"Spinning Earth" theorists, nutters or onto something?
Discussion
tvrolet said:
On a broadly unrelated note, I've always liked the idea of being able to walk 'stationary in space' (notwithstanding the earth's orbit round the sun) - the very opposite of geostationery.
If I assume I can walk at 4mph, then I could cover 96 miles in a 24 hour period (if I was up to it), so round about 15 miles from either the north or south pole (where the diameter would be 96 miles or so) you could walk round 'stationary' in space while the earth revolves beneath you...constantly at the same time of day with just the dates changing each time you passed the date-line.
I haven't got a clue what you are on about.If I assume I can walk at 4mph, then I could cover 96 miles in a 24 hour period (if I was up to it), so round about 15 miles from either the north or south pole (where the diameter would be 96 miles or so) you could walk round 'stationary' in space while the earth revolves beneath you...constantly at the same time of day with just the dates changing each time you passed the date-line.
I sometimes wonder what people did with their time at school in this country.
As pointed out - the earth's spin is slowing down - due to tidal interaction with the moon (and the sun - to a lesser extent). I did exaggerate a bit when I said dinos had to put up with a 22 hour day. Dinosaurs lived on earth for a period beginning about 250 million years ago and ending 65 million years ago.
250 million years ago the rotation of the earth had already slowed down to about 23 hours in the day and by 65 million years ago, Tyrannosaurus could have made use of a modern watch - although with his short little arms he'd never been able to wind it up, or change the battery.
250 million years ago the rotation of the earth had already slowed down to about 23 hours in the day and by 65 million years ago, Tyrannosaurus could have made use of a modern watch - although with his short little arms he'd never been able to wind it up, or change the battery.
FredClogs said:
It is spinning, but not as fast as it used to, in the good old days you know when you could call a spade a spade and there was non of this PC malarky, back in the Edicarin days when a day was only 21hours we didn't have time to fit all that bulls
t in.
http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/6Page58.pdf
Pretty fascinating, wasn't aware of that.t in.http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/6Page58.pdf
Eric Mc said:
tvrolet said:
On a broadly unrelated note, I've always liked the idea of being able to walk 'stationary in space' (notwithstanding the earth's orbit round the sun) - the very opposite of geostationery.
If I assume I can walk at 4mph, then I could cover 96 miles in a 24 hour period (if I was up to it), so round about 15 miles from either the north or south pole (where the diameter would be 96 miles or so) you could walk round 'stationary' in space while the earth revolves beneath you...constantly at the same time of day with just the dates changing each time you passed the date-line.
I haven't got a clue what you are on about.If I assume I can walk at 4mph, then I could cover 96 miles in a 24 hour period (if I was up to it), so round about 15 miles from either the north or south pole (where the diameter would be 96 miles or so) you could walk round 'stationary' in space while the earth revolves beneath you...constantly at the same time of day with just the dates changing each time you passed the date-line.
I sometimes wonder what people did with their time at school in this country.
Let me explain it slowly. I'll try not to use any big words this time like 'geostationery'. Maybe that threw you a little?
Clearly you accept that the earth rotates along with everything on it. Therefore our view of the universe is from a constantly moving platform which we perceive as the sun and moon rising and setting and the stars apparently in motion across the sky.
While Concorde did a few trips where they flew round the globe to give maximum duration to certain phenomena, for most folks it is not possible to stay at effectively a fixed point and watch a static sun etc., as above not withstanding we're orbiting it.
But approximately 15 miles from either pole is would be possible to effectively counteract the earth's rotation at walking pace thus the view of the sun/stars would effectively be from a 'fixed' point and not from a rotating surface. Much further and you wouldn't be walking fast enough. Closer would work, but the idea of walking pace exactly matching the earth's rotation is quite elegant.
It really isn't a difficult concept.
Maybe more time in the geometry and applied mechanics classes at your school would have helped you out?
tvrolet said:
Well I for one mucked about a bit, but not so much as stop me getting a good number of Highers (as they have in Scotland) and a decent engineering degree.
Let me explain it slowly. I'll try not to use any big words this time like 'geostationery'. Maybe that threw you a little?
Clearly you accept that the earth rotates along with everything on it. Therefore our view of the universe is from a constantly moving platform which we perceive as the sun and moon rising and setting and the stars apparently in motion across the sky.
While Concorde did a few trips where they flew round the globe to give maximum duration to certain phenomena, for most folks it is not possible to stay at effectively a fixed point and watch a static sun etc., as above not withstanding we're orbiting it.
But approximately 15 miles from either pole is would be possible to effectively counteract the earth's rotation at walking pace thus the view of the sun/stars would effectively be from a 'fixed' point and not from a rotating surface. Much further and you wouldn't be walking fast enough. Closer would work, but the idea of walking pace exactly matching the earth's rotation is quite elegant.
It really isn't a difficult concept.
Maybe more time in the geometry and applied mechanics classes at your school would have helped you out?
Surely if you were to do this you would effectively cancel any angular momentum you had thereby increasing the effect gravity had on you to the point of being crushed to pulp. Scary stuff this science.Let me explain it slowly. I'll try not to use any big words this time like 'geostationery'. Maybe that threw you a little?
Clearly you accept that the earth rotates along with everything on it. Therefore our view of the universe is from a constantly moving platform which we perceive as the sun and moon rising and setting and the stars apparently in motion across the sky.
While Concorde did a few trips where they flew round the globe to give maximum duration to certain phenomena, for most folks it is not possible to stay at effectively a fixed point and watch a static sun etc., as above not withstanding we're orbiting it.
But approximately 15 miles from either pole is would be possible to effectively counteract the earth's rotation at walking pace thus the view of the sun/stars would effectively be from a 'fixed' point and not from a rotating surface. Much further and you wouldn't be walking fast enough. Closer would work, but the idea of walking pace exactly matching the earth's rotation is quite elegant.
It really isn't a difficult concept.
Maybe more time in the geometry and applied mechanics classes at your school would have helped you out?
Or would you take off?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff