Thank you for the response! You gave me some very helpful information.
That's what I thought, so it's good to have it confirmed.
This is helpful to me. I often see vague references to how Earth electronics could stop working if the planet's magnetic field diminished, but I didn't know if there was anything to that idea. The bit about Mars is a great point. Obviously we have a complicated robot trundling around on Mars without a problem. It's specifically computers that I'm interested in, and if they would still work fine outside of a planetary magnetic field, that's important to me. And when I think about it, science fiction depicts computers working just fine in space, and there have to be computers of some sort on the objects we put into space too. This is good to know.
Atmoplane. I like that. So if an atmoplane was thinner, a person could see things more clearly at a greater distance, but a thicker atmoplane will obscure more distant objects. Would the distant object's illumination affect how well it could be seen? Say the object was the world's biggest digital watch, would it be easier to see at a distance, during the day, if its illumination button was pressed? Or would the brightness of day render any additional illumination redundant so far as clarity over distance went?
Regarding tidally locked objects, I was under the impression that they do rotate, it's just that they rotate once per orbital revolution, which is why the same side always faces the object it orbits.
It's hard to describe exactly what I'm thinking of when I ask this question. Say the Earth did not rotate at all, and also did not orbit. Say it existed so far away from other celestial bodies that it was not appreciably affected by their gravity, and was not moving through space. It just sits there. This is just an analogue description for what I'm thinking of, so disregard the fact that this is probably impossible because everything is moving through space, and disregard the fact that it would just be a dead chunk of rock in such a situation. Say it had artificial sunlight caused by enormous sunshine satellites that generate miraculous perpetual energy, an atmosphere, protection from cosmic rays, a simulated day/night cycle, so that we could live there. Can you think of anything weird that would happen with such a planet? There would be no coriolis effect, and I assume the magnetic field would be less significant if the planet wasn't spinning. It's possible that this question is just too weird, and I'm willing to accept that.
Thanks again. I always appreciate your scientific insight.
They certainly could, a magnet floating in outer space is still a magnet, Earth just happens to have a massive molten core of magnetic materials.
That's what I thought, so it's good to have it confirmed.
I can't imagine any scenario for this to occur that wouldn't be absurdly catastrophic. It is caused by the motion of molten iron the outer core spinning and the amount of that iron out-masses the oceans considerably. As long as it is molten and moving there will be a field. However our electronics generally work just fine on places without significant fields like the moon or mars, and not very many of them function in any way that should be effected.
This is helpful to me. I often see vague references to how Earth electronics could stop working if the planet's magnetic field diminished, but I didn't know if there was anything to that idea. The bit about Mars is a great point. Obviously we have a complicated robot trundling around on Mars without a problem. It's specifically computers that I'm interested in, and if they would still work fine outside of a planetary magnetic field, that's important to me. And when I think about it, science fiction depicts computers working just fine in space, and there have to be computers of some sort on the objects we put into space too. This is good to know.
That depends on the atmosphere, or atmoplane, exclusively. On earth one can see 1.2 miles times the square root of the feet in height, roughly, or 12 miles at a 100 feet and 120 miles at 10,000 feet. At these heights the atmosphere is thinner and you can see through more of it, but of course the reason is the curvature. Several hundred miles at least though, through air, but not millions, and you'd have limited effective resolution.
Atmoplane. I like that. So if an atmoplane was thinner, a person could see things more clearly at a greater distance, but a thicker atmoplane will obscure more distant objects. Would the distant object's illumination affect how well it could be seen? Say the object was the world's biggest digital watch, would it be easier to see at a distance, during the day, if its illumination button was pressed? Or would the brightness of day render any additional illumination redundant so far as clarity over distance went?
Absolutely, on an orbital ring, such as an Oneill Cylinder, Banks Orbital, or Niven Ringworld for instance the horizon does not exist, as the world curves up, and the weather would be very different. On the moon you can see a very long way and crisply, from the lack of air, alternatively the world slopes away quickly from the curvature, you would have no difficulty seeing an object disappear over the horizon. Weather patterns are seriously effected by everything from planet spin rate to the moon and of course the sun and the magnetic field of the world. To your specific suggestion, a non-rotating world, these are probably quite common, like our own moon. A tidally locked world, one that always has day on one side and night on the other, would have very different weather, possibly a breeze always blowing out from the same sun-side point. However it seems probably, as I think we've discussed on the board before, that a tidally locked world would blow all of it's moisture to its darkside to be frozen in massive glaciers and be a desert on the sun side, so probably no clouds.
Regarding tidally locked objects, I was under the impression that they do rotate, it's just that they rotate once per orbital revolution, which is why the same side always faces the object it orbits.
It's hard to describe exactly what I'm thinking of when I ask this question. Say the Earth did not rotate at all, and also did not orbit. Say it existed so far away from other celestial bodies that it was not appreciably affected by their gravity, and was not moving through space. It just sits there. This is just an analogue description for what I'm thinking of, so disregard the fact that this is probably impossible because everything is moving through space, and disregard the fact that it would just be a dead chunk of rock in such a situation. Say it had artificial sunlight caused by enormous sunshine satellites that generate miraculous perpetual energy, an atmosphere, protection from cosmic rays, a simulated day/night cycle, so that we could live there. Can you think of anything weird that would happen with such a planet? There would be no coriolis effect, and I assume the magnetic field would be less significant if the planet wasn't spinning. It's possible that this question is just too weird, and I'm willing to accept that.
Thanks again. I always appreciate your scientific insight.
Warder to starry_nite
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
I have some strange questions.
- 14/02/2013 04:45:04 PM
853 Views
Some strange answers
- 14/02/2013 05:14:36 PM
595 Views
Re: Some strange answers
- 14/02/2013 06:16:59 PM
528 Views
More strange answers
- 14/02/2013 08:28:39 PM
487 Views
A tidally locked world would be horrifying. I'm pretty sure you'd get more than a breeze. *NM*
- 14/02/2013 07:07:41 PM
181 Views
I never run the numbers but I wouldn't expect it to gust
- 14/02/2013 08:51:21 PM
393 Views
I remember a series of books about a planet that was almost tidal locked
- 14/02/2013 11:45:43 PM
385 Views
Re: I remember a series of books about a planet that was almost tidal locked
- 15/02/2013 12:17:43 AM
383 Views
I haven't read it, but that sounds like what I've heard of West of January.
- 15/02/2013 08:20:57 PM
440 Views
You might find this xkcd blog entry interesting, if you have not yet seen it:
- 15/02/2013 04:09:05 PM
616 Views