Re: False correlation
- From: Quadibloc <jsavard@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:29:09 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 12, 7:50 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The 'weird' orbital component as you call it is
simply that in order to keep rotational orientation (tilt) pointing in
the same direction over the course of an annual orbit a planet must
orbit the Sun in a specific way.Over and above orbital motion with
respect to the Sun,any given location will turn slowly and unevenly
through 360 degrees thereby causing seasonal variations we experience
in terms of daylight/darkness -
It used to be that we believed that Mercury always kept one side
pointed to the Sun, the way the Moon always keeps one side pointed to
the Earth.
If one thinks of that as the default case of "orbital motion", and
assumes furthermore that the planet's axis will normally maintain its
relation to the Sun in that way too, then, yes, one needs a countering
motion to put the axis back - to keep it pointing in one direction
instead of pointing to a position that makes an annual circle in the
sky.
Newton, though, looked at the Earth the same way he would look at a
spinning top. Conservation of angular momentum means that the natural
way for an axis of rotation to behave is to always point in the same
direction. So that is the state properly called a lack of motion,
rather than the result of a counter-motion to the orbit.
Newton's laws work for scientists; they make it easy to keep track of
how objects move, they protect people from getting confused by
accidentally adding or subtracting the same motion twice.
So it isn't surprising that a profound skepticism meets your apparent
claim that you have something better to offer.
John Savard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: False correlation
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: False correlation
- References:
- False correlation
- From: oriel36
- Re: False correlation
- From: Dave Typinski
- Re: False correlation
- From: Davoud
- Re: False correlation
- From: oriel36
- Re: False correlation
- From: Dave Typinski
- Re: False correlation
- From: Dave Typinski
- Re: False correlation
- From: oriel36
- False correlation
- Prev by Date: Re: False correlation
- Next by Date: Re: False correlation
- Previous by thread: Re: False correlation
- Next by thread: Re: False correlation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|