|
Posted by Ken S. Tucker on May 26, 2008, 11:40 am
Please log in for more thread options
On May 25, 6:34 pm, david.willi...@bayman.org (David Williams) wrote:
> -> Dave, your theory that sunlight causes earthquakes
> -> has been descredited by the study of surface of Venus,
> -> where no Venusquakes have been evident for 1/2 billion
> -> years.
> -> Dave ,you really must study modern astronomy.
> -> Incidently Venus does not have a moon to provide
> -> the tidal energy to circulate the mantle.
> -> Regards
> -> Ken S. Tucker
>
> Do the math yourself. The tidal gradient of the sun's gravity in the
> vicinity of Venus is approximately the same as the gradient in the
> moon's gravity at Earth. So Venus is subjected to about the same tidal
> stress as Earth is. But, since Venus rotates much more slowly than
> Earth, the *strain* in the surface (i.e. its deformation) caused by the
> tidal force is likely to be greater in Venus than Earth.
No cuz power = d(energy)/d(time).
> Have you been observing Venus for 1/2 billion years? If not, how do you
> know that no Venus-quakes have happened in that time? Spacecraft have
> landed on Venus, but none has survived for more than an hour or so. So
> observations of whether or not Venus's surface is subject to tremors
> are essentially non-existent.
The Venus surface was mapped by radar.
> Anyway, I never stated or implied that earthquakes are caused by
> sunlight. What I said was that the tidal energy dissipated in the earth
> represents a negligible fraction of its total energy budget, most of
> which is due to sunlight.
Again NO, cuz the EMR in = EMR out,
thermodynamically the Earth may be treated as
having an albedo of zero at some given temperature.
> Incidentally, almost all of the tidal energy goes into stirring
> seawater.
Again NO, sea water is a ~ frictionless fluid.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
| 
XML Sitemap