"The earth converts almost all that solar radiation into kinetic energy."


So in other words, solar radiation (primarily electromagnetic) imparts kenetic energy to mass- ie heat (thermodynamics SDAI?). This is what were talking about, yes? Or are you suggesting that kinetic energy and heat energy are not the same... ???

Right, I was saying that most of the solar energy, which is perceived as heat, is not really heat at all but high frequency wave forms. I was also trying to point out that the earth is only capable of getting so hot in such a circumstance - because these waves have relative degrees of interaction. You can leave a coin in the sun all day on a Phoenix sidewalk and it will never exceed 140 degrees, even during summer. It can absorb only so much radiation in such an environment and then after it has reached it's maximum it passes off the rest to surrounding structures. It's NOT an infinite sponge for this energy because it is not a closed system. It's atom's carry so much of a load and then absorption is reduced after the atoms are at a certain level of excitation. The earth is much the same. It can only absorb so much solar radiation at a given time and passes off the rest. It is impossible for it to become as hot as the sun. It is NOT a closed system.


Look, I'm no physicist and only a software engineer, but I don't think you have the correct picture of conservation of mass and energy, entropy, and how closed systems behave.

Unless you want to tell me that there is a magical Maxwellian Demon at the center of the earth sucking out heat and flushing it down a wormhole, then how precisely is it not the case that the earth is not at as hot as the sun after capturing several billion years of solar energy?

That is what I explained above. It is not a closed system. All energy can interface with solar energy to varying degrees. Solar energy is simply waveforms of countless frequencies and shapes. It passes through space and yet space doesn't get hot at all. Why? It's all in the interfacing of these waves! The earth does get hot - but only to certain degree. It, too, has limits of absorption and the rest is passed off through space, just as space itself passes off so much.

Let's use a microwave as an example. In a microwave foods attract and absorb the microwave radiation at varying rates. Applesauce heats faster than water, fat pockets heat faster than lean meat. Depending upon their configuration, the various molecules absorb these microwaves at different rates or speeds. Space is somewhat like the air in the microwave, it can conduct this energy but it doesn't get hot because absorption is near nil.

This is just like the earth and the planets. All the planets can orbit the sun for a year and not absorb the same amount of radiation or "heat". Mercury should be much hotter than Venus based upon it's distance from the sun, but we see that the lead and elements on Venus absorb more heat and so Venus is proportionately hotter than Mercury. Distance, we find, is not the only factor in planetary heating. If Pluto were like applesauce in a microwave, theoretically it could be just as warm as Mars despite it's distance.

This is not to say that the sun cannot make our world warmer than it is, for it can, but this is moderated by the interaction of specific subsets of waves present in solar radiation. On other words only SOME of the suns radiation is actually heating the earth and despite the billions of years of absorption, we are not a burnt out cinder.


If your hypothesis is that the earth does not radiate (much) energy, I can disprove that simply. Go out there on the web. Search for the string "earth rises over moon". Go look at that picture. What do you see? Notice that you are *seeing*.... you see what I mean?


I was mainly answering Tom's comment about the earth re-radiating all this captured heat into space. Basically, we only absorb so much and reflect the rest - just like the copper penny on the sidewalk. The amount absorbed by the earth is used and converted but not re-radiated into space.


In as much as electromagnetic radiation is harnessed by some biological forms to perform work- well, um, yeah. So?

Look- seal a solar cell in a leyden jar and stick it in the sunlight and have it turn a wheel with an actuator- make sure the wheel and actuator is INSIDE the leyden jar. Then, next to it, stick a leyden jar with no solar cell in it (well, stick a piece of cloth with about the same wide-spectrum reflectivity, to be fair). Include also 2 ultra-sensitive themometers. Leave both in the sun for 6 hours, come back, and measure the temeperature. I will send you a money order for the sum of $5 US if both themometers don't read the same temperature.

You could also, say, use the solar cell to do electolysis on a test tube of water- same difference.

The point is the electromagnetic radiation harnessed to do work still produces heat, and the point is also that a system will reach equilibrium between the energy it absorbs and the energy it radiates. Venus is so hot because __________________(fill in the blank)


I have no argument at all with what you are saying. Equilibrium is achieved between elements when they are capable of achieving this parity.

But again, you're working on the assumption that the earth is in a closed system with the sun. It's not. The whole solar system is like a microwave oven and the sun is the magnetron tube. Theoretically, the loss of a planet like Jupiter might massively increase the temperature of the earth because it is absorbing so much of this solar radiation and acts like the "fat pocket in the microwave". ;-)

It's a scary thought isn't it? Not only is our environment controlled by the sun, but by these other worlds we hardly even think about have an influence upon it as well!


Also, the number of photons intercepted by living photsythesising organisms is probably only a minute fraction of the electromagnetic energy. The sky IS blue, right SDAI? You do SEE that, right? What does that mean WRT to what we are discussing?

I just like pointing things out like the aurora color bit and wave length of light. You never know who reads these things and I like to throw out those tidbits for the younger crowd. ;-)

It really didn't have much relevance to this topic.


Additionally, the amount of mass that is 'alive' on/in earth compared to the mass of the earth, core to ionosphere, is like the skin of an apple. Actually, its more like the paint on battleship. With Respect to the heat of this particular system, they don't have much to do beyond effecting the reflectivity of our atmosphere.


Yes, the surface is minor when compared to the whole, but I used it as an example to show the evolution of structures when exposed to solar energy input. I tried to show how this energy is put to good usage by the earth and that it is has evolved.


and solar radiation has nothing to do with the fact that the earth spins, or has crustal movement (thank you moon), or 'lives'. Conservation of momentum has more to do with that.

Davin L.


Well, yes and no. The momentum of our system is based upon the interaction of our earth's mass with the sun's energy. We provide resistance with this energy and somewhat like Ohm's Law we then heat up, we start moving around the sun and we spin. We see that even worlds without moons spin and so can't give the moon all the credit, though it is probably a major factor in the speed of our revolution.

Thanks for your reply. I was addressing Tom's specific statement about radiation of the heat from the earth rather than your general remark about radiation in reactors, even though it was on the same thread.

SDAI-Tech1

PS
As for vortices, my usage of them is when it helps to explain something (like the vortical shape of our galaxy, the growth of plant stems or the Fibonacci sequences, etc.) In this particular instance there was no need to bring them up and they would only confuse the reader further. But if you miss them - I''ll try to include them more often! ;-)