Re:Mercury found to be tectonically active
by Udo on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @02:11PM
(#12591647)
Why would acceleration difference not be the right metric? The Peale model is different because it takes material properties like rigidity into account - but let's keep in mind here that Mercury's eccentricity is 0.2 whereas Io's is 0.004!
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Mercury found to be tectonically active
by mturmon on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @04:02PM
(#12592629)
Not arguing, just observing that acceleration does not seem to be explaining the issue.
Re:Mercury found to be tectonically active
by Udo on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @07:48AM
(#12596941)
That's kind of a bold statement though. If tidal heating is in your opinion not caused by a gravity differential, you're going far beyond and outside the source you linked to, and I would like to hear what alternative you're proposing. The "conventional" explanation for tidal heating is that a body is being squeezed repeatedly, for which the changing gravity gradient I calculated does seem an appropriate measure.
The paper you linked to used eccentricity, whereas I used periapsis and apoapsis - it's the same thing mathematically. Not sure where this "clearly eccentricity is the key" thing comes from when I just told you that Io's orbit is nearly circular.
I do like the materials science aspect of the article you linked to in regard to taking rigidity of the body into account, but at a very basic level the problem remains that Io's orbital shape alone doesn't yield enough of a change over time to account for a lot of tidal heating - certainly not compared to Mercury.