/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5815961]

Anyone have theories on why Uranus has such low intrinsic energy output?

[Anonymous No.5815968]

All the "You're Anus" jokes have lowered his self-esteem to the point where he's really just going through the motions and not actually trying.

[Anonymous No.5815971]

Secret reptilian base where they produce greys and ufo discs.

[Anonymous No.5815973]

I don't much but I do know this:

Aliens

>pick relating to this thread and that post
>>5815968

[Anonymous No.5815979]

>>5815968
>you're

[Anonymous No.5815980]

>>5815968
I guess he's just giving the cold shoulder now.

[Anonymous No.5815991]

It may have something to do with the whack angle it's rotating at.Given one side can be in the dark for decades at a time, there's probably not much stirring the planet up. The Voyager probes also probably passed it at a quiet time. Hubble seems to suggests something is happening, but we can't get any images of the quality we got 30 years ago.

I do think it's featureless-ness makes it one of the more beautiful planets, through.

[Anonymous No.5816018]

uranus and neptune get no love, when are they getting their own orbiters?

[Anonymous No.5816045]

>>5815991
>It may have something to do with the whack angle it's rotating at.
This is probably the best explanation. The other planets have had billions of years more-or-less aligned with the rest of the system to gather solar energy along all wavelengths in harmony with their inartial energies. Uranus, being not aligned, has had to fight against the solar energies. The energy used up is no longer there, and seeing as everything has a finite amount of energy, Uranus just has less energy left.
At least that's how I understood it in pleb-talk.

Speaking of Uranus, has anybody come up with a good theory as to why it is tilted and in an unusual solar system position considering its chemical makeup?

[Anonymous No.5816054]

Yo I have a question:

If we had the means to land anything on Uranus or Neptune, what would we land on and when? Do we even know what the planets themselves looks like under all that gas?

[Anonymous No.5816071]

>>5816054
Liquid ocean of hydrogen and helium.

[Anonymous No.5816095]

>>5816045

Best explanation is that it was hit while forming with another proto-planet and knocked it on its side. The beauty of this theory is that it also explains why Uranus is so cold. Neptune is very similar but radiates 2.6 times the heat it absorbs from the Sun; Uranus barely breaks even at 1.01 times the heat absorbed. A giant impact early on would have depleted the core of its heat energy rapidly, leaving little left over today.

[Anonymous No.5816109]

>>5816071
>1278643636960
Actually its ammonia and water

[Anonymous No.5816146]

>>5816095
wtf bullshit r u talking about?
how shall a huge impact magically remove its core energy?

more likely nice-modell-scenario: it formed outside of neptune, then switched orbits. read ur damned stuff.

[Anonymous No.5816158]

>>5816146

>wtf bullshit r u talking about?

Nice start.

To answer your shittily asked question, it would remove heat by ablating large amounts of material to leave behind a much smaller core that loses heat much faster due to the larger surface area to volume ratio. The ablated material probably formed a ring system around the planet and cooled before slowly falling back into the gravity well. End result: a much lower intrinsic heat.

There are other theories, but if you actually paid attention in planetary formation classes, you'd know that just because something formed further out from the Sun doesn't mean it magically is colder, fool. If that were true then it would have heated up, but it hasn't.

Fucking undergrads.

[Anonymous No.5816167]

>>5816146

Uranus-Neptune only take place in about 50% of those modeled scenarios and the results only correspond to an even mass distribution in the protoplanetary disk, and match the masses of the planets, if the switch did take place.

It also fails to explain Uranus' axial tilt, which is what the prior question was about.
You need to shut up and pay attention in classes.

[Anonymous No.5816172]

>>5816158
haha, and it is ON.

although this would be true for rocky planets, its not necceacarirly (wtf english + beer) true for gas giants. gas does not as easily escape the gravity well as chuncks of matter, as you're basically stating that "the hot matter gets lost".

to your planetary formation: it depends whether you have a dead zone and where to place it.
and also: no there would be no substantial upheating compared to initial formation heat. do the math, compare your gravitational collapse virial against heat output@uranus distance due to solar influx.

[Anonymous No.5816174]

>>5816167
nice wikipedia reading, noob.

[Anonymous No.5816201]

>>5816174

>2013
>still ragging on wikipedia when you can't actually argue substance

lel shiggy

[Anonymous No.5816216]

>>5816172

Uranus DOES have a rocky core, at least thats what theory suggests. Some dispute it, but the planet needed a dense protonucleus for gas accretion to occur during formation. As I'm sure you are aware, gas has a shitty thermal capacity.

And as to the formation, your theory still does not explain why Uranus has a massive axial tilt. If it formed as you seem to claim, it should have a comparable tilt to Neptune. The impact theory explains BOTH the low heat output AND the axial offset. Occam's Razor.

[Anonymous No.5816222]

>>5816216
well, still there are these tiny LHB hints on moon AND earth.
so yeah, Uranus might have gotten a nice pounding, but that does not necc. explain his cold.

cuz u know. lots of poundin'n'shit & orbits shiff'ing might all be LHB. the two of us might be right (fucking satan knows).