Why does the earth rotate?

[JonFromMinnesota]

Use your common sense.

The fact that the earth rotates is common knowledge. If you're so confident in your claims, write a paper and submit it to a physics publication. We both know you won't do this because CONSPIRACY!!!!!111!111.

Pilots don't take the earth rotation into account.

Wrong. The Earth's rotation has a great effect on the weather patterns. It's called The Coriolis Effect. If the Earth didn't rotate, winds would travel north or south because of difference in temperature and pressure at different latitudes. Pilots have to account for this effect. For example: A plane takes off in Miami headed towards New York. The pilot would end up in the Atlantic Ocean if they ignored the effects of the earths rotation.

Is the plane trip duration cut short due to earth rotation? NO. But the pendulum test proves rotation?

Read above for the Coriolis Effect. To further answer the question, the atmosphere is moving with the surface of the earth underneath it. This is because of friction between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere. When you fly up into it you continue to move with the surface of the earth.

You cannot have it both ways!

I can't show you two different experiments? I just did.
You're demonstrably wrong.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. He does allow for ours though, and the laws of the universe are like television stations that can be changed as needed by Him who has the great clicker!

...and can't make up his mind what channel is best.

 

[dad]

...and can't make up his mind what channel is best.

There is a time for certain channels. For example if a child is in the room, maybe we would put one channel on. Later, mom and dad might like a glass of wine and a romantic movie....etc.

 

[Kylie]

Use your common sense.

Pilots don't take the earth rotation into account. Is the plane trip duration cut short due to earth rotation? NO. But the pendulum test proves rotation?

You cannot have it both ways!

The atmosphere is rotating along with the earth, and the planes are moving relative to the atmosphere.

If you are walking from one horse to another horse on a merry-go-round while it is moving, do you have to take the movement of the merry-go-round into account? Of course not.

 

[Kylie]

So little particles started spinning. You know this because our physics applied then. You know the litle dust particles were on one side, because...well you need them to be. Nice fable sis.

We know because it is highly unlikely that they would have ALL been moving directly towards the center of gravity.

You seem to love invoking the most outlandish coincidences to bolster your quaint ideas.

 

[Kylie]

Or you prove it did...or even does now out there!

You seem to have a severe allergy to providing evidence for your claim. I suggest you see a doctor for it.

For sure...like your flatworm ancestry, magic dust that went round until we had planets--spinning the same way, a smash up derby with earth that resulted in 2 moons, one which conveniently disappeared. But we know it existed because...well, as always you just need it! Ever consider moving over to a rational belief in creation?

Once again, you resort to ridicule to attack something when you have no rational argument against it.

I swear, I'll be shocked beyond belief if you ever make an argument that doesn't resort to a logical fallacy...

 

[dad]

We know because it is highly unlikely that they would have ALL been moving directly towards the center of gravity.

In a godless dream world where a scenario was invented whole of cloth to explain creation with no Creator, there exists what you call 'likely'. Perhaps there exits a snowflake in hell too? In any case, good luck proving that.

You seem to love invoking the most outlandish coincidences to bolster your quaint ideas.

The post you quoted had to do with your magic dust creating planets and etc.

 

[dad]

You seem to have a severe allergy to providing evidence for your claim. I suggest you see a doctor for it.

'hey doc, they can't prove the same state past, so I fall back on God's word for how it was. Now someone wants proof..can you help them'?

Once again, you resort to ridicule to attack something when you have no rational argument against it.

I don't resort to it, there is no other option when dealing with flagrant fibs about creation, that have no basis in fact, and are manufactured with belief and spite.

I swear, I'll be shocked beyond belief if you ever make an argument that doesn't resort to a logical fallacy...

It is quite germane to the conversation to note that your group of fables share commonalities with each other. Baselessness, godlessness, hopelessness, cluelessness, and craziness.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Gee. Why is it that orbit shapes and velocities are totally unrelated to strength of planetary magnetic fields?

Says who, you or mainstream astronomers that still use plasma formula that we know to be wrong from plasma experiments??? And have been doing so despite the inventor of MHD telling you 30 years ago????

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf

"However, these theories had initially very little contact with experimental
plasma physics, and all the awkward and complicated phenomena which had
been treated in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected. The
result of this was what has been called the thermonuclear crisis some 10 years
ago....
The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermo-
nuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians
who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in
formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The
astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.'​

But it's right on the doorstep.

Always ignoring 99% of the data. Aren't you tired of ignoring 99% of the data every time yet?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Says who, you or mainstream astronomers that still use plasma formula that we know to be wrong from plasma experiments??? And have been doing so despite the inventor of MHD telling you 30 years ago????

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf

"However, these theories had initially very little contact with experimental
plasma physics, and all the awkward and complicated phenomena which had
been treated in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected. The
result of this was what has been called the thermonuclear crisis some 10 years
ago....
The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermo-
nuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians
who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in
formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The
astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.'​

But it's right on the doorstep.

Always ignoring 99% of the data. Aren't you tired of ignoring 99% of the data every time yet?

Kepler established the formula for the time a planet orbits the sun.

1. The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

This has nothing to do with the size of planetary magnetic fields. Rather, it has to do with the strength of gravity.

Venus has a much smaller magnetic field than earth's. Yet its orbit speed is right up there with Kepler's formula.

Its as if the magnetic fields strengths affecting the planets were simply far to weak to produce a noticeable effect . . . !

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Kepler established the formula for the time a planet orbits the sun.

1. The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

This has nothing to do with the size of planetary magnetic fields. Rather, it has to do with the strength of gravity.

Venus has a much smaller magnetic field than earth's. Yet its orbit speed is right up there with Kepler's formula.

Its as if the magnetic fields strengths affecting the planets were simply far to weak to produce a noticeable effect . . . !

Is that the best strawman you can come up with? What does Venus's magnetic field have to do with it's orbital period, or Earth's????

Let me repeat what I said - since clearly you didn't understand it to begin with.

"The galactic magnetic field causes it to spin - and causes stars to orbit. The suns magnetic field causes it to spin - and causes planets to orbit. Planetary magnetic fields cause planets to spin - and moons to orbit........"

Apparently you have confused orbit with spin.

So because Venus does indeed have a smaller magnetic field - we naturally expect it to rotate slower than the earth.

http://www.universetoday.com/36899/venus-period-of-rotation/

"The period of rotation for Venus is 243 days (spin). That seems like a long time, and it is. Especially when you consider that a year on Venus only lasts 224.7 days (orbit). In other words, a day on Venus lasts longer than its year."

So by ignoring 99% of the data you did not even realize you were confirming EM theory, because you confused orbits with spin or purposefully tried to mislead people with a strawman - I'll let you decide which you want to admit to.

NASA already informed you you were applying incorrect theory long ago.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880.pdf

"As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models (Lyons and Williams, 1985) and circuit theory (Alfven, in Chapter III of Cosmic Plasma, 1981, hereafter referred to as CP)"

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:514247/FULLTEXT01.pdf

But you still haven't replaced it - still using theory known to be wrong in describing space plasma.

 

[Rygaku]

One site claims this

"
4.54 billion years ago, our Solar System formed within a cloud of hydrogen not unlike the Orion Nebula, or the Eagle Nebula, with its awesome pillars of creation.

Then, it took some kick, like from the shockwave from a nearby supernova, and this set a region of the cold gas falling inward through its mutual gravity. As it collapsed, the cloud began to spin.

But why?

It’s the conservation of angular momentum.

Think about the individual atoms in the cloud of hydrogen. Each particle has its own momentum as it drifts through the void. As these atoms glom onto one another with gravity, they need to average out their momentum. It might be possible to average out perfectly to zero, but it’s really really unlikely.

Which means, there will be some left over. Like a figure skater pulling in her arms to spin more rapidly, the collapsing proto-Solar System with its averaged out particle momentum began to spin faster and faster."
http://www.universetoday.com/14491/why-does-the-earth-rotate/


Some people apparently take this fable seriously and even call it science. Total 100% fable and story telling of course.

Why does the earth spin that is a easy enough question to answer

The Earth spins because it formed in the accretion disk of a cloud of hydrogen that collapsed down from mutual gravity and needed to conserve its angular momentum. It continues to spin because of inertia. The why you are looking for is this if you have a dense enough area or a dense amount of cloud mass naturally due to general relativity and gravity cause the spinning motion.

 

[dad]

Why does the earth spin that is a easy enough question to answer

The Earth spins because it formed in the accretion disk of a cloud of hydrogen that collapsed down from mutual gravity and needed to conserve its angular momentum.

One could say a turtle passed gas and the universe came out also I suppose. The trick is...prove it! Don't just recite fables.

It continues to spin because of inertia.

You did not prove the first bit so nothing continues!

The why you are looking for is this if you have a dense enough area or a dense amount of cloud mass naturally due to general relativity and gravity cause the spinning motion.

If you have a magic turtle with gas.....presto. Got anything more? Why was there a cloud? You see it? No. You just need it in your fable.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Is that the best strawman you can come up with? What does Venus's magnetic field have to do with it's orbital period, or Earth's????

Let me repeat what I said - since clearly you didn't understand it to begin with.

"The galactic magnetic field causes it to spin - and causes stars to orbit. The suns magnetic field causes it to spin - and causes planets to orbit. Planetary magnetic fields cause planets to spin - and moons to orbit........"

Apparently you have confused orbit with spin.

So because Venus does indeed have a smaller magnetic field - we naturally expect it to rotate slower than the earth.

http://www.universetoday.com/36899/venus-period-of-rotation/

"The period of rotation for Venus is 243 days (spin). That seems like a long time, and it is. Especially when you consider that a year on Venus only lasts 224.7 days (orbit). In other words, a day on Venus lasts longer than its year."

So by ignoring 99% of the data you did not even realize you were confirming EM theory, because you confused orbits with spin or purposefully tried to mislead people with a strawman - I'll let you decide which you want to admit to.

NASA already informed you you were applying incorrect theory long ago.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880.pdf

"As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models (Lyons and Williams, 1985) and circuit theory (Alfven, in Chapter III of Cosmic Plasma, 1981, hereafter referred to as CP)"

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:514247/FULLTEXT01.pdf

But you still haven't replaced it - still using theory known to be wrong in describing space plasma.

So you are talking only about planetary rotation rates? So compare the rotation rate of Mars with Earth and compare the magnetic field strength of Mars vs Earth. They rotate about the same, but Mars has a very much weaker magnetic field.

 

[Kylie]

In a godless dream world where a scenario was invented whole of cloth to explain creation with no Creator, there exists what you call 'likely'. Perhaps there exits a snowflake in hell too? In any case, good luck proving that.
The post you quoted had to do with your magic dust creating planets and etc.

Once again, the only response you can manage to write is ridicule.

Do let me know when you have a something of substance to post, will you?

 

[Kylie]

'hey doc, they can't prove the same state past, so I fall back on God's word for how it was. Now someone wants proof..can you help them'?

More like, "Hey, doc, the science and evidence they provide disagrees with what I want to believe, so I resort to ridicule, strawmen and straight out ignoring it so I can continue to believe what I want, while at the same time providing no proof for my position. Why do they not see this as proof that I am right?"

I don't resort to it, there is no other option when dealing with flagrant fibs about creation, that have no basis in fact, and are manufactured with belief and spite.

Yes you do resort to it. You do it all the time.

If the claims of science are wrong, show me the part of the actual science that is incorrect.

And by that, I mean, "You put a minus sign instead of a plus sign in step six," or "You forgot to move the decimal place over."

None of your usual, "You can't prove it," nonsense.

It is quite germane to the conversation to note that your group of fables share commonalities with each other. Baselessness, godlessness, hopelessness, cluelessness, and craziness.

You only say that because that's the only way you can justify clinging to your unsupported beliefs.

 

[Kylie]

Is that the best strawman you can come up with? What does Venus's magnetic field have to do with it's orbital period, or Earth's????

Let me repeat what I said - since clearly you didn't understand it to begin with.

"The galactic magnetic field causes it to spin - and causes stars to orbit. The suns magnetic field causes it to spin - and causes planets to orbit. Planetary magnetic fields cause planets to spin - and moons to orbit........"

Apparently you have confused orbit with spin.

So because Venus does indeed have a smaller magnetic field - we naturally expect it to rotate slower than the earth.

http://www.universetoday.com/36899/venus-period-of-rotation/

"The period of rotation for Venus is 243 days (spin). That seems like a long time, and it is. Especially when you consider that a year on Venus only lasts 224.7 days (orbit). In other words, a day on Venus lasts longer than its year."

So by ignoring 99% of the data you did not even realize you were confirming EM theory, because you confused orbits with spin or purposefully tried to mislead people with a strawman - I'll let you decide which you want to admit to.

NASA already informed you you were applying incorrect theory long ago.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880.pdf

"As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models (Lyons and Williams, 1985) and circuit theory (Alfven, in Chapter III of Cosmic Plasma, 1981, hereafter referred to as CP)"

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:514247/FULLTEXT01.pdf

But you still haven't replaced it - still using theory known to be wrong in describing space plasma.

Please post the actual equation that would allow us to determine the rate of spin from only the planet's magnetic field.

 

[dad]

Once again, the only response you can manage to write is ridicule.

Do let me know when you have a something of substance to post, will you?

Not unless I first hire a team of specialists that can recognize it and translate for you.

 

[dad]

More like, "Hey, doc, the science and evidence they provide disagrees with what I want to believe, so I resort to ridicule, strawmen and straight out ignoring it so I can continue to believe what I want, while at the same time providing no proof for my position. Why do they not see this as proof that I am right?"

No. More like, for so called science...this

Yes you do resort to it. You do it all the time.

There comes a time when I don't ask the goalie if it's OK to score.

If the claims of science are wrong, show me the part of the actual science that is incorrect.

That parts the assume a same state past and say anything at all about the far future, the far past or the far universe!

They don't know when to believe themselves.

And by that, I mean, "You put a minus sign instead of a plus sign in step six," or "You forgot to move the decimal place over."

None of your usual, "You can't prove it," nonsense.

Told you exactly where they go wrong in what they say.

You only say that because that's the only way you can justify clinging to your unsupported beliefs.

 

[Kylie]

Not unless I first hire a team of specialists that can recognize it and translate for you.

More insults.

This is getting old...