"Rainbow" (rainbeaux)
06/29/2015 at 12:29 • Filed to: None
2
12|
"Rainbow" (rainbeaux)
06/29/2015 at 12:29 • Filed to: None | 2
| 12 |
So, the gas giants.... Do we know for a fact that they’re completely gas, and they don’t have a solid core? Because.... it seems like they should definitely have something solid in the middle due to gravitational forces and whatnot, and in that case, doesn’t that mean that the rest of the planet is really just its atmosphere? And the actual planet itself is much smaller than we say it is?
For Sweden
> Rainbow
06/29/2015 at 12:32 |
|
They have a rocky core
|
Rainbow
> For Sweden
06/29/2015 at 12:35 |
|
So then why do we consider the gases to be the surface when they should just be the atmosphere?
|
For Sweden
> Rainbow
06/29/2015 at 12:36 |
|
Do we?
LongbowMkII
> For Sweden
06/29/2015 at 12:41 |
|
They dont. Way too hot, its mostly hydrogen compressed and hot enough to act like a liquid metal. Physics is weird.
|
Rainbow
> For Sweden
06/29/2015 at 12:42 |
|
I dunno. If we don’t, then school needs to be more clear about that. Or I need to remember things better.
But in any case, we can agree that “gas giant” is a misnomer.
|
For Sweden
> LongbowMkII
06/29/2015 at 12:42 |
|
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rel…
BRZ4Science
> Rainbow
06/29/2015 at 12:43 |
|
Some have “solid cores”, but the very concept loses meaning at extreme pressures. Jupiter most likely has a metallic hydrogen core (we aren’t sure). The conditions that exist in the cores really can only exist there and do not correlate to everyday, human experiences and intuition.
Most people are more comfortable with the idea of stars lacking a solid core, but planets seem to cause more issues. Planets and stars exist on a continuum and there are no stringent delineations in nature, nearly everything exists on a spectrum and it is just our obsession with classification that really differentiates things. A brown dwarf is a gas planet too big to be a normal planet and too small to be a regular star (their cores are too cool for sustained nuclear fusion but are hot enough to initiate fusion to the extent that they produce significant amounts of energy).
The real world is confusing.
Ash78, voting early and often
> Rainbow
06/29/2015 at 12:45 |
|
I think the differentiator is just that they don’t have multiple layers of anything solid with a crust. I agree it’s sort of a misnomer, but the differentiator (for us humans) is that you can’t land on the surface of them to explore.
Entropic Force
> Rainbow
06/29/2015 at 12:47 |
|
I’m not an expert in this shit. But, my girlfriend is getting her PhD in Planetary Whatchyamacallit.
I asked her what we know bout subsurface Jupiter, and she says this:
“It depends on how far down you want to go. we know it is predominately gaseous—as far down as that it is physically stable—then equations of state suggest that it transitions to metallic hydrogen and there is possibly a solid rock core. the rock core depends on what type of gas planet formation model you subscribe to. I personally am a fan of the solid rocky core as a seed to accreate gas onto. but there is a competing theory that gravitational instabilities in the initial gas cloud collapse onto themselves and rapidly accreate into gas planets, making them much more like failed stars than like really really big planets”
Hope that helps answer your question. I’m more confused than before, personally.
PS9
> Rainbow
06/29/2015 at 12:49 |
|
No it’s not. Gas giant = large planet that is mostly gaseous. Jupiter is still that. Having a solid core and liquid layers doesn’t change that.
Not really understanding where your confusion is coming from, to be honest.
OPPOsaurus WRX
> Rainbow
06/29/2015 at 13:13 |
|
i can’t read your question without thinking about it this way. Its all gas unless you push too hard, then you can accidentally get a little nugget. take that as you want.....
|
LongbowMkII
> For Sweden
06/29/2015 at 13:24 |
|
It’s not rocky or icy in a way that you could recognize. Unless you consider liquid and metallic hydrogen recognizable.