PDA

View Full Version : if the world span around the other way



DianaS
20th-April-2005, 12:20 PM
... would we fall over at the point when it stopped? and would we be dizzy..
and would the sun rise at the west and set at the east?..

Please advise
I said I'll think about it and get back to him today :rofl:

Northants Girly
20th-April-2005, 12:26 PM
... would we fall over at the point when it stopped? and would we be dizzy..
and would the sun rise at the west and set at the east?..

Please advise
I said I'll think about it and get back to him today :rofl:If the earth stopped the sun wouldn't rise or fall cos the sun dosn't move. My guess is that if it started going the other way then yeah - sun would rise in West . . . Don't know about falling over! I probably would! :sick:

Are we helping someone with GCSE homework? ;)

drathzel
20th-April-2005, 12:56 PM
I probably would! :sick:
;)

me too, i'm really clumsy! :blush:

El Salsero Gringo
20th-April-2005, 01:00 PM
You wouldn't notice it yourself - the centripetal effect of the earth's rotation which appears to push you away from the centre of rotation is a very small fraction of the gravitational attraction of the earth's mass:

Centripetal "acceleration" is radius x (angular velocity)^2

Earth's radius is roughly 6.37 x 10^6 m
Earth's angular velocity is 2pi radians in 24 hours, or 7.3 x 10^-5 rad/s

at the equator where it is a maximum, the accelerative force due to rotation is therefore 0.034 m/s^2 compared with a gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2, give or take. In other words the rotation reduces your apparent weight by about 0.3%

In order for objects to appear weightless at the equator, the earth would have to turn about every 70 minutes (from memory) at which speed every object at the equator would actually be in orbit around the planet.

If the direction of rotation of the earth were suddenly to change there would be catastrophic effects on:

- Weather patterns (the coriolis effect that makes cyclones turn one way, and anti-cyclones the other in each hemsiphere would be reversed)

- Possibly on the earth's magnetic field (which I think is believed to be caused by rotating flows in the earth's molten iron core)

- The tides, and eventually on the orbit of the moon. The Earth-Moon system is weakly coupled - with the earth's rotation gradually slowing (because of tidal braking) and so transferring angular momentum to the moon which is both slowing it's orbit around the earth and increasing it's orbital distance. Since the moon currently orbits pro-grade (in the same direction as the earth's rotation) a reversal the direction of rotation of the earth would increase the speed of the tides, and make the tidal braking effect greater. The moon would therefore recede faster.

I stand to be corrected on these details since they are from memory.


(edited to add: If there were an effect on the Earth's magnetic field which reduced the field strength significantly, life on earth would be very severly impacted by a hugely increased level of ionising radiation from the sun from which we are largely shielded at the moment because of the magnetic field. )

Lynn
20th-April-2005, 01:01 PM
My guess is that if it started going the other way then yeah - sun would rise in West . . . But would it still be 'West' then?

DianaS
20th-April-2005, 01:25 PM
You wouldn't notice it yourself - the centripetal effect of the earth's rotation which appears to push you away from the centre of rotation is a very small fraction of the gravitational attraction of the earth's mass:

Centripetal "acceleration" is radius x (angular velocity)^2

Earth's radius is roughly 6.37 x 10^6 m
Earth's angular velocity is 2pi radians in 24 hours, or 7.3 x 10^-5 rad/s

at the equator where it is a maximum, the accelerative force due to rotation is therefore 0.034 m/s^2 compared with a gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2, give or take. In other words the rotation reduces your apparent weight by about 0.3%

In order for objects to appear weightless at the equator, the earth would have to turn about every 70 minutes (from memory) at which speed every object at the equator would actually be in orbit around the planet.

If the direction of rotation of the earth were suddenly to change there would be catastrophic effects on:

- Weather patterns (the coriolis effect that makes cyclones turn one way, and anti-cyclones the other in each hemsiphere would be reversed)

- Possibly on the earth's magnetic field (which I think is believed to be caused by rotating flows in the earth's molten iron core)

- The tides, and eventually on the orbit of the moon. The Earth-Moon system is weakly coupled - with the earth's rotation gradually slowing (because of tidal braking) and so transferring angular momentum to the moon which is both slowing it's orbit around the earth and increasing it's orbital distance. Since the moon currently orbits pro-grade (in the same direction as the earth's rotation) a reversal the direction of rotation of the earth would increase the speed of the tides, and make the tidal braking effect greater. The moon would therefore recede faster.

I stand to be corrected on these details since they are from memory.


(edited to add: If there were an effect on the Earth's magnetic field which reduced the field strength significantly, life on earth would be very severly impacted by a hugely increased level of ionising radiation from the sun from which we are largely shielded at the moment because of the magnetic field. )
Thank heavens for that!
He also explained about a meteoirite the size of America thats going to hit us it 20 something
Is it true? and where will it hit us and will be be pushed off the edge of england when it smacks us one. If it lands in the ocean it would be new land and we would have more land and less sea (proportionally) Surely it will add to global warming?
Must know these things by tea time
And if it is true then none of us need to worry about our pensions and we should spend our funds today
And why hasn't this been mentioned in the elections???
Can you assist??

PS I'm home being poorly and the worlds a worrying place :tears:

El Salsero Gringo
20th-April-2005, 01:38 PM
Thank heavens for that!
He also explained about a meteoirite the size of America thats going to hit us it 20 something
Is it true? and where will it hit us and will be be pushed off the edge of england when it smacks us one. If it lands in the ocean it would be new land and we would have more land and less sea (proportionally) Surely it will add to global warming?
Must know these things by tea time
And if it is true then none of us need to worry about our pensions and we should spend our funds today
And why hasn't this been mentioned in the elections???
Can you assist??

PS I'm home being poorly and the worlds a worrying place :tears:According to a report in Monday's Times, there is a large asteroid that will pass extremely close (in astronomical terms) to the earth at some date in the 2020's - I don't remember exactly. It will pass well inside the orbit of geostationary satellites, and be visible from earth as a fast moving bright light in the sky. It will not impact.

Astronomers were quoted as being concerned for future aproaches by the same asteroid since a close contact with the earth will peturb its orbit by an amount difficult to predict.



Following on from my previous answer - I now think that a reversal of the direction of rotation of the earth will actually cause the Moon to approach the earth and speed up it's orbital period, since the angular momentum transferred by tidal braking will be of opposite sign.

(And who said nerdism was out of fashion?)

Lory
20th-April-2005, 01:40 PM
PS I'm home being poorly and the worlds a worrying place :tears:
Don't worry, just offer your left and and step back on your left foot and you should be OK! :hug:

Northants Girly
20th-April-2005, 01:51 PM
Centripetal "acceleration" is radius x (angular velocity)^2

Earth's radius is roughly 6.37 x 10^6 m
Earth's angular velocity is 2pi radians in 24 hours, or 7.3 x 10^-5 rad/s

at the equator where it is a maximum, the accelerative force due to rotation is therefore 0.034 m/s^2 compared with a gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2, give or take. In other words the rotation reduces your apparent weight by about 0.3%

In order for objects to appear weightless at the equator, the earth would have to turn about every 70 minutes (from memory) at which speed every object at the equator would actually be in orbit around the planet.

I stand to be corrected on these details since they are from memoryI am impressed :worthy:

El Salsero Gringo
20th-April-2005, 01:53 PM
I am impressed :worthy:Actually, I lied - I had to look up the earth's radius...

DianaS
20th-April-2005, 01:53 PM
According to a report in Monday's Times, there is a large asteroid that will pass extremely close (in astronomical terms) to the earth at some date in the 2020's - I don't remember exactly. It will pass well inside the orbit of geostationary satellites, and be visible from earth as a fast moving bright light in the sky. It will not impact.

Astronomers were quoted as being concerned for future aproaches by the same asteroid since a close contact with the earth will peturb its orbit by an amount difficult to predict.



Following on from my previous answer - I now think that a reversal of the direction of rotation of the earth will actually cause the Moon to approach the earth and speed up it's orbital period, since the angular momentum transferred by tidal braking will be of opposite sign.

(And who said nerdism was out of fashion?)


Thats fine so long as I can look him in the eye and give him intelligent converstation once a day He'll never know that my intellect is cloned off a web site.

Surely the orbit of the moon is governed by the gravitational pull between the moon and the earth plus momentum and direction of travel.
In which case when the earth stops and spins the gravitation pull will be the same (it being a function of mass, distance and speed is there any thing else I can't remember how gravity is calculated!!) and the moon will be travelling in the same direction and at the same speed so there should not be any change to its orbit.

Unless the gravitational pull increases wehn the earth stops sninning But how could that happen?? The two masses and the distance remain the same..

must get this straight. he's got his exam in only a few weekss Panicc :eek:

El Salsero Gringo
20th-April-2005, 03:09 PM
Surely the orbit of the moon is governed by the gravitational pull between the moon and the earth plus momentum and direction of travel.
In which case when the earth stops and spins the gravitation pull will be the same (it being a function of mass, distance and speed is there any thing else I can't remember how gravity is calculated!!) and the moon will be travelling in the same direction and at the same speed so there should not be any change to its orbit.

Unless the gravitational pull increases wehn the earth stops sninning But how could that happen?? The two masses and the distance remain the same..

must get this straight. he's got his exam in only a few weekss Panicc :eek:Like all questions in Physics, there are different ways to examine a system to explain to yourself how it's going to behave (the thing that makes Physics the king among sciences is it's predictive power.) However you want to explain things though, if your reasoning is correct they have to give the same answer since the Universe knows nothing of equations, forces, or anysuch thing - it just goes on doing what it goes on doing.

The simplest (O-level) way to look at the earth-moon system is to realise that the moon pulls two tidal bulges or lobes out of the earth - one towards the moon, and an opposite one on the other side of the planet. Because the earth is rotating 'underneath' the moon, the bulges don't face exactly towards the moon but are advanced a few degrees in the direction of rotation. Both the near lobe and the far lobe have a gravitational pull on the moon, but the near one (being nearer) has a greater pull, and since it sits 'ahead' of the line that joins the centre of the moon to the centre of the earth it tends to pull the moon forward a little. This accelerates the moon in its orbit causing it to fly a little further away from the earth with each second. The same force acts as a brake on the earth, slowing its rotation and making the day slowly longer.

A more sophisticated way to look at the same effect uses the concepts conservation of angular momentum, and (lack of) conservation of energy: because the tidal bulges of the earth rotate (with respect to the earth) they dissipate energy. The planet heats up slightly from all the sloshing about of water and stretching and unstretching of rock. This energy comes from the rotational kinetic energy of the earth. The earth must therefore be slowing it's rotation but in order to do this it has to lose angular momentum. Angular momentum is conserved in a closed system (like the earth-moon one) and the only place that the angular momentum can go is into the orbit of the moon. A little algebra shows that if the mass of a body remainins constant, the radius of a circular gravitational orbit depends upon the square of the angular momentum. In other words, an increase in the angular momentum results in an increase in the orbital distance. So as the angular momentum of the moon increases, it gets further away from the earth.

As things stand, the moon is gradually getting further away from earth, by about 4cm per year. If the earth's rotation were reversed then the angular momentum of the moon would changing in the opposite direction (the braking force on the earth would be acting backwards) and so the moon would approach the earth rather than recede.

DianaS
20th-April-2005, 04:26 PM
Hey it's Di's son here, (Alex) and i must admit that the knowledge in this conversation is very high, although the question i asked my mother wasn't for h/work I could wirte many esay's on what has been posted, :D, here's one to confuse you (not even my physics teacher could think of an answer shame i cant include the drawings)
I have in my hand a vacuum, i have been told that a vacuum is nothing ness, but how can you say that nothing is something, how can you say that there is nothing in there when we cannot say for sure, we cannot say what is at the bottom of our oceans, thus how can we say what is in a void? We do not have the technololgy to say that there is nothign in a vacuum, someone once said to me "But space is a vacuum and we have sent people up there and they havnt found anything on their ship!" I replied"OK lets take it in space terms, if space is a vacuum, why does it not collapse on its self? why does it not just suck its self into a collision whereby all the planets collide with all the stars and form a majorly massive explosion? some people ahve stated that this will happen, that the universe is expanding and it will collapse in on its self within a few millenia. Hope to have not confused you too much :D;)

El Salsero Gringo
20th-April-2005, 04:32 PM
Hey it's Di's son here, (Alex) and i must admit that the knowledge in this conversation is very high, although the question i asked my mother wasn't for h/work I could wirte many esay's on what has been posted, :D, here's one to confuse you (not even my physics teacher could think of an answer shame i cant include the drawings)
I have in my hand a vacuum, i have been told that a vacuum is nothing ness, but how can you say that nothing is something, how can you say that there is nothing in there when we cannot say for sure, we cannot say what is at the bottom of our oceans, thus how can we say what is in a void?
Physics questions I can answer, but metaphysics? I'll have to leave that for the philosophers with too much time on their hands...

David Bailey
20th-April-2005, 04:38 PM
I'll have to leave that for the philosophers with too much time on their hands...
??? This from the man who's just written 1,000 words on "if the world span around the other way"...

El Salsero Gringo
20th-April-2005, 04:47 PM
??? This from the man who's just written 1,000 words on "if the world span around the other way"...Hush now, Tardis-Trousers. Pas avant les enfants, s'il vous plait.

David Bailey
20th-April-2005, 06:07 PM
Hush now, Tardis-Trousers. Pas avant les enfants, s'il vous plait.
Shouldn't that be "devant" ? :whistle:

I clearly have too much time on my hands...

Gadget
21st-April-2005, 01:30 AM
I have in my hand a vacuum, i have been told that a vacuum is nothing ness, but how can you say that nothing is something, how can you say that there is nothing in there when we cannot say for sure, we cannot say what is at the bottom of our oceans, thus how can we say what is in a void? Nothing is not something; it is the absence of something that causes nothing. By sheer definition, what's in a void is nothing; because if there were something in it, it wouldn't be a void.
A vacum is generated by removing everything - where there was something, now there is nothing. It is generated and can never be a true void by the laws diminishing returns - half something, then half it again, and again, and again... every time you half it, the other half expands to fill the space and becomes a 'whole' again; there is always some infinitesimal value that could be halved. so there is something in a vacum; it's just spread _v e r y_ thin.
For there to be something, it must have a place to be something in - this place is the 'nothing' void because if you remove everything, then the space would still exist that it had occuped.

We do not have the technololgy to say that there is nothign in a vacuum,yes we do; we can measure everything in an enviroment, then mesure everything removed from that enviroment - if the two tally, with nothing being added while removing, then we have a vacum.
[/quote]if space is a vacuum, why does it not collapse on its self?[/quote] because there needs to be somethng to collapse? because space is not a true vacum - it's just that the stuff in it is getting further and further away from each other and thining out.

why does it not just suck its self into a collision whereby all the planets collide with all the stars and form a majorly massive explosion?The "suction" is just a vacum trying to balance out; any collision would be due to particals of different densitys moving at dfferent speeds.

some people ahve stated that this will happen, that the universe is expanding and it will collapse in on its self within a few milleniaWe may be sucked into a black hole, but that's the opposite of a void - twice as much stuff crammed into half as much space.

Graham
21st-April-2005, 11:28 PM
if space is a vacuum, why does it not collapse on its self?
If we define a vacuum as a volume devoid of matter, and if we accept that matter does not exist continuously throught space, but occurs in particles, then by definition the volume between the particles must be a vacuum. However, in practice when we talk about a vacuum, we are generally intending to mean a significant amount of volume, and even in space it is generally believed that matter is spread around at very low levels of concentration, meaning that even space is not a "perfect" vacuum.

However, your question is flawed - the tendency of vacuums to collapse in on themselves is caused by the fact that on the earth they are entirely surrounded by matter at a much higher density/pressure, which exerts a force on the perimeter of the vacuum. Since space is not so surrounded, there is no tendency for the near-perfect vacuum to collapse. The tendency for the universe to collapse is caused by the gravitational attraction of its constituent matter.

Dance Demon
22nd-April-2005, 12:23 AM
If we define a vacuum as a volume devoid of matter, and if we accept that matter does not exist continuously throught space, but occurs in particles, then by definition the volume between the particles must be a vacuum. However, in practice when we talk about a vacuum, we are generally intending to mean a significant amount of volume, and even in space it is generally believed that matter is spread around at very low levels of concentration, meaning that even space is not a "perfect" vacuum.

However, your question is flawed - the tendency of vacuums to collapse in on themselves is caused by the fact that on the earth they are entirely surrounded by matter at a much higher density/pressure, which exerts a force on the perimeter of the vacuum. Since space is not so surrounded, there is no tendency for the near-perfect vacuum to collapse. The tendency for the universe to collapse is caused by the gravitational attraction of its constituent matter.


:eek: :eek: :eek: My brain hurts...... :what:
Is Graham really Stephen Hawking's love child? :rofl:

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-April-2005, 12:29 AM
... meaning that even space is not a "perfect" vacuum.In Quantum Field Theory, even vacuums aren't empty. They are a seething mass of particles instaneously appearing and disappearing in little puffs of energy. See for instance this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy)

bobgadjet
22nd-April-2005, 12:30 AM
Hmmm
All this is very thoughtful.
I am now so full of thought I am going to take all my thoughts away to bed, and think about them some more.
I will awake and sort it all out for you tomorrow..........
But wait..... When it is tomorrow, then tomorrow will become today.....

Oh bugger, then I will have to sleep on it again, and when tomorrow comes I can again say that I can sort it out for you tomorrow......

But wait..... when I do actualy get to tomorrow, it will again be today......

This si getting quite painful and I really must go to bed to think about it a bit more....vacuums......space........spinning the other way............gravity......voidzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzz

Clive Long
22nd-April-2005, 01:17 AM
Hey it's Di's son here, (Alex) and i must admit that the knowledge in this conversation is very high, although the question i asked my mother wasn't for h/work I could wirte many esay's on what has been posted, :D, here's one to confuse you (not even my physics teacher could think of an answer shame i cant include the drawings)
I have in my hand a vacuum, i have been told that a vacuum is nothing ness, but how can you say that nothing is something, how can you say that there is nothing in there when we cannot say for sure, we cannot say what is at the bottom of our oceans, thus how can we say what is in a void? We do not << cut >>

In my great tradition of not answering your question (because I can't, and others have given very thorough answers already) I suggest you might attempt "The Book of Nothing " by John Barrow (a Cambridge professor). I can't lay my hands on it now to check its level but I vaguely remember you need to be at around A-level standard to get going with its content. The "back-end" of the book gets very sophisticated & "unreachable" - but don't let that put you off attempting it.

Having said the above, Barrow approaches the vacuum from the concept of mathematical zero (a late import from India?) into calculation and then extends the idea of "something" (zero) representing "nothing" (the value of zero) into the idea of a vacuum. I dimly remember that somehow he argues the empty vacuum is not empty but a seething quantum jumble and this is the basis for how the universe (multiverse?) just popped into being.

Sorry if the above is a load of rubbish - but the book is only 7 quid so may be worth looking at the first chapter if you can get someone to donate a copy to your school library.

Another wonderful book (if I have the title right) is "Creation Revisited: The Origin of Space, Time and the Universe" by Peter W Atkins - an Oxford professor - a great writer on a difficult subject. Again tackling the "how did we get something out of nothing" question. Not good reading if you are a committed believer in a divine creator.

I'd also recommend Ian Stewart for more mathematical topics.

Alex, keep asking the "what if" questions - and try to follow them through - you'll be following in the footsteps of Clerk Maxwell and Einstein. But don't ignore the basic knowledge of school science - otherwise you are building your ideas on quick-sand.

Clive

Graham
22nd-April-2005, 09:54 AM
In Quantum Field Theory, even vacuums aren't empty. They are a seething mass of particles instaneously appearing and disappearing in little puffs of energy. See for instance this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy)
As an electronics engineer, I tend to the view that we should use the simplest model which captures the operation of the system. In this case I took the view that there were no relevant quantum effects, and therefore provided a Newtonian explanation. Then again, perhaps that's just because I don't really like working with field equations.

Clive Long
22nd-April-2005, 02:08 PM
As an electronics engineer, I tend to the view that we should use the simplest model which captures the operation of the system. In this case I took the view that there were no relevant quantum effects, and therefore provided a Newtonian explanation.

Then again, perhaps that's just because I don't really like working with field equations.

We love you anyway Graham.

People like ESG and me kind of inhabit a world of existence and non-existence because we have managed to scale-up quantum effects to the macroscopic (although there isn't much room with most of the space occupied by ESG's brain)

Rhythm King
22nd-April-2005, 02:23 PM
We love you anyway Graham.

People like ESG and me kind of inhabit a world of existence and non-existence because we have managed to scale-up quantum effects to the macroscopic (although there isn't much room with most of the space occupied by ESG's brain)

All that quantum foam no doubt

stewart38
22nd-April-2005, 03:28 PM
You wouldn't notice it yourself - the centripetal effect of the earth's rotation which appears to push you away from the centre of rotation is a very small fraction of the gravitational attraction of the earth's mass:

In order for objects to appear weightless at the equator, the earth would have to turn about every 70 minutes (from memory) at which speed every object at the equator would actually be in orbit around the planet.

If the direction of rotation of the earth were suddenly to change there would be catastrophic effects on:

- Weather patterns (the coriolis effect that makes cyclones turn one way, and anti-cyclones the other in each hemsiphere would be reversed)

- Possibly on the earth's magnetic field (which I think is believed to be caused by rotating flows in the earth's molten iron core)

- The tides, and eventually on the orbit of the moon. The Earth-Moon system is weakly coupled - with the earth's rotation gradually slowing (because of tidal braking) and so transferring angular momentum to the moon which is both slowing it's orbit around the earth and increasing it's orbital distance. Since the moon currently orbits pro-grade (in the same direction as the earth's rotation) a reversal the direction of rotation of the earth would increase the speed of the tides, and make the tidal braking effect greater. The moon would therefore recede faster.

I stand to be corrected on these details since they are from memory.


(edited to add: If there were an effect on the Earth's magnetic field which reduced the field strength significantly, life on earth would be very severly impacted by a hugely increased level of ionising radiation from the sun from which we are largely shielded at the moment because of the magnetic field. )

Interesting comments and others, all this is memory so flame away if there is any left after it turns the other way

If the earth was to 'stop' and then been 'turned' to go the other way (bit like superman did.) your stopping roughly 8 *10 raised to the power of 35 grammes

That takes a bit of energy, enough to melt the earth crust to about 10 miles so im afraid were all dead fairly quickly.

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-April-2005, 05:40 PM
Interesting comments and others, all this is memory so flame away if there is any left after it turns the other way

If the earth was to 'stop' and then been 'turned' to go the other way (bit like superman did.) your stopping roughly 8 *10 raised to the power of 35 grammes

That takes a bit of energy, enough to melt the earth crust to about 10 miles so im afraid were all dead fairly quickly.An interesting point, but not necessarily true. There is no need for any thermal energy to be dissipated because the rotational kinetic energy after reversing the direction would be the same as before. If you had a 100% energy-efficient mechanism for achieving this stupendous feat, then nothing would melt. Of course a 100% efficient mechanism is even more fundamentally nonsensical a concept than the idea of reversing the direction of rotation of a planet in the first place. If your mechanism wasn't 100% efficient (a very big piece of elastic being twisted up, with something even bigger than the earth to anchor it to, say) then the wasted energy would be dissipated in the mechanism itself (like the elastic) not in the earth.

Another good question is where to get all the angular momentum that you would need to put into the planet to change it's rotation (i.e. to what do you anchor the other end of the elastic), but presumably you could harness the rotation of the sun, or one of the other planets.

Good luck to anyone who wants to give it a go.

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-April-2005, 05:45 PM
People like ESG and me kind of inhabit a world of existence and non-existence because we have managed to scale-up quantum effects to the macroscopic (although there isn't much room with most of the space occupied by ESG's brain) I sometimes feel I only really exist while I'm dancing, and that the whole of life is like a giant game of pass-the-parcel, waiting for the music to stop.

It's only the thought of Clive and his red dress that keeps me going as I quantum-tunnel my way from one Ceroc night to the next.

El Salsero Gringo
22nd-April-2005, 06:05 PM
And I also forgot to mention in my original answer, the most profound consequence of all: that the water in your bath would immediately spiral down the plug-hole the other way round.

Honestly, it would.

foxylady
22nd-April-2005, 06:22 PM
I sometimes feel I only really exist while I'm dancing,

I only exist when I am dancing. When I am not dancing I am not me, I am some sort of automated simulacrum....





and that the whole of life is like a giant game of pass-the-parcel, waiting for the music to stop.

surely begging for the music not to stop at you......

stewart38
22nd-April-2005, 06:52 PM
An interesting point, but not necessarily true. There is no need for any thermal energy to be dissipated because the rotational kinetic energy after reversing the direction would be the same as before. If you had a 100% energy-efficient mechanism for achieving this stupendous feat, then nothing would melt.
.


Nope because Im assuming your stopping the planet ie you bring to a halt then 'push' it the other way. There isnt a transfer of energy . The rubber ban idea is fundemetally correct. . It could be sort true if i stopped the earth and absorbed all the energy but if a wall stops a car it doesnt absorb all the energy

Plug and water thing yes but not immediately and thats my last comment ! :waycool:

If the sun disappeared now (without looking it up !) what would people die first

ducasi
22nd-April-2005, 08:59 PM
And I also forgot to mention in my original answer, the most profound consequence of all: that the water in your bath would immediately spiral down the plug-hole the other way round.

Honestly, it would. I presume you're talking of the Coriolis Effect?

When it comes to plug-holes, it's a bit of a myth. (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html)

DianaS
22nd-April-2005, 09:01 PM
Hey it's Di's son here, (Alex) and i must admit that the knowledge in this conversation is very high, although the question i asked my mother wasn't for h/work I could wirte many esay's on what has been posted, Hope to have not confused you too much :D;)

Just got back to this thread I have been poorly and left the computer on and went to bed, when I came too Alex new my darkest secret cas I'd left he window open

however am most relieved that we are not to be hot by meteorite and even bears wtih much larger brains who aren't struggling with poorliness struggle with these sorts of questions.
Thank you kind sirs for your tutorage i will buy yon lad said books and further his education. Let he boldly go whjere i have never been before...

The thread is interesting yet i maintain when the earth spins the other way and stops wont all the oceans swim about and it will be rather terrible... won't the technonic plates all crash and splatter and won't tehre be vioplent eruptionns OPpps where the bucket I've set myself off again :eek:

DianaS
22nd-April-2005, 10:39 PM
Tis alex, mother is now V miffed that i no longer see her as font of all wisdom, and have hacked into internet to further education :D, however, all i can say is she seems to be fairly relaxed now i know her secrets, (AKA real answers not cloned!) Will be in Bham on the moro to purchase said books and will request further tuition via teh e-mail from all and sundry as a legitimate displacememnt activity from studying my GCSE syllaus material :P, many thanks to all, you will be acknolaged in my memoirs, although you may be demised at the time :D ;),

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-April-2005, 10:22 AM
Tis alex, mother is now V miffed that i no longer see her as font of all wisdom, and have hacked into internet to further education :D, however, all i can say is she seems to be fairly relaxed now i know her secrets, (AKA real answers not cloned!) Will be in Bham on the moro to purchase said books and will request further tuition via teh e-mail from all and sundry as a legitimate displacememnt activity from studying my GCSE syllaus material :P, many thanks to all, you will be acknolaged in my memoirs, although you may be demised at the time :D ;),It sounds like someone's been reading "Down with Skool"!