How does mercury exist in the Sun's presence.

  • Thread starter motorman
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mercury
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of how the planet Mercury is able to exist despite the intense heat and gravity of the sun. The participants consider various factors such as thermal erosion and electrostatic charges, and also discuss the theories of gravity and its potential for manipulation. They also touch on the difference between everyday usage of the word "theory" and the scientific definition, and the accuracy of scientific theories such as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
  • #1
motorman
27
0
If the sun is as hot and dangerous as we assume it is, then why does the planet Mercury still exist?

Should it not has been thermally eroded away?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Also, shouldn't the immense gravity of the Sun pull Mercury in?
 
  • #3
motorman said:
Should it not has been thermally eroded away?

Please provide a calculation that shows this to be the case.
 
  • #4
Hmmm,

Assumed(wikipedia) surface temp of Mercury 700K (426.85'C).

Melting point of rock (assuming mechanism of planetary degregation):
900-1200'C.

I guess I need to find more info on thermal erosion.
 
  • #5
motorman said:
I guess I need to find more info on thermal erosion.

Yeah, and a brief study of gravity wouldn't hurt either (I mean the actual math).
 
  • #6
Well if I had all the answers, I wouldn't be on a forum asking questions.

And I am versed in the theories of gravity, but they're only theories. It's why no-one has been able to manipulated gravity yet. A case of barking up the wrong tree.

Fragmented evidence spanning the last 200 years would indicate it's more electrostatic in nature. Even the 2 equations that represent the force between 2 charges and 2 masses are related to the 1/r2 of their seperations. The only issue is reconciling the constants in a format that a materials scientist can understand.
 
  • #7
motorman said:
Well if I had all the answers, I wouldn't be on a forum asking questions.

And I am versed in the theories of gravity, but they're only theories. It's why no-one has been able to manipulated gravity yet. A case of barking up the wrong tree.

Fragmented evidence spanning the last 200 years would indicate it's more electrostatic in nature. Even the 2 equations that represent the force between 2 charges and 2 masses are related to the 1/r2 of their seperations. The only issue is reconciling the constants in a format that a materials scientist can understand.

If you believe that mercury is held in orbit to the sun by electrostatic charge, I would say that you have some serious fundamental misunderstanding of both electricity and gravity.

Also, saying that gravity is just a theory does not give me any confidence that you do in fact understand gravity. The current theory of gravity is General Relativity (which resolves to Newton's Law of Gravity to great accuracy on small scales). Do you think that GR is wrong or inaccurate in some way?
 
  • #8
motorman said:
Also, shouldn't the immense gravity of the Sun pull Mercury in?

Nope. Gravity does not work like this. The Sun's gravity is pulling Mercury, but the planet is traveling so fast that it can't fall fast enough to ever hit the Sun. Mercury's orbit is elliptical though, so it does vary in distance from the Sun. As it gets closer to the Sun the pull from the Sun's gravity does increase, but so does the orbital velocity of Mercury, which means it simply keeps on moving in its orbit. As the orbital radius increases and Mercury gets further away the strength of gravity decreases, but so does Mercury's orbital velocity. The end result is a stable orbit.

It is actually VERY difficult to make something crash into the Sun. If we were to suddenly reduce the Earth's orbital velocity by 20% we would simply move into a much more elliptical orbit. We would not fall into the Sun. If we wanted to send a space probe to the Sun we would have to completely counteract the orbital velocity it has from being launched from the Earth. This takes something like twice the fuel as it does to send a probe out of the Solar System!

motorman said:
Well if I had all the answers, I wouldn't be on a forum asking questions.

Have no fear, Phinds's bark is worse than his slimy, gummy bite. However, he is correct. A study on the math of gravity would immensely increase your understanding of how it works.

And I am versed in the theories of gravity, but they're only theories.

First, let's dispel this notion that they are "only theories". Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity are indeed "only theories". However when said like that it implies that they really have no idea what they are talking about, which is completely incorrect. They are both Scientific Theories, which is different than your everyday usage of the word "theory".

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

The key here is "confirmed through observation and experiment." Both theories above are legitimate scientific theories that have mountains of evidence in their favor. And yes, we know that Newton's theory is "wrong". However, it isn't about right or wrong. It's about accuracy. We can never truly know whether a theory is right, we can only say that it predicts real world effects with a certain degree of accuracy. And Newton's theory is so accurate, even though it's wrong, that we still use it to fly spacecraft to other planets.

It's why no-one has been able to manipulated gravity yet. A case of barking up the wrong tree.

This is pure nonsense. We haven't been able to manipulate gravity yet because none of the 4 fundamental force of nature, including gravity, are capable of being "manipulated" in the first place. It's like saying we should be able to increase or reduce the charge of an electron. Well sorry, we are made of the things and the fundamental properties of particles are not able to be changed. And I would bet my paycheck that they never will be. If they could then the universe would be far different and we probably wouldn't be here today.

How can one change the rules that one must play by in the first place?

Fragmented evidence spanning the last 200 years would indicate it's more electrostatic in nature. Even the 2 equations that represent the force between 2 charges and 2 masses are related to the 1/r2 of their seperations. The only issue is reconciling the constants in a format that a materials scientist can understand.

Not true. I don't know anything about this "fragmented evidence", but it's probably been fragmented by the mountain of evidence in favor of General Relativity crashing down upon it. And since our most accurate theory of gravity is GR, not classical gravity, any resemblance between electromagnetism and gravity is ignoring the last century of scientific advancement.
 
  • #9
motorman said:
Fragmented evidence spanning the last 200 years would indicate it's more electrostatic in nature.
There is no such evidence and please note that this forum does not allow discussion of crackpottery.
 
  • #10
talk about throwing a hand grenade into a bees nest.

i never once said that planets orbit according to electrostatics.

you lot are lucky I am txting from my phone, my reply would really make some unhappy campers!

but in essence I'm inclined towards an electrodynamic cause of planetary orbits and rotations, and the beauty of it is it's scalable, from lab bench to solar system.

i'll get back to you shortly.
 
  • #11
motorman said:
i never once said that planets orbit according to electrostatics.
You indicated there would be evidence for some connection between Mercury's orbit and electrostatics. There is not. While there are electromagnetic effects, they are completely negligible for big objects like planets. They are relevant for small asteroids and dust particles.
but in essence I'm inclined towards an electrodynamic cause of planetary orbits and rotations, and the beauty of it is it's scalable, from lab bench to solar system.
I think you should really read the board rules soon.
 
  • #12
As the original question has been asked and answered, and as this has drifted into speculation, the thread is now closed.
 

1. How does mercury exist in the Sun's presence?

Mercury exists in the Sun's presence because it is one of the eight planets in our solar system. It orbits around the Sun and is located relatively close to it, between the orbits of Venus and Earth.

2. What is the composition of mercury in the Sun's presence?

Mercury is mainly composed of silicate rocks and metals, with a large iron core. It also has a very thin atmosphere, which is mostly made up of oxygen, sodium, hydrogen, helium, and potassium.

3. How does the Sun's presence affect mercury?

The Sun's presence affects mercury in several ways. Its intense heat and radiation cause the planet's surface to experience extreme temperatures, reaching up to 800°F (427°C) on the side facing the Sun. The Sun's gravitational pull also causes tidal forces on mercury, leading to its eccentric orbit.

4. Can mercury support life in the Sun's presence?

No, mercury is not capable of supporting life in the Sun's presence. It does not have an atmosphere thick enough to protect it from the Sun's radiation and extreme temperatures. Additionally, the planet's surface is covered in craters and has no liquid water, making it inhospitable for life.

5. How does mercury's orbit differ from other planets in the Sun's presence?

Mercury's orbit is unique compared to other planets in the Sun's presence. It has the most eccentric orbit, which means it is not a perfect circle but rather an ellipse. This results in mercury being much closer to the Sun at some points in its orbit and much farther away at others.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
606
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
985
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
18
Views
10K
Replies
6
Views
666
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
797
Back
Top