When it comes to this topic I tend to believe more in mechanical/traditional science.CharlesChandler wrote:That all depends on what you mean by "locked". The force binding the atmosphere to the planet can only be the electric force.jtb wrote:Venus is rotating at ~4 mph with wind speeds of ~250 mph, which tends to indicate the atmosphere is not locked to its surface.
As counterpoint, that is only an assumption. It may even be a red herring. Titan exhibits a very thick, dense, superroation of its atmosphere, too--a structure that scientists are convinced "should already have been stripped away" by now. But there it remains. This means that their theories for atmospheric origin and evolution are wrong.CharlesChandler wrote:The standard model states that atmospheres are gravitationally bound, and shielded from the solar wind by the planetary magnetic fields. Yet Venus has the weakest magnetic field of the 4 rocky planets, and the thickest atmosphere. It's also the 2nd closest to the Sun, where the solar wind is more robust. So the solar wind should have swept Venus clean of its atmosphere a long time ago.
Same can be said of Mars with its weak/nonexistent magnetic field and the notable methane and CO2 content in its atmosphere. Both Titan and Mars have "too much" methane for the decay rate of that molecule. So why is it there on both worlds, particularly on Titan in overabundance? For that matter why is an atmosphere there at all? (Titan apparently has no intrinsic mag field but borrows Saturn's).
Subsequently, atmospheres may be directly created by/endemic to the planet, originating within the planet, and replenished in perpetuity as material escapes or decays to space. Atmospheric material, being gaseous and diffuse, constitutes only a tiny fraction of any planet or moon's mass (inlcluding the so-called "gas giants" which are not gaseous but cryogenically frozen liquid ocean planets). Hence, atmospheric material is part of the planet itself and could be created by the multi-metric tons within planetary cores, mantles, and crusts for aeons. There is direct evidence for atmospheric replenishment on Mars and Titan--atmospheres that "should have" long been stripped away. Earth also loses atmosphere constantly but somehow manages to stay habitable and "Earth."
In other words, a planet's atmosphere is of the planet and did not "arrive from a comet" or from something exotic like mainstream theories imply. To the mainstream, oceans and atmospheres must have "arrived" or must have been "deposited" by some "impact event" or "collapsing nebula." It never dawns on them that if an atmosphere is around a planet that the planet itself created the atmosphere. The atmosphere is therefore bound to the planet as it originated in the planet.
Electrical activity doesn't automatically mean that electrical forces are absolutely binding an atmosphere to a planet. It does not prove nor disprove it. I personally do not absolutely hold all the answers but I don't think that an electrical force must be binding air to a planet. If such a thing is true then that must apply to all planets. If so, then as an example Saturn or Neptune shouldn't exist as gravitationally bound and rotating spheroids but are only electrical spheres, bound only by electricity. Are they? That would mean gravity has no influence and no meaning to planetary systems.CharlesChandler wrote:Interestingly, Venus' atmosphere is also highly electrified, with constant electrical storms, so yes, it's charged. I conclude that the electric force keeps the atmosphere bound to the planet.
Yes I agree: "Regardless of what is binding the atmosphere to the planet, an extremely dense atmosphere such as Venus' would generate a lot of friction if forced to flow. The friction would be within the fluid, and at the solid surface (i.e., skin friction)...." ---this friction will tend to create charge separation in perpetuity.CharlesChandler wrote:Note that charged gases (i.e., plasmas) have a much lower viscosity than neutral gases. So Venus' high wind speeds do not rule out electrostatic attraction of the atmosphere to the planet -- they are further evidence that the atmosphere is charged. Regardless of what is binding the atmosphere to the planet, an extremely dense atmosphere such as Venus' would generate a lot of friction if forced to flow. The friction would be within the fluid, and at the solid surface (i.e., skin friction). Motivating the flow against that friction would take an energy source that Venus simply doesn't have. There are two possible answers to this riddle: 1) the friction isn't anywhere near as great as predicted by the normal viscosity of gases at that density, since they're actually frictionless plasmas, and 2) because they're charged, they are subjected to Lorentz forces as the solar system moves through the spiral arm magnetic field.
Moreover, the Venusian atmosphere rotates about the planet in a definitive direction, acting as one entity. The Venusian atmosphere in superrotation is therefore a natural satellite of the planet. That it is gaseous and enveloping is irrelevant to it being a moon of Venus. As stated earlier, the same condition exists on Titan.
Mainstream article on possible reason for Venusian superrotation (they basically say it is because of convection): http://phys.org/news194504586.html
These statements contradict: "both the solid surface of Venus, and its atmosphere, have retrograde rotations..."CharlesChandler wrote:This is consistent with the fact that both the solid surface of Venus, and its atmosphere, have retrograde rotations, but while the atmosphere rotates very rapidly, and the rotation of the solid body is slowing down. This can only be evidence of an external energy source that operates oppositely on the atmosphere versus the solid body. If they're oppositely charged, we get an explanation for what binds the atmosphere to the planet (i.e., electrostatic attraction), why the winds could be that fast in such a dense atmosphere (i.e., they're frictionless plasmas), and what is driving the atmosphere one way and the solid body the other (i.e., the Lorentz force acting on oppositely charged layers).
"the winds could be that fast in such a dense atmosphere (i.e., they're frictionless plasmas), and what is driving the atmosphere one way and the solid body the other..."
You're saying that the planet and the atmosphere rotate in the same direction in the first statement.
Then you're saying that the planet and the atmosphere rotate in the opposite direction in the second statement.