Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Technical answers for Velikovsky fanstasy
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6383 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 6 of 20 (210231)
05-21-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
05-21-2005 8:15 AM


It doesn't exactly answer your question but this site discusses why the Earth can't stop and start rotating again (among other things).
Actually it does discuss the consequences of an impact large enough to stop the Earth happening :
Rotating objects have momentum, called angular momentum. For the Earth, that amounts to about 5.9 x 1033 kg-m2/sec. Now imagine an asteroid hitting the earth a grazing blow right on the equator. That would be the most effective way an asteroid could change the earth's rotation, either speeding it up or slowing it down. The asteroid has angular momentum relative to the center of the earth, equal to its mass times its velocity times the distance to the center of the earth. Typical impacts in the inner solar system involve velocities of about 30 kilometers per second, and for a grazing impact the distance from the center of the earth will be 6400 kilometers. In meters, those figures are 30,000 and 6,400,000, respectively. So to have angular momentum comparable to earth's we have mass x 30,000 x 6,400,000 = 5.9 x 1033, or mass = 3 x 1022 kilograms. Since the earth itself has a mass of 6 x 1024 kilograms, we're talking about something with 5 per cent of the mass of the earth, or about 4.5 times the mass of the moon. This is way bigger than any known asteroid.
How would this affect the earth? The asteroid has kinetic energy = 1/2(mass)(velocity)2. = 1.3 x 1031 joules. Let's assume the asteroid stops the earth's rotation cold. That means that 2.1 x 1029 joules of its energy goes into stopping the earth's rotation, leaving about 98 per cent expressed in other forms, like heat. It takes 400,000 joules to melt a kilogram of rock, so there's enough energy left over to melt 3 x 1025 kilograms of rock. That's about five times the mass of the earth. Even allowing for a lot of energy radiating to space or being blasted off as ejecta, this puppy will melt most if not all of the earth. So don't sweat the long-term environmental effects. If the earth is ever hit hard enough to affect its rotation, nobody will be around to tell about it.
On the other hand, an asteroid 10 kilometers in diameter, comparable to the one that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, would have a mass of 1.5 x 1015 kilograms. If it hit the earth a grazing blow on the equator, its angular momentum would be 1.5 x 1015 x 30,000 x 6,400,000 = 3 x 1026 kg-m2/sec. That's about 1/20,000,000 of the earth's angular momentum, meaning it could change the earth's rotation by about 1/20,000,000, or change the length of the day by about .004 seconds. This is pretty tiny, but still several thousand times the effect of the great 2004 Indonesian earthquake. Even an impact big enough to cause a global catastrophe would still have only a tiny effect on the earth's rotation.
I haven't had a chance to check any of the figures (or even premises) yet as it's the Cup Final and Doctor Who this afternoon but I think they give a fair reflection of just how impossible this idea is.
I also haven't checked if the author (Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin Green Bay) is in Project Steve...

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 05-21-2005 8:15 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Asgara, posted 05-21-2005 4:40 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6383 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 14 of 20 (210317)
05-21-2005 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by JonF
05-21-2005 7:44 PM


Re: Read for yourself
If I'm reading his stuff correctly then by complete chance I can shed some light on the depth of research that went into at least one part of this.
From COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION:
  1. Cyclones, characterized by low pressure and by winds blowing toward their centers, move counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This movement of air currents in cyclonic vortices is generally explained as the effect of the earth’s rotation.
    Anticyclones, characterized by high pressure and by winds blowing from their centers move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. The movement of anticyclones has not been explained and is regarded as enigmatic.
    Cyclones and anticyclones are considered a problem of fluidal motion with highest or lowest pressure in the center. As the movement of anticyclones cannot be explained by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and rotation, it must be concluded that the rotation of cyclones is also unexplained.
Way back in about 1978 I was part of a group of four students who had to produce a ten minute video presentation that explained what the direction of rotation was around a low pressure area in the Northern Hemisphere and why it was this way.
We were all doing Electrical and Electronic Engineering degrees, so we didn't even know that there was a definite answer to this. We basically had to allocate the work out between us - one to actually do the presentation, one to do the cameras and lighting, one to operate the video recording and effects equipment and one to find out the answer and write the script.
I was the one who had to find out the answer and write the script. Now remember I was starting from a knowledge base of literally zero in this area - and it was way before the World Wide Web . I took an educated guess that the best place to look for the answer and, more importantly, an explanation I could understand and graphics I could nick was the copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica in the University Library.
Sure enough after less than an hour of searching I had found an entry that gave me the answer. I don't remember how long it took me to understand it enough to write a script for the presentation but we're talking no more than a few hours (writing the script took ages but that's because coming up with a good script is hard, even just to fill a ten minute slot). I won't bore you with an explanation but if you want to look it up the key word you need to know is Coriolis. USA Today has a simple explanation with some useful links.
Now the point of this rambling recollection is that if you want to know why winds rotate the way they do you can go from knowing nothing to having a reasonable grasp of it in just a few hours armed with nothing more than access to the Encyclopedia Britannica. So you have to wonder about the scientific rigor and vast knowledge that concludes that "the rotation of cyclones is also unexplained".
While reading COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION I noticed it is very old (1946). Now I have to confess I didn't have a clue when this Coriolis did his work. The answer seems to be 1835, although he didn't apply his work to weather systems. This had to wait until 1856 - a mere 90 years before Velikovsky wrote his stuff.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 05-21-2005 7:44 PM JonF has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024