PDA

View Full Version : Equator



ray hampton
11-13-2012, 5:55 PM
I got a Question for the college pro. if the Sun rotates once every 27 days at its Equator then how can you explain the Sun poles only rotate once every 31 days ?
merry Christmas

Myk Rian
11-13-2012, 6:05 PM
Solar rotation is able to vary with latitude because the Sun is composed of a gaseous plasma. The rate of rotation is observed to be fastest at the equator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_rotation

ray hampton
11-13-2012, 7:59 PM
the last verse said Merry Christmas, I expect the answer to take that long because I do not understand the subject only the heat that the sun gives off

Joe Angrisani
11-14-2012, 8:11 PM
....because I do not understand the subject....

Think of the Sun as a blob of water in space. It's surface is not ridgid like a round rock would be. Since it's "wiggly" like water, some parts of the surface are affected more (or less) by the physics of rotation. No need to get hung up on the 'whys' of the physics. Just think 'water' compared to 'rock'.

Larry Browning
11-14-2012, 9:20 PM
the last verse said Merry Christmas, I expect the answer to take that long because I do not understand the subject only the heat that the sun gives off
Ray,
I think Myk nailed it exactly 10 minutes after you asked the question.

ray hampton
11-15-2012, 9:14 AM
Ray,
I think Myk nailed it exactly 10 minutes after you asked the question.

How can the Sun be way bigger at the poles than at its Equator IS STILL the question of the day

Joe Angrisani
11-15-2012, 10:19 AM
How can the Sun be way bigger at the poles than at its Equator IS STILL the question of the day

Still? You hadn't even asked a question about dimensions.

Think of the blob-of-water-Sun again, Ray. As the liquid Sun rotates, centrifugal force makes the blob of water grow wider at the equator. Spin it fast enough and it would be a giant dinner plate in space. Just remember: the Sun is not a ridged object and doesn't act as a solid ball. Even the Earth is not ridgedly solid; for the same reason, Earth's diameter is slightly more at the equator than at the poles as well.

ray hampton
11-15-2012, 10:49 AM
Still? You hadn't even asked a question about dimensions.

Think of the blob-of-water-Sun again, Ray. As the liquid Sun rotates, centrifugal force makes the blob of water grow wider at the equator. Spin it fast enough and it would be a giant dinner plate in space. Just remember: the Sun is not a ridged object and doesn't act as a solid ball. Even the Earth is not ridgedly solid; for the same reason, Earth's diameter is slightly more at the equator than at the poles as well.

Earth diameter at the Equator are close to 25000 miles but the two poles diameter are what 25 miles ?

Myk Rian
11-15-2012, 10:57 AM
Earth diameter at the Equator are close to 25000 miles but the two poles diameter are what 25 miles ?
????????????????????????

This is exaggerated, but any viscous ball in rotation will take on this shape.

245605

ray hampton
11-15-2012, 12:19 PM
????????????????????????

This is exaggerated, but any viscous ball in rotation will take on this shape.

245605

mount a block of wood in your lathe between centers and turn to this shape then convince me the the biggest diameter will rotate once every 27 days while the two poles will take 4 extra days to rotate once , when a body rotate at two different speeds , something will explode

Rick McQuay
11-15-2012, 12:24 PM
A block of wood will explode or shear, a ball of hot gas will not.

Dan Hintz
11-15-2012, 12:49 PM
mount a block of wood in your lathe between centers and turn to this shape then convince me the the biggest diameter will rotate once every 27 days while the two poles will take 4 extra days to rotate once , when a body rotate at two different speeds , something will explode
Do you consider the sun a solid body? If so, the rest of the discussion is moot.

A better analogy might be a water balloon. Spin it and you'll get the shape shown above. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, because the balloon itself is a skin that doesn't exist in the sun, but the balloon's liquid interior is very much like the sun.

ray hampton
11-15-2012, 12:59 PM
Do you consider the sun a solid body? If so, the rest of the discussion is moot.

A better analogy might be a water balloon. Spin it and you'll get the shape shown above. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, because the balloon itself is a skin that doesn't exist in the sun, but the balloon's liquid interior is very much like the sun.

they claim that the SUN temperature ARE OVER ONE MILLION degrees F, will diamonds melt at this temperature ?

John Coloccia
11-15-2012, 1:09 PM
they claim that the SUN temperature ARE OVER ONE MILLION degrees F, will diamonds melt at this temperature ?

First you have to explain what you think the temperature of the sun has anything to do with how it rotates. Without that, this is just a random question.

Dan Hintz
11-15-2012, 1:09 PM
they claim that the SUN temperature ARE OVER ONE MILLION degrees F, will diamonds melt at this temperature ?
Considering carbon can no longer hold its diamond crystalline form at temps over about 6500F under standard pressure, I think it's safe to say there aren't going to be any baubles for your honey rolling around in the sun.

Is there an actual inquiry mixed in here, or are you posting random facts about the sun and seeing how the rest of us respond?

ray hampton
11-15-2012, 1:31 PM
First you have to explain what you think the temperature of the sun has anything to do with how it rotates. Without that, this is just a random question.

JOHN , the temperature got nothing to do with the rotation that I know of BUT it do concerns the SUN not being a solid

John Coloccia
11-15-2012, 1:41 PM
JOHN , the temperature got nothing to do with the rotation that I know of BUT it do concerns the SUN not being a solid

It's a gas. It behaves like our atmosphere. Clouds in Kentucky move different than the clouds in Connecticut. It's exactly the same thing.

Larry Browning
11-15-2012, 2:28 PM
Back to the original question.
If you marked a point close to the top axis of a wooden ball and then a 2nd point at "equator" of the ball so that if you drew a line between the 2 points the line would be vertical along the axis. That line will stay vertical no matter how much you spin the ball and each point will make the exact same number of revolutions. This is because the ball is a solid ant the 2 points are fixed on the surface of the ball and do not change in relation to each other. Not liquid or gas. If however, it was a ball of gas like the sun, there is nothing to hold it together so as it spins the rate of rotation would be different therefore the line between the 2 points would no longer stay vertical to the axis. This would result in the number of revolutions of each point to be different.

David Weaver
11-15-2012, 4:17 PM
Well, maybe the rest of us can learn something.

I learned today that the sun has a core that does move like a solid, at least as far as it's known now, to about 70% of its radius, and that above the radiative core is a transition layer into the convective layer of the sun.

The differential generates the sun's magnetic field.

Things like that tend to make you ask questions like, when the sun was assumed to move angularly constant throughout the entire radius (in latitude layers), what did people think generated the magnetic field? Differientials between layers? Did they think it was sliced into some number discrete layers (or in a more continuous sense, layers that at any given latitude were entirely constant, continuously changing to the poles) with constant angular rotation from the center out, but at different speed for the layers? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ken Fitzgerald
11-15-2012, 6:27 PM
I will remind everyone that personal attacks and unfriendly comments violate the Terms Of Service at SMC.

Please refrain from such conduct!

Thank you for your future compliance.

Joe Angrisani
11-15-2012, 6:48 PM
Well, maybe the rest of us can learn something.

I learned today that the sun has a core that does move like a solid, at least as far as it's known now, to about 70% of its radius, and that above the radiative core is a transition layer into the convective layer of the sun.

The differential generates the sun's magnetic field.

Things like that tend to make you ask questions like, when the sun was assumed to move angularly constant throughout the entire radius (in latitude layers), what did people think generated the magnetic field? Differientials between layers? Did they think it was sliced into some number discrete layers (or in a more continuous sense, layers that at any given latitude were entirely constant, continuously changing to the poles) with constant angular rotation from the center out, but at different speed for the layers? That doesn't make a lot of sense.


Dave....

I think you're dealing with a situation you mentioned in your second paragraph ("as far as it's now known"). I would think knowledge of surface speeds and the Sun's magnetic field all come later as measuring devises improved and/or left the Earth. "Back when the Sun was solid", we didn't know about surface speeds and other such details. Go back far enough and we thought it was a big lump of burning coal.

Our magnetic field and all magnetic fields work on the same basic principle, as far as I know. It sticks in my mind that Jupiter's core is "metallic hydrogen" - hydrogen atoms squished so hard by gravity that they go beyond mere solids and take on characteristics hydrogen normally doesn't have, such as electrical conductivity.

Curt Harms
11-16-2012, 6:48 AM
There is a series on I think Science Channel called "How the Universe works". They had a couple shows about the Sun. Lots of "I didn't know that" moments. The 'stars' are astronomers and astrophysicists(sp?) so presumably they know what they're talking about.

Moses Yoder
11-16-2012, 10:37 AM
Well, maybe the rest of us can learn something.

I learned today that the sun has a core that does move like a solid, at least as far as it's known now, to about 70% of its radius, and that above the radiative core is a transition layer into the convective layer of the sun.

The differential generates the sun's magnetic field.

Things like that tend to make you ask questions like, when the sun was assumed to move angularly constant throughout the entire radius (in latitude layers), what did people think generated the magnetic field? Differientials between layers? Did they think it was sliced into some number discrete layers (or in a more continuous sense, layers that at any given latitude were entirely constant, continuously changing to the poles) with constant angular rotation from the center out, but at different speed for the layers? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think the earth has a magnetic field; is that generated by the interior rotating at a different speed?

David Weaver
11-16-2012, 10:59 AM
As far as I know, it is generated in a similar manner by differentials due to liquid iron currents. Whether that means that the differences are as uniform as those from the sun is from pole to equator, it doesn't appear so, but dynamo relationship is still there, and so is convective force influence on the motion of the iron currents.

Myk Rian
11-16-2012, 11:26 AM
OK. Now my head is starting to hurt. :rolleyes:

Ben Hatcher
11-16-2012, 12:25 PM
The melting point of diamond (carbon) is 6332F. The boiling point is 8720F. The surface of the sun is about 90,000F, so yes, a diamond would not only melt but would boil and become carbon gas on the sun.

Joe Angrisani
11-16-2012, 1:43 PM
....The surface of the sun is about 90,000F.....

It'll still melt, but the surface of the Sun is "only" about 10,000 degrees F.

ray hampton
11-16-2012, 4:47 PM
I think the earth has a magnetic field; is that generated by the interior rotating at a different speed?

I never been to the earth core but it is claim to be molten and as for as I know GOD told the inner core to rotate opposite way to the surface

Myk Rian
11-16-2012, 5:35 PM
Ray, here is some interesting reading.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110220142817.htm

Basically, it says the earth's core rotates 1 every 1 million years.
That's pretty slow.

But, other research says the opposite.
http://www.livescience.com/9313-earth-core-rotates-faster-surface-study-confirms.html

What are we to believe?

Roger Newby
11-16-2012, 6:47 PM
Diamonds don't melt, they burn up. They are solid carbon.

Jason Roehl
11-16-2012, 7:15 PM
Diamonds don't melt, they burn up.

Not if there isn't enough oxygen present...

Some good reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Note that while the surface of the Sun may be about 5700K, the corona (much farther out) averages about 1-2,000,000K, and can have expanses that are up to 20,000,000K.

ray hampton
11-17-2012, 8:02 AM
Not if there isn't enough oxygen present...

Some good reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Note that while the surface of the Sun may be about 5700K, the corona (much farther out) averages about 1-2,000,000K, and can have expanses that are up to 20,000,000K.

HOW can this SUN contains Hydrogen and oxygen but no water ? will the hydrogen burn without oxygen ?

John Coloccia
11-17-2012, 8:30 AM
HOW can this SUN contains Hydrogen and oxygen but no water ? will the hydrogen burn without oxygen ?

The sun is too hot for molecules to exist. Generally speaking, chemical reactions don't occur in the sun...it's just way too hot. When you get closer to the center of the sun, you don't even have traditional atoms anymore...all the electrons are stripped off and you have a soup of nuclei and electrons floating around, i.e. a plasma.

So the diamond certainly doesn't burn...as it gets closer to the sun it will melt, and as it get closer will it will evaporate into a carbon gas.

Jason Roehl
11-17-2012, 8:36 AM
HOW can this SUN contains Hydrogen and oxygen but no water ? will the hydrogen burn without oxygen ?

The elements in the sun are in a plasma state of matter, under extreme temperatures, pressures and magnetic fields, so they do not react as one would expect at atmospheric pressure on the Earth's surface. Hydrogen is the main "fuel" for the sun, but it's not burning, it's undergoing nuclear fusion, which produces helium and lots of heat. In theory, that process will continue for several more billion years until all the hydrogen is used up, then the helium will begin fusing into even heavier elements, which will signal the (relatively) rapid decline of the Sun as the star we know today.

Curt Harms
11-17-2012, 8:41 AM
It'll still melt, but the surface of the Sun is "only" about 10,000 degrees F.

Right, but the core is a different story. I don't recall the temperature necessary for a nuclear fusion reaction but I'd guess it's in the 10s of millions of degrees F. Hence the reason that nuclear fusion as a commercial power source ain't easy.

harry hood
11-17-2012, 12:51 PM
The carbon would sublimate long before you reached one million degrees F. There are many excellent popular books about all aspects of astronomy, you might want to check some out from your local library if you find this interesting.

ray hampton
11-17-2012, 2:57 PM
The carbon would sublimate long before you reached one million degrees F. There are many excellent popular books about all aspects of astronomy, you might want to check some out from your local library if you find this interesting.

Everything that my GOD created are of interest to me, even the snakes that can kill a man, but I can not remember so much any more

David Weaver
11-17-2012, 3:46 PM
sublimate

One of my favorite words :)