Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: David Post <caelric@****.COM>
Subject: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:22:06 -0800
All that talk about Physics got me to wondering earlier....why does the
Earth rotate the way it does? I mean, why does it rotate couter clock wise
as you look down on it from above the north pole?

Dave
Message no. 2
From: John Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:12:45 -0500
David Post wrote:
>
> All that talk about Physics got me to wondering earlier....why does the
> Earth rotate the way it does? I mean, why does it rotate couter clock wise
> as you look down on it from above the north pole?

Perhaps God is left-handed?
:)/////////////


--
John Pederson, otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
"Is there anybody seeking?
Does anybody see?
Or are they deaf and dumb like me?"
-- Burlap to Cashmere, "Anybody Out There"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864/index.html ICQ UIN: 3190186
Message no. 3
From: John Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:31:20 -0500
John Pederson wrote:
>
> David Post wrote:
> >
> > All that talk about Physics got me to wondering earlier....why does the
> > Earth rotate the way it does? I mean, why does it rotate couter clock wise
> > as you look down on it from above the north pole?
>
> Perhaps God is left-handed?
> :)/////////////

Err... Ignore the slashes. Hit the wrong key and I didn't get it
corrected before hitting the right one...

--
John Pederson, otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
"Is there anybody seeking?
Does anybody see?
Or are they deaf and dumb like me?"
-- Burlap to Cashmere, "Anybody Out There"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864/index.html ICQ UIN: 3190186
Message no. 4
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:39:26 +1000
David Post wrote:
>
> All that talk about Physics got me to wondering earlier....why does the
> Earth rotate the way it does? I mean, why does it rotate couter clock
wise
> as you look down on it from above the north pole?

Because it rotates counter clockwise around the sun.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 5
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:31:13 +1100
At 17:22 13/01/99 -0800, David Post wrote:
>All that talk about Physics got me to wondering earlier....why does the
>Earth rotate the way it does? I mean, why does it rotate couter clock wise
>as you look down on it from above the north pole?

Well... from our point of view, it already does. :-) (Looking from above
the south pole.)






Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.
Message no. 6
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 07:47:41 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, David Post wrote:
/
/ All that talk about Physics got me to wondering earlier....why does the
/ Earth rotate the way it does? I mean, why does it rotate couter clock wise
/ as you look down on it from above the north pole?

Because the planets are rotating clockwise around the sun :)

Okay, seriously.

As solar matter is drawn together it starts to spin. In our case of
our solar system the spin is clockwise (when looking down on the
"north" pole of the sun).

The rotation direction of any planets that form is in the opposite
direction because the matter that is closer to the center of the solar
system is moving faster than the matter farther away.

As a planet forms the solar matter on the inner (sun) side of the
planet is moving faster than the matter on the outer side. This spins
the planet in a direction opposite to the rotation of the solar
system.

Imagine a large boat caught in a large whirlpool (spinning clockwise).
The water toward the center of the whirlpool is moving faster than the
water toward the outside of the whirlpool. The faster moving water
will try to move the side of the boat facing the center of the
whirlpool faster than the slower moving water on the side of the boat
facing outwards from the whirlpool. The boat will begin to spin
counter-clockwise.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 7
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:54:55 -0500
Quoting David Buehrer (dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG):
> Because the planets are rotating clockwise around the sun :)
>
> Okay, seriously.

[Explanation of why planets spin the direction they do snipped]

Which reminds me - have they ever come up with an explanation for
why Uranus (or is it Neptune?) has its axis of rotation almost parallel
to the plane of the ecliptic? Most of the planets spin as you described -
except for that one, which sort of rolls around its orbit around the sun
on its side. I always wondered about that.

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 8
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:01:37 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Sean McCrohan wrote:
/
/ Quoting David Buehrer (dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG):
/ > Because the planets are rotating clockwise around the sun :)
/ >
/ > Okay, seriously.
/
/ [Explanation of why planets spin the direction they do snipped]
/
/ Which reminds me - have they ever come up with an explanation for
/ why Uranus (or is it Neptune?) has its axis of rotation almost parallel
/ to the plane of the ecliptic? Most of the planets spin as you described -
/ except for that one, which sort of rolls around its orbit around the sun
/ on its side. I always wondered about that.

Near as they can figure, based on the axis of Uranus and the orbit of
it's moons (which are wacked), Uranus was hit by a *very* big chunk of
real estate. The angle of the strike and the speed of the chunk were
such that it knocked Uranus way off it's axis.

They also figure the same thing happened to the earth when it was hit by
the moon. Except in our case the angle of the strike was as extreme as in
Uranus's case.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 9
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:07:31 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, David Buehrer wrote:
/
/ They also figure the same thing happened to the earth when it was hit by
/ the moon. Except in our case the angle of the strike was as extreme as in
^^^
/ Uranus's case.

That should have been "wasn't" :-\

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 10
From: Kama <kama@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:06:35 -0500
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, David Buehrer wrote:

> Near as they can figure, based on the axis of Uranus and the orbit of
> it's moons (which are wacked), Uranus was hit by a *very* big chunk of
> real estate. The angle of the strike and the speed of the chunk were
> such that it knocked Uranus way off it's axis.
>
> They also figure the same thing happened to the earth when it was hit by
> the moon. Except in our case the angle of the strike was as extreme as in
> Uranus's case.
>
Huhh?? The earth was hit by the moon? When I was in college (about a
thousand years ago :) ) the models we worked with had the earth and moon
developing pretty much as binary planets. When did that theory change and
what did it change to? i.e. what collision?

Kama
Message no. 11
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:18:16 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Kama wrote:
/
/ > They also figure the same thing happened to the earth when it was hit by
/ > the moon. Except in our case the angle of the strike wasn't as extreme
/ > as in Uranus's case.
/ >
/ Huhh?? The earth was hit by the moon? When I was in college (about a
/ thousand years ago :) ) the models we worked with had the earth and moon
/ developing pretty much as binary planets. When did that theory change and
/ what did it change to? i.e. what collision?

Recent geological comparisons between moon rocks and some sites on
earth have yielded similarities that have led many astrophysicists to
believe that the moon was formed when a rather large object hit the
earth about 4.5 B years ago (I think that's the right time frame). I
heard about it on an episode of Nova, I believe. AFAIK the theory is
pretty solid (i.e., the math and computer models say that it's
possible). However, that doesn't mean that the entire astrophysics
community is in agreement :)

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 12
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:45:35 +1000
David Buehrer writes:
> / Huhh?? The earth was hit by the moon? When I was in college (about a
> / thousand years ago :) ) the models we worked with had the earth and moon
> / developing pretty much as binary planets. When did that theory
> change and
> / what did it change to? i.e. what collision?
>
> Recent geological comparisons between moon rocks and some sites on
> earth have yielded similarities that have led many astrophysicists to
> believe that the moon was formed when a rather large object hit the
> earth about 4.5 B years ago (I think that's the right time frame). I
> heard about it on an episode of Nova, I believe. AFAIK the theory is
> pretty solid (i.e., the math and computer models say that it's
> possible). However, that doesn't mean that the entire astrophysics
> community is in agreement :)

Then there's a strong argument for saying that the Moon broke away early on
in the development of the Earth due to instability in the proto-Earth
(imagine spinning taffy around offcenter, for example... you'd get a chunk
that would snap off, sooner or later).

Certainly something pulled or pushed the Earth off-tilt, after a sufficent
amount of rotation built up to keep us off-tilt.

One thing David neglected to mention in his more complete answer to my
smartass comment (I tried to write what you did, David, but I kept jumbling
up the imagery and gave up...) was that the planets won't be rotating
forever. Tidal forces from the Sun will slow down our rotation until it
matches the orbital period, the way the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 13
From: Micheal Feeney <Starrngr@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Rotational question...
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:41:08 EST
In a message dated 99-01-14 17:53:47 EST, you write:

> One thing David neglected to mention in his more complete answer to my
> smartass comment (I tried to write what you did, David, but I kept jumbling
> up the imagery and gave up...) was that the planets won't be rotating
> forever. Tidal forces from the Sun will slow down our rotation until it
> matches the orbital period, the way the Moon is tidally locked to the
Earth.
>
>
Indeed... This is was proved after the mazer clocks were invented. thats why
you hear something about leap seconds every once in a while... the earth's
rotation slows by a fraction of a second every year.... once it gets over
about a half a second they declare a leap second. there has been about 5 or 6
since they perfected the atomic clock, i do belive.

--
Starrngr -- Now with an UPDATED webpage:
Ranger HQ
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm">;
HTTP://hometown.aol.com/starrngr/index.htm</A>;

"You wear a Hawaiian shirt and bring your music on a RUN? No wonder they call
you Howling Mad..." -- Rabid the Pysad.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Rotational question..., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!