Why does the earth rotate?

[Justatruthseeker]

Then why do the other planets spin? And why do they mostly spin in the same direction as Earth? Isn't that a bit of a big coincidence?

Ummm, because of their magnetic fields?????

Not at all, isn't it asking more to believe random collisions set them all to spinning in the same direction?????

instead of the force we know would???????

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

Why would I expect a negatively charged particle to orbit or spin in any other direction?

Laws of physics we have understood for over 200+ years, but refuse to apply to anything outside of the lab. Instead asking us - as usual - to ignore the observations and accept 96% Fairie Dust. Be that Fairie Dust perpetual motion machines spinning in the center of planets, to dark matter, dark energy, black holes or redshift.

EDIT:

Let me add balls of ice in space as well.

 

[Kylie]

Ummm, because of their magnetic fields?????

Not at all, isn't it asking more to believe random collisions set them all to spinning in the same direction?????

instead of the force we know would???????

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

Why would I expect a negatively charged particle to orbit or spin in any other direction?

Laws of physics we have understood for over 200+ years, but refuse to apply to anything outside of the lab. Instead asking us - as usual - to ignore the observations and accept 96% Fairie Dust. Be that Fairie Dust perpetual motion machines spinning in the center of planets, to dark matter, dark energy, black holes or redshift.

EDIT:

Let me add balls of ice in space as well.

Face it. Your theory can't explain why they are all spinning IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

However, if you actually paid attention to what people have been saying, you'll know that nobody has said that random collisions like the one that created the moon are what makes the planets rotate. Instead, it was the primordial gas cloud that our solar system formed from that was spinning as it collapsed due to gravity. And because it was spinning in the one direction, all the planets that formed from it would be spinning in the same direction. Afterwards, any impacts may be caused the differences in spin that we see. (I'm sure you'll notice that when we have planets with different spin directions, those directions are all random.)

Oh, and did you really claim that the laws of physics don't operate outside the lab? REALLY? What keeps an aeroplane up in the air then? What makes an internal combustion engine run? Surely these things can't be operating according to the laws of physics, as aeroplane wings and internal combustion engines aren't labs! Is it magic, perhaps?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The correct answer is that there is no reason why what we see would match what we have here if the laws were different in the distant universe.

And yet they claim that distant universe is increasing in acceleration. Yet Relativity demands that there is no absolute frame. That one has no choice but to assume it is you that is actually undergoing that acceleration.

How would you ever know the laws of physics ever changed if your ruler has shrunk - but you still call it a meter? What will you compare it to in a universe that is in constant motion? Another ruler in the same frame that is also shrinking as well?

How would you ever know the laws of physics ever changed if your clock tick is now longer - but you still call it a second? What will you compare it to in a universe that is in constant motion? Another clock that is also ticking slower as well?

And when we do, everything we see is entirely consistent with the laws we know of here. Why is that?

Are they? Are you sure? Then why must I add 96% Fairie Dust to a theory we understand is 98% correct in the solar system to explain anything outside of this solar system??????

And isn't it funny how religion sets up a system where the only people who know CAN'T get back to us? Funny that, isn't it? A foolproof way to ensure that no negative reviews are left.

And isn't it funny how science sets up a system where the twin DOES get back and is younger - but they still want to insist the laws of physics were the same?????

However, I make the rational decision and decide that I will have to find out the truth through a method other than an unverifiable claim.

Then accept the science that clocks slow and rulers shrink under acceleration in a universe they claim is continuing to accelerate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame

"The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration."


I ask that you not do anything but make a rational decision - and realize why you really need that 96% Fairie Dust everywhere but the solar system????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Face it. Your theory can't explain why they are all spinning IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

No, your theory of random collisions can not.

You of course didn't bother to read the link, or you would know the answer. As I told you.

"Why would I expect a negatively charged particle to orbit or spin in any other direction?"


http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

"Note that this frequency, which is known as the Larmor frequency, does not depend on the velocity of the particle. For a negatively charged particle, the picture is exactly the same as described above, except that the particle moves in a clockwise orbit. "

However, if you actually paid attention to what people have been saying, you'll know that nobody has said that random collisions like the one that created the moon are what makes the planets rotate. Instead, it was the primordial gas cloud that our solar system formed from that was spinning as it collapsed due to gravity. And because it was spinning in the one direction, all the planets that formed from it would be spinning in the same direction. Afterwards, any impacts may be caused the differences in spin that we see. (I'm sure you'll notice that when we have planets with different spin directions, those directions are all random.)

No, you mean asteroid and comets have random spins do to collisions. All planetary spins are aligned around their North and South magnetic poles. You best go reread some more.

All planetary nebula are also aligned along their magnetic poles.

http://news.discovery.com/space/ast...ula-alignment-discovery-hubble-eso-130904.htm

But I am sure mainstream will come up with some Fairie Dust of how they formed spinning perpindicular to the spin of the galaxy. Random collisions I am sure.

Oh, and did you really claim that the laws of physics don't operate outside the lab? REALLY? What keeps an aeroplane up in the air then? What makes an internal combustion engine run? Surely these things can't be operating according to the laws of physics, as aeroplane wings and internal combustion engines aren't labs! Is it magic, perhaps?

Now let's talk about things outside of the solar system using those same laws of physics you understand are at least 98% accurate without adding 96% Fairie Dust?

So outside of the frame of the sun where the lab resides - you can't even get the laws of physics we understand are 98% accurate to even appear close until you add an additional 96% Fairie Dust while at the same time claiming they are the same. If you say so.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Outside the lab you ignore almost all electromagnetic phenomenon. That's why they are ALWAYS surprised.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025

And every textbook was wrong.

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html

Or it's just because they are preaching Fairie Dust so none of their theories match because they keep ignoring those electromagnetic events. And yes, I mean not one single one. (Mainstream theories that is)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region.



https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/10/30/star-wires/

 

[Kylie]

And yet they claim that distant universe is increasing in acceleration. Yet Relativity demands that there is no absolute frame. That one has no choice but to assume it is you that is actually undergoing that acceleration.

How would you ever know the laws of physics ever changed if your ruler has shrunk - but you still call it a meter? What will you compare it to in a universe that is in constant motion? Another ruler in the same frame that is also shrinking as well?

How would you ever know the laws of physics ever changed if your clock tick is now longer - but you still call it a second? What will you compare it to in a universe that is in constant motion? Another clock that is also ticking slower as well?

What are you talking about?

The rules of the universe we see are consistent with the rules we have here. Yes, the laws here may have changed in a way that is undetectable to us, but if so, then so have the laws elsewhere.

Are they? Are you sure? Then why must I add 96% Fairie Dust to a theory we understand is 98% correct in the solar system to explain anything outside of this solar system??????

Are you really saying that if science can't explain everything then we can dismiss all of it?

And isn't it funny how science sets up a system where the twin DOES get back and is younger - but they still want to insist the laws of physics were the same?????

Please, this is easily explainable. Relativity is not exactly difficult.

Then accept the science that clocks slow and rulers shrink under acceleration in a universe they claim is continuing to accelerate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame

"The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration."

Yeah, it is called relativity and is quite well understood. Has been for about a century.

I ask that you not do anything but make a rational decision - and realize why you really need that 96% Fairie Dust everywhere but the solar system????

Translation: Science can't explain everything, so science is just made up nonsense.

You really don't know how science works.

The scientific illiteracy I see in these threads from creationists is really astounding.

 

[Kylie]

No, your theory of random collisions can not.

Since you got this wrong, I'm not even going to bother answering the rest of your post, since it is painfully obvious that you completely ignore my posts.

The planets were not started spinning by random collisions. I have never said that. I'm not aware of any science that makes this claim. And I have repeatedly stated that I do not think this.

I have claimed SEVERAL TIMES that science states that the planets spin because the gas cloud that formed our solar system was spinning as it collapsed under the force of gravity.

It's like water emptying out of a bath. It doesn't spin because you push on it with your hands. It spins because there's always some random movement in the water, and as you drain the water, the spin becomes more powerful as water molecules get closer to the drain hole.

Now, are you going to actually listen, or just continue with ridiculous strawman arguments?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have claimed SEVERAL TIMES that science states that the planets spin because the gas cloud that formed our solar system was spinning as it collapsed under the force of gravity.

It's like water emptying out of a bath. It doesn't spin because you push on it with your hands. It spins because there's always some random movement in the water, and as you drain the water, the spin becomes more powerful as water molecules get closer to the drain hole.

Now, are you going to actually listen, or just continue with ridiculous strawman arguments?

And yet every single theory of solar system formation was falsified...

So the question is: are you going to continue to listen to people that can't get their models to work even right next door in cosmological distances?????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region.""

Are you going to continue with that strawman of they somehow know what they are talking about when every formation theory they have is wrong?????

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html

"Like in meteorites most of the components from the comet have isotopic compositions similar to Earth and are of solar system origin."

http://gizmodo.com/everything-we-know-about-planet-formation-might-be-wron-922134625
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-formation-theory-busted-earth-science-space/

"But that bonanza has been a headache for theoreticians, he said, because many of the newly discovered star systems defy existing models of how planets form. (Related: "New Planet Found; Star's Fourth World Stumps Astronomers.")"

http://planet.infowars.com/science/...-incorrect-but-establishment-still-wont-budge
http://www.nature.com/news/astronomy-planets-in-chaos-1.15480

Theories so wrong it has led them to believe that our solar system is weird, because the theories only work for it.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150515-how-weird-is-our-solar-system
http://www.universetoday.com/113153/is-our-solar-system-weird/




I mean really? Have you even paid any attention to astronomical news in the last decade????

Let me paraphrase every release: Surprised, dumbfounded, mystified, at a complete loss, not what was expected, and on and on and on.


The only strawman here is the one where you attempt to convince others that since every single theoretical model mainstream had was wrong - that they are somehow still correct.

That's the biggest cop-out and strawman to ignore science I ever heard in my life.

They got it ALL wrong, every bit of it. Why? Because they refuse to apply those laws of physics we know are 39 orders of magnitude stronger in the lab anywhere else in the universe.

Refuse to accept when E said "the laws of physics vary depending on acceleration" in a universe you then claim is increasing in acceleration, at the same time claiming to follow E's theory, yet refusing to accept those laws are changing as acceleration increases. Prime definition of hypocrite. Look it up.

They don't have a clue as to how solar systems or planetary systems are formed - not a clue. And the worst part isn't that they don't know - but that people like you come along and think everything they told you is correct - when everything they told you was falsified years ago.

Even when they admit their theories are wrong - you sit there and argue for that same theory they admitted was incorrect. I mean, they don't even support you - the people you claim do. You fool no one but yourself when you ignore the science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What are you talking about?

The rules of the universe we see are consistent with the rules we have here.

No they are not. The laws of physics you have here are known to be 98% correct without the addition of any ad-hoc inventions that you repeatedly invoke to defend that untenable scientific theory (belief).

E told you that the twin actually experiences time differently - he actually ages slower because the laws of physics vary in accelerating frames. This is why E told you when the twin returns to earth - he is younger than his twin brother. it is not an illusion - but a physical reality.

Yes, the laws here may have changed in a way that is undetectable to us, but if so, then so have the laws elsewhere.

So then, since you understand acceleration slows clocks, in a universe you claim is increasing in acceleration - then you should know you must adjust your clocks to read faster as you calculate backwards in time. You know your clocks have slowed, so they must have ticked faster in the past when there was less acceleration. A direct consequence of the theory you claim to follow.

Are you really saying that if science can't explain everything then we can dismiss all of it?

No, that's your strawman to attempt to convince others it's what I said, I said" stop refusing to apply the correct physics when your theories turn out to be wrong - which they all have. It's not that they can't explain it, they just insist on using the wrong physics for the wrong states of matter. And to apply their own theory of accelerating frames to a universe increasing in acceleration. I certainly am not asking you to dismiss it, I am asking you to accept that science and apply it. As i said, that was your strawman, not mine.

Please, this is easily explainable. Relativity is not exactly difficult.

Yeah, it is called relativity and is quite well understood. Has been for about a century.

Then why do you keep trying to apply it to a state of matter it does not apply to, if you understand it? And if you uinderstand it, why are you insisting the laws of physics are the same when Relativity tells you in accelerating frames the laws of physics vary????? No, I don't think you understand it at all to be honest.

Translation: Science can't explain everything, so science is just made up nonsense.

You really don't know how science works.

The scientific illiteracy I see in these threads from creationists is really astounding.

Science can explain it - as soon as they start using the correct physics. That's your strawman that they can't explain it. It is astounding - such as the scientific illiteracy of people that think they can explain a universe 99% Plasma with gravitational theory - when every single plasma scientist in every single plasma laboratory (on earth or in space) uses Plasma Physics.

Oh no, that is your strawman that I said they couldn't explain it in order to defend your made up Fairie Dust. The physics have been right there in every laboratory for 200+ years - they just refuse to apply it - instead thinking they can sledgehammer theory for solids, liquids and gasses (gravitational theory) to fit a universe 99% Plasma (plasma physics).

Yes, it can certainly be explained - rotation and all when the correct theory is applied to the correct states of matter.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

So no more strawmen please, it can be explained just fine without that Fairie Dust when the correct physics is applied to the correct states of matter.

But go ahead - claim I am the one that doesn't understand science while you try to double-talk your way around every single experiment with plasma for the last 200+ years - and why we should all accept Fairie Dust instead of applying Plasma Physics to a universe 99% Plasma, when no other theory but Plasma Physics is applied to Plasma in every single laboratory by every single Plasma Physicist???????

It's not that science can't explain it - it does so just fine - it is that cosmologists and astronomers still ignore the laws of physics for plasma in a universe 99% plasma. Plasma Physics not even required reading in a universe where they claim it is 99% plasma. Go figure. Might as well apply gas physics to water and then ask us to believe all that Fairie Dust they'd have to add was needed.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

When you all stop proposing Fairie Dust and accept the science you will all understand why it rotates.

http://www.livescience.com/39780-magnetic-field-pushes-earth-core.html

No, but you propose two objects rotating opposite one another and require a magic perpetual motion machine operating against friction for 4+ billion years in opposition to all of science.

The physics have been understood for over 200 years, yet each and every one of you ignores it.

You ignore that current creating the magnetic field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

You ignore the cause of the heat in the core.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect

"An important feature of the induction heating process is that the heat is generated inside the object itself, instead of by an external heat source via heat conduction."

Ignore that the core rotates opposite to the mantle. Requiring friction be induced between the two counter-rotating portions and propose perpetual motion machines operating by magic.

From the viewpoint of an outside observer the core and mantle rotate in the same direction. The core rotates somewhat faster than the mantle. The mantle is experiencing tidal breaking from the moon, slowing down the rotation of the mantle. The core is still moving somewhat faster. Regardless of electrical or magnetic effects, the difference between them results in friction, which will ultimately bring them to the same rate way way in the future.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

From the viewpoint of an outside observer the core and mantle rotate in the same direction. The core rotates somewhat faster than the mantle. The mantle is experiencing tidal breaking from the moon, slowing down the rotation of the mantle. The core is still moving somewhat faster. Regardless of electrical or magnetic effects, the difference between them results in friction, which will ultimately bring them to the same rate way way in the future.

And what in Fairie Dust land has kept them spinning against friction for 4+ billion years? or are you suggesting that since it is slowing down it was once 1000 times faster a billion years ago????

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
"Recent evidence has suggested that the inner core of Earth may rotate slightly faster than the rest of the planet;[18] however, more recent studies in 2011 found this hypothesis to be inconclusive."

So just admit no one really knows and it's all a guessing game with "hidden" Fairie Dust dynamos.

And if indeed the studies are correct and that it rotates 0.3 to 0.5 degrees per year faster relative to the rotation of the surface, please explain how this generates the magnetic field of the earth according to dynamo theory? Or are you aware of how small a difference .3 to .5 degrees is???????? That's one complete rotation every 720 to 780 years.

So studies do indeed suggest that your dynamo theory is dead - and should be thrown out as all Fairie Dust should be. But then if you stopped ignoring those 100,000 ampere electric currents flowing across the planetary diameter, you wouldn't need to keep proposing those Fairie Dust dynamos that rotate .5 degrees per year faster yet magically produce a planet size magnetic field.

Soon as some physicist figures that one out he's going to be rich, what with a generator capable of turning 1/2 a degree per year and generating enough electricity to light NY city for that year.

Yes, we definitely have a View Master at work here.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And what in Fairie Dust land has kept them spinning against friction for 4+ billion years? or are you suggesting that since it is slowing down it was once 1000 times faster a billion years ago????

Clearly the friction has only been enough to slow the inner core down, not bring it into lock step yet. If you think that wouldn't work, do the math. Be sure to allow for the momentum and set the friction amount to be consistent with the loss of heat from the core over time. They have to be equal, you know.

And if indeed the studies are correct and that it rotates 0.3 to 0.5 degrees per year faster relative to the rotation of the surface, please explain how this generates the magnetic field of the earth according to dynamo theory? Or are you aware of how small a difference .3 to .5 degrees is???????? That's one complete rotation every 720 to 780 years.

Clearly such a small difference would not suffice. Where did you get THAT number, when above you assert that the amount of rotation difference is so difficult to determine?

 

[dad]

You have no basis to even know about Jesus because you reject knowledge of the past. So to acknowledge Jesus, you have to be inconsistent.

Gibberish. Christians all know Jesus.

 

[dad]

The correct answer is that there is no reason why what we see would match what we have here if the laws were different in the distant universe.

Or not. So find something you do know.

I'm not talking about a thing. I'm talking about a process. You say the process is different, I say it is the same. ANd now you say it doesn't exist...

Say what you want...provey woovey.

You disagree with the evidence because accepting it would mean your beliefs are wrong. And you don't want to face that.

The evidence all supports me, I only divest the godless dreams of so called science from that evidence.

And when we do, everything we see is entirely consistent with the laws we know of here. Why is that?

That is all you look for. What else could you possibly 'find'!? You use beliefs to interpret evide3nce so naturally is looks a certain way to you.

And isn't it funny how religion sets up a system where the only people who know CAN'T get back to us? Funny that, isn't it? A foolproof way to ensure that no negative reviews are left.

Better than so called science where they can't know to begin with.

However, I make the rational decision and decide that I will have to find out the truth through a method other than an unverifiable claim.

Talk is cheap. You have a religious method, and no means to verify what the laws were in the past.

Not even my daughter thinks that's a good debate tactic.

That settles it I guess.

 

[dad]

In the Invisible Pink Unicorn's mind, man's wisdom is foolishness, and blessed is he who trusts her holy hooves.

When you understand what is wrong with my claim, you'll know what is wrong with yours.

The calendar is not set to your imaginary animals.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Gibberish. Christians all know Jesus.

But by your rules of saying that the past is unknowable, you cannot make that claim. Its your own denial of knowing the past that makes your claims gibberish.

Your clinging to the idea that one cannot make any substantive claims about past states is what sinks your claims about Jesus. If you would concede that it is reasonable to make evidence based conclusions about past states, then we could consider having faith in Jesus, who is after all an historical figure in the past. But as long as you assert one cannot do that, your faith has no basis.,

 

[dad]

But by your rules of saying that the past is unknowable, you cannot make that claim.

Silly canard. Only to science is the state of the future or far past unknown. I know plenty. God told us.

Your clinging to the idea that one cannot make any substantive claims about past states is what sinks your claims about Jesus.

The nature change would have been long before Christ was born.

Try to focus. At least try to hitch a ride to the ball park, you are not even in left field here.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Silly canard. Only to science is the state of the future or far past unknown. I know plenty. God told us.


The nature change would have been long before Christ was born.

Try to focus. At least try to hitch a ride to the ball park, you are not even in left field here.

Easy enough to focus. Your claim that God told us is inconsistent with your radical rejection of all evidence from the past. You simply make your own beliefs illogical. I don't make that mistake, it is your own mistake.

 

[dad]

Easy enough to focus. Your claim that God told us is inconsistent with your radical rejection of all evidence from the past.

Absurd. Scripture is consistent as ever could possibly be! What is inconsistent is man's fabrications and frauds and fake creation fables.

Yet some...even 'christians' wholeheartedly embrace such godless fables with all their hearts and minds.

 

[Kylie]

Or not. So find something you do know.

Or not? What makes you say this? Or are you just guessing?

Say what you want...provey woovey.

That's kind of the point. Science is the only one with evidence from reality.

The evidence all supports me, I only divest the godless dreams of so called science from that evidence.

lol, no.

That is all you look for. What else could you possibly 'find'!? You use beliefs to interpret evide3nce so naturally is looks a certain way to you.

All we look for? Everything we see follows the rules that we have here, whether we look for it or not? Or are you suggesting scientists are cherry picking their data?

Better than so called science where they can't know to begin with.

You have no idea how science works.

Talk is cheap. You have a religious method, and no means to verify what the laws were in the past.

I've explained to you how this is wrong, and yet you ignore it.

That settles it I guess.

Yeah, when my daughter can demolish your arguments, you should be wondering if your arguments are really that good.