• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why aren't the Earth's oceans deeper?

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 27, 2000
Messages
26,334
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Our planet's oceans are very deep by ordinary standards. Their average depth is 3.7 kilometers, with a maximum depth of 11 km, at the Challenger deep. If spread evenly over our planet's surface, it would be about 2.6 km deep. But relative to the Earth's size, they are very thin. Scaling the Earth to the size of a giant beach ball, with diameter 2 meters, the oceans' thickness becomes 0.6 mm -- about as thin as the beach ball's plastic surface. By mass, the oceans are even less, about 0.023%.

Nearly all the Earth's surface water is in its oceans (Where is Earth's water? USGS Water-Science School), and how much is in the interior is something that geologists argue about a lot. But a rough guess is at least as much as is in the oceans, and I recall estimates like 3 to 10 times as much. That makes the Earth's water as much as 0.2% by mass. Still very small.

However, some exoplanets, like some of the TRAPPIST-1 ones, have sizes and masses consistent with their having much deeper oceans, like a few hundred km. If deep enough, these oceans will have a layer of high-pressure ice on their floors.

Planet Formation: How Ocean Worlds Happen mentions a recent hypothesis for what makes the different. Amount of aluminum-26 from nearby supernovae. This nuclide decays into Mg-26 with a half-life of about 717,000 years, so it would have to be produced by relatively recent ones. The heat from its decay would bake the larger protoplanets, driving off much of their water, and these in turn would make drier planets.

A water budget dichotomy of rocky protoplanets from 26 Al-heating | Nature Astronomy, [1902.04026] A water budget dichotomy of rocky protoplanets from $^{26}$Al-heating

PSRD: Dating the Earliest Solids in our Solar System
PSRD: Aluminum-26 Clock
PSRD: An Even More Precise View of Aluminum-26 in the Solar Nebula
One meteorite's grains formed over a 3-million-year interval.

Geological History of Asteroid 4 Vesta: The “Smallest Terrestrial Planet” notes some additional early-Solar-System radionuclides, like Mn-53, which decays into Cr-53 with a half-life of 3.7 million years, and Fe-60, which decays into Ni-60 with a half-life of 1.5 million years.

Vesta itself melted from radioactive-decay heating some 5 million years after it formed, and solidified not long after that. "Vestoids" are asteroids with very similar surface composition, and HED meteorites also have very similar composition. So those meteorites are pieces of Vesta in our labs

Meaning that what melted Vesta is what kept our planet's oceans from being superdeep.
 
There is a show running on cable Drain The Oceans using high resolution sonar.

Take away the water and the Earth surface looks the same generaly everywhere.


The Mid Atlantic ridge spewing up lava and plates in motion only known since the 70s-80s(?) shows in part surface formation.

Which came first, detailed and varied surface topology or accumulation of water from comets?
 
The answer to the title question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy

Isostasy (Greek ísos "equal", stásis "standstill") is the state of gravitational equilibrium between Earth's crust and mantle such that the crust "floats" at an elevation that depends on its thickness and density.

This concept is invoked to explain how different topographic heights can exist at Earth's surface. When a certain area of Earth's crust reaches the state of isostasy, it is said to be in isostatic equilibrium. Isostasy does not upset equilibrium but instead restores it (a negative feedback). It is generally accepted [1] that Earth is a dynamic system that responds to loads in many different ways. However, isostasy provides an important 'view' of the processes that are happening in areas that are experiencing vertical movement. Certain areas (such as the Himalayas) are not in isostatic equilibrium, which has forced researchers to identify other reasons to explain their topographic heights (in the case of the Himalayas, which are still rising, by proposing that their elevation is being supported by the force of the impacting Indian Plate; the Basin and Range Province of the Western US is another example of a region not in isostatic equilibrium.)

Moose
 
Hadn't thought about that. If the mass were not reasonably balanced we'd have large wobble.

There is a principle that says energy distributes itself for minimum potential differences. It is why planets end up as spherical and water seeks its own level in gravity. Oceans curve with the Earth.
 
Assuming that our solar system was seeded mostly by only one stellar explosion remnant (in addition to galactic background material), is there a guestimate of what kind of it was and how long before coalescence the explosion happened?

I mean such as the original stellar mass, type of supernova and so on...

Could a neutron star collision have seeded it or is the element profile totally off for that? Can a neutron star collision debris field make a life supporting star system?
 
Stars are typed in part by the EM spectrum they radiate indicating elements. I would assume star elemnts would relate to element distributing in the solar system.
 
Observer effect. If the oceans were real deep we wouldn't be here discussing why they are.
 
Back
Top Bottom