's just there, and it's not actually that special. Read Chaos by James Gleick for a better understanding of the sort of self-organising systems behind it.

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

You're right, if we lived in a universe where the rulers are expanding right along with the universe, it would be difficult to tell. Except - in order to measure expansion in a universe in which the rulers are expanding wouldn't it require that space be expanding faster than the rulers?

Stars are forming constantly. The prevailing view is that the universe began about 13-14 billion years ago and previous generations of stars produced the heavier elements that have been incorporated into our solar system. There is really not a problem here. Is there some reason why you think our solar system should be the same age as the universe?

Oh, this must be what you're thinking:

Again, star formation - and solar system formation is an ongoing process that is being observed even now. There is no reason to think that it won't continue for a very long time. Its expected that solar systems will have different ages. One thing that can be compared is metallicity of stars in the Milky Way. In general it is expected that the older stars should have lower metal contents. The metallicity content of the Sun is consistent with it not being one of the first generation of stars.

Here is a link that discusses the persistence of Jupiter's Great Red Spot - but they don't seem to have much to say about it. How deep is the origin of the Great Red Spot?

First, I am truly grateful for the responses, I am falling way behind keeping up. I will also try to keep my posts shorter. I have looked at other posts, including my own and if they are long I tend not to read them.

This post addresses the issue of the appearace of galaxies in the past. If they were smaller in the past, then they should look different.

“Would that not mean that a galaxy, say, 2 billion light yrs away would be very different looking in structure than a nearby galaxy since the increased mass and gravity would cause it to have a different shape/form? (Triangle man)

Yes, there would be measurable differences in the appearance of galaxies in the past.
1. They should produce more energy. This is evidenced by the energy output of quasars. (Also I predict that the rate supernovas per galaxy will be shown to be greater the further away the galaxy is )
2. There should be more active collisions between galaxies
3. Their apparent size should be affected.

The third point will need some explaining. Lets say we have two galaxies with the same size. If parallel beams of light were sent from the edge of one galaxy to the other, the expansion of space would spread out the path of the beams. If galaxies do not expand with the expansion of space (the current popular model) then the image of the distant galaxy will appear bigger than it should be. In fact, theoretically the apparent image size should get bigger at a faster rate than the amount the image should appear to get smaller when the galaxy is very far away. (This information I got from “An introduction to Modern Astrophysics” by B. Carroll and D. Ostlie which includes a curve is plotted by Gurvits, Ap J 425, 1994. )

In my theory, the two galaxies, if similar massed, were both smaller in the past, and as the image expands, the two galaxies expand, maintaining proportional size. The only size change that should be observed is from parallax due to distance.

Unfortunately neither model conforms to observation. When the angular size of radio galaxies, which are kin to quasars, is plotted verses distance, the observed size of radio galaxies at high red shifts is fairly flat.

The reason for the discrepancy is that Astronomers incorrectly assume that the red shift is entirely cosmological. If all quasars have a cosmic red shift of about 2 (z) and any variation from 2 is due to proper motion (real motion towards us or away from us) then the image size dilemma would be resolved.

Yours

snowflake

Wow a big cyclone to the nature of the universe, thats quite a jump....

In answer to the threads quirey,
Inertia, atmospheric density and depth ( which includes the temperature differential), coriolis force and radiational cooling.

One of the consequences of the uniform expansion theory is that if the presently measured rate of expansion is to conform to the proposed relationships, the age of the universe has to be much less than what is presently assumed. This is a whole other bag of worms to deal with, particularly regarding formation of stars and galaxies.

As indicated by the TilEulenspiegel post I am starting to drift off of the original posting. I just wanted to begin a series of posts which utilize the uniform expansion of space theory to resolve some astrophysical problems.

Snowflake.

You mention the expansion of space in a lot of threads. I think you misunderstand its implications. The expansion happens everywhere, but it is only RELEVANT on longer distances because of the difference in scale.

An exampe: suppose you have two objects 1m apart. If the space between them doubles in size, now they are 2m apart. But what if there was another object 100m away from one of those objects? How far is it after the expansion? 200m? No: 2^100 m. As a result, it was not long at all after the big bang before the expansion was completely irrelevant on the scale of atoms.

One caveat, since the universe is 3 (4...5...6....?) dimensional, you may have to cube,etc that. But you get the idea: The size of the universe makes the expansion relevant only on very long distances.

Now clearly if stars had formed very early in the universe and were still around today, that would have a big impact - but they didn't.

Hi Russ waters

While the standard description of the expansion of space is as you say, only relevant only on longer distances, this is not true for the proposed theory of a uniform expansion. ( www.uniformexpansion.com)

Matter itself is part of that expansion. As space expands around an atom it produces the effects associated with quantum physics. The proposed expansion is not only relevant at “longer” distances it is also relevant for the extremely close.

I think you misunderstand my description of the uniform expansion of space. An example, if you have two objects and they double in size, and they double in distance between them, and you double the size of all the rulers, How far apart are the rulers? As far as we can directly measure, the same distance. This is a much different kind of expansion, as indicated by the very different descriptions of what would be measured.

Snowflake

Hi Russ waters

While the standard description of the expansion of space is as you say, only relevant only on longer distances, this is not true for the proposed theory of a uniform expansion. ( www.uniformexpansion.com)

Matter itself is part of that expansion. As space expands around an atom it produces the effects associated with quantum physics. The proposed expansion is not only relevant at “longer” distances it is also relevant for the extremely close.

I think you misunderstand my description of the uniform expansion of space. An example, if you have two objects and they double in size, and they double in distance between them, and you double the size of all the rulers, How far apart are the rulers? As far as we can directly measure, the same distance. This is a much different kind of expansion, as indicated by the very different descriptions of what would be measured.

Snowflake

Fair enough. Then you're only wrong for believing what is wrong on that website - or is that your website?

In any case, the way you present this in the six different threads you've posted it is so matter-of-fact, its like you're hoping no one will notice that what you are saying is not what is currently known about the structure of the universe: Your idea is fundamentally flawed. Beyond the reasons such as the one I posted why expansion does not and cannot work that way (your proposal is quite simply geometrically flawed), telescopic EVIDENCE also says it does not work that way. For example, there would be no cosmological redshift with your proposal. Also, objects observed at great distances would look different as the scale changes.

Your last paragrah also indicates that you don't understand the geometry of such an expansion. Plug 2^100 into a calculator and see what you get - maybe that will help you understand the effects of scale.

More later - I have to go somewhere.

Evidence seems to indicate that local gravity overcomes the expansion--in other words, as the expansion of space draws things apart, gravity draws them together again faster than they can be drawn apart. So your conclusions aren't true, necessarily.

Incidentally, I wrote my post with the math at 3 am. I was wrong on the way such expansion would work. That's a much better description.