[TML] "Dies the Fire"

[shadow at shadowgard.com]

On 11 Dec 2007 at 18:30, Timothy Little wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 08:58:42PM -0800, shadow at shadowgard.com wrote:
> > Since the motion is "free fall" under the influence of the disk's
> > gravity, there shouldn't *be* any effects on the sun from the
> > motion.
> 
> There will be tidal effects, but I don't know enough about the
> internal workings of stars to estimate whether they'd be disruptive.
> Nor do I know enough to calculate the magnitude of the interaction of
> a possibly conductive disk interacting with the solar magnetic field.

Well, purely as a guess, they might "stir up" the stellar interior 
enough to extend its time on the main sequence considerably. 

> > I think this would cause tighter, smaller cyclonic storms but I'm
> > not positive. But if what matters is the *difference* in velocity as
> > the air masses move sunward/antisunward, then the differences may
> > well be a lot lower than on earth givoing larger, looser cyclones.
> 
> Yes, it's the gradient that matters.  However I don't think it will
> matter.  Due to the need for concentric barriers to prevent air
> movement I outlined in a previous post, there won't be any measureable
> coriolis effects.

I'd *really* like to avoid that, even if it means more handwaves.

> There may not even be much in the way of winds.  Atmospheric motion is
> driven by differential heating, and it seems likely that most areas
> within the same contained ring will have very similar heating.

Nope. You forget that heating depends on both heating from the light 
passing thru the air but also heating due to the way the surface 
under the air heats up (which is mostly due to albedo)

So white sand won't be as hot as bare basalt. 

Differing types of surface are probably enough to drive winds.

That's how you get the onshore/offshore winds in coastal areas, due 
to differences in temp between the ocean and the land.



--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com