Do planets rotate due to an 'interstellar Coriolis Effect'?

[Dave Zelenka]

Do planets (and other stellar bodies including galaxies) rotate due to an ‘interstellar Coriolis Effect’?

The mainstream theory of rotating stellar bodies explains the process as simply the result of the conservation of angular momentum. The initial angular momentum (spin) ‘given’ to a body is what causes it to spin.

Under one of my personal primary assumptions (that the mechanics of stellar bodies act similarly to atmospheric cyclones and weather processes), the reason for a planet's rotation would be not only due to conservation of angular momentum, but due to a body being nested on a greater waveform, such as a tornado or hurricane being nested on a middle latitude curve of the planet earth.

I understand that there is currently no mechanism in mainstream science for a broader coriolis effect, but I feel that this should be examined.

[Occam]

So, one of your "personal primary assumptions" is for a process that has no basis in science, is not supported by any observational data, nor any viable hypothesis and is not testable in any way, yet you feel it ought to be examined. By whom if not yourself?
Since there is already a perfectly acceptable explanation for the phenomenon, why do you feel that an alternative should sought?

[PhantomWolf]

Well the first thing you'd need to do is explain Venus and Uranus' rotations and Triton's orbit, then we can talk.

[Dave Zelenka]

We all have our primary assumptions. Mine are a bit different, but it does follow clean logic:

1) All natural systems are interconnected. (first assumption)
2) Processes are cycles. They are two way exchanges. These cycles can be short or extremely long. (second assumption)
3) If systems are interconnected then they have interconnected processes.
4) These processes are common to both connected systems, like language is a connective process between two persons. The processes pass energy in both directions. (These cycles can be short or long.)
5) The interconnected processes must be a factor which drives subsystems within the individual systems.

Compare logic above with stellar and atmospheric mechanics:
1) Stellar bodies and atmospheric phenomena are interconnected
2) and 3) They are connected with related processes. The processes with which they are connected must be common to both systems.
4) The process that interconnect stellar bodies and atmospheric phenomena must have similarities and be common to one another. What those similarities are is the question at hand.
5) The interconnected processes must be a factor which drives the subsystems within both stellar bodies and in atmospheric systems. The processes have a ‘root ancestry.’ They must be alike in some ways because they are akin to each other.

is not supported by any observational data

The observational data is simple: stellar bodies and atmospheric phenomena have a great variety of similar processes: planets rotate, hurricanes rotate; tornadoes have angular momentum, moons have angular momentum; stars rotate differentially, low pressure systems rotate differentially; etc.

Yes, this is against the mainstream, but isn't this the place for that.

Well the first thing you'd need to do is explain Venus and Uranus' rotations and Triton's orbit, then we can talk.

Venus is very interesting. By the very fact that Venus' rotation is synchronized with the Earth (the same face is pointed toward the Earth), provides the best evidence that a planet's rotation is not due to "conservation of angular momentum." If it were due to the conservation of angular momentum, then it would be purely coincidental that this synchronicity exists. The odds of that are virtually impossible. Earth and Venus must be resonating in some sort of 'wave' harmonic for this synchronized rotation to occur. If they are indeed resonating, then there must be a force that is driving that resonation rotation. And since the resonation depends on their rotation, a force must be driving there rotation. This is solid logic: either there is a force behind the rotation or it is purely coincidental. This proof simply proves false the notion that the planets are rotation purely due to the conservation of angular momentum, unless we just happen to be living at the exact time when Venus and Earth are synchronized. I won’t even think about calculating those odds, you get the idea.

Uranus' retrograde motion seems to be clearly due to an axis shift occurring of over 90 degrees (its rotation 'went' retrograde). So why did the planet's axis shift so much? Once again, if we view rotation due simply to the conservation of angular momentum (the degradation of a spin during its life span) this planet would not have wobbled on its axis over 90 degrees, because any initial wobble (not that wobble could have even occurred in traditional theory without collision) would also have decreased over time. The maximum wobble would be 90 degrees and that wobble would then decrease to zero, barring any additional force. For Uranus' wobble to be almost 90, a force is required for it to have become that way. The wobble could not increase unless there was a force to make it wobble. I heard that some propose that it collided with another stellar body. Can you imagine the impact that it would have taken for it to tilt over 90 degrees? And wouldn't have that same impact also deeply affected its orbital plane around the sun, yet it is only 6.5 degrees off from the plane of the Sun. If one was to do the math here, one would find that there would be no mathematical way to impact a planet so that it both tilted 90+ degrees and was only 6.5 degrees off from the Sun’s plane. It seems clearly that a ‘driving’ force is required to tilt the planet 98 degrees and keep it there. I say keep it there, because it would tend towards leveling out on the plane of the sun, just like a spinning top. Something must be driving the rotation and the associated wobble.

Triton: Under the meteorological analogy, I don't have a better solution than the 'captured by gravity' solution. Part of me doesn't like that solution entirely, I'll think about why.

[Hans]

Say what?

...resonating in some sort of 'wave' harmonic for this synchronized rotation to occur....By the very fact that Venus' rotation is synchronized with the Earth (the same face is pointed toward the Earth)....

[Nereid]

[snip]

Well the first thing you'd need to do is explain Venus and Uranus' rotations and Triton's orbit, then we can talk.

Venus is very interesting. By the very fact that Venus' rotation is synchronized with the Earth (the same face is pointed toward the Earth), provides the best evidence that a planet's rotation is not due to "conservation of angular momentum."

[snip]

(my bold)

It is?

References please.

[Dave Zelenka]

(my bold)

It is?

References please.

To clarify, it the text above should read: The same face at their closest approach. Very interesting, indeed, no?

Let this site state this concept in a more clear way:

"Venus' rotation is somewhat unusual in that it is both very slow (243 Earth days per Venus day, slightly longer than Venus' year) and retrograde. In addition, the periods of Venus' rotation and of its orbit are synchronized such that it always presents the same face toward Earth when the two planets are at their closest approach. Whether this is a resonance effect or merely a coincidence is not known."

[Nereid]

To clarify, it the text above should read: The same face at their closest approach. Very interesting, indeed, no?

Let this site state this concept in a more clear way:

"Venus' rotation is somewhat unusual in that it is both very slow (243 Earth days per Venus day, slightly longer than Venus' year) and retrograde. In addition, the periods of Venus' rotation and of its orbit are synchronized such that it always presents the same face toward Earth when the two planets are at their closest approach. Whether this is a resonance effect or merely a coincidence is not known."

Ah, (a variant on?) the Arpian method* of doing astronomy!

Since you're keen on "clean logic", how about some clean hypotheses, and some clean tests of those?

After all, you trust drug companies (and regulators) to do the proper thing wrt null hypotheses, quantitative testing, etc, so why not astronomy?

So, here's a start:

1) starting from first principles, derive a list of all 'coincidences' that you would regard as 'very interesting'

2) from a complete list of all solar system bodies, derive a table of all possible 'coincidences'

3) combine 1) and 2) and list of 'very interesting' 'coincidences'

4) apply standard statistical tests.

Of course, the most logic approach, from your assumptions, may not be to go for the 'coincidences'. But if so, then Venus' rotation is only relevant if you have a fully developed theory, isn't it?

"The methodology Arp has frequently adopted doesn't help - starting from a galaxy and searching outward until a quasar shows up, then if it's "interestingly" close keep on going outward. This is guaranteed to produce an apparent excess, on the "seek and ye shall find" principle." (source)

[tusenfem]

I hope you do know Dave Zelenka that the coriolis force is create because the Earth rotates, it is a something that only appears in a rotating frame, and depends on flows in that rotating frame. Wind blowing from a high to a low pressure region on the northern(southern) hemisphere get a deviation to the right(left).

So, first you have to show that there is a rotating frame in which the planets are moving. But, if it would be true that there is some rotating frame in which the solar system is existing, that would only explain the rotation of the planets around the sun (and then only for very very special cases). But it would not explain the rotation of the Earth around its north-south planetary axis, unless you can come up with some friction mechanism that will convert small parts of this supposed coriolis force into rotational energy of the Earth.

Then about Venus:
One Venusian year lasts: 224.7 days
One Venusian day lasts: 243.02 days
The synodic period of Venus: 583.92 days

This all together, makes it rather difficult, I think, for Venus to always have the same side facing the Earth. Notice, that one Venus day is almost one Venus year. (only a small fraction difference). Say that they were the same, Venus would always look at the Sun, and every side would point towards the Earth over one Venus year.

Oops, I guess I stand corrected from the nineplanets pages, well, you learn something every day. :-)

[Swordfish]

Under one of my personal primary assumptions (that the mechanics of stellar bodies act similarly to atmospheric cyclones and weather processes), the reason for a planet's rotation would be not only due to conservation of angular momentum, but due to a body being nested on a greater waveform, such as a tornado or hurricane being nested on a middle latitude curve of the planet earth.

First, to clear something up that's bugging me, the Coriolis force on a tornado is insignificant. That might be a bit off topic, but it was digging at the back of my skull.

Now to go directly back to the topic, there is a problem I see in one of your assumptions.

1) Stellar bodies and atmospheric phenomena are interconnected

To say they are "interconnected" is, in my opinion, a bit shakey at best. It sounds to me that you are giving atmospheric events more credit then they deserve. The reason I don't like the word "interconnected" there is that it's more of a one way street. Stellar bodies can affect the atmosphere, but not the other way around. Nothing else in the Universe cares about a hurricane on Earth.

To be honest, I couldn't quite understand what you were trying to say with the rest of the assumptions.

About the Coriolis Force, while tusenfem, did correctly give a simple explaination of it, there's a bit more to it then just that. Just a quick example, Coriolis also deflects an object moving to the east upward.

Anyway, as tusenfem also correctly stated, Coriolis also only ever appears in a rotating reference frame, and, in addition to that, it requires the object to be moving in relation to the rotating reference frame. The rotating reference frame in here is really your choice. The easiest one to imagine here would probably be one that matches the orbital period of the Earth, but, if that's the case, then there is no Coriolis Force on Earth. Also for rotating reference frames that match, say, Venus' orbital period and Jupiter's, the Coriolis force on Earth would be different.

Coriolis is only an apparent force. It's not a real force like gravity. The difference is that gravity does pretty much the same thing no matter how you look at it. Coriolis will change depending on what your reference frame is. Apparent forces also can not do work on an object, and they cannot change the object's speed. It seems to me that, your theory on Interstellar Coriolis requires that the force change the angular momentum of the planets, which Coriolis is incapable of.

While I, personally, can not explain what is responsible for making the planets rotate in the manner that they do, I don't think that it could be a force akin to Coriolis.

[Dave Zelenka]

I don't have much time right now, but I will get to the other responses soon.

So, first you have to show that there is a rotating frame in which the planets are moving.

This is what I feel is so interesting and so simple. This rotating frame may simply be its orbit around the sun.

But, if it would be true that there is some rotating frame in which the solar system is existing, that would only explain the rotation of the planets around the sun (and then only for very very special cases). But it would not explain the rotation of the Earth around its north-south planetary axis, unless you can come up with some friction mechanism that will convert small parts of this supposed coriolis force into rotational energy of the Earth.

Look at a spinning cyclone: the reason that it spins counter-clockwise is because of a balance between the Coriolis force and the pressure gradient force. A similar process is what I feel is occurring within stellar bodies. the pressure gradient force being analogous to gravity. The coriolis force causes the rotation, but the energy given to the force is probably gravity. Now the coriolis effect is the analogy. Again, the curve that the earth is nested on that results in an analogous 'coriolis force' seems to be the curve (what you are calling a rotating frame) of its orbit around the sun.

[Dave Zelenka]

First, to clear something up that's bugging me, the Coriolis force on a tornado is insignificant. That might be a bit off topic, but it was digging at the back of my skull.

It sounds like tornadoes are not large enough for the coriolis force to effect a tornado, however, the tornado inherits its spin from the larger thunderstorm. So it is a derivative. Interestingly, there are a very few 'retrograde' tornadoes that form. Most of the rest rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere.

Now to go directly back to the topic, there is a problem I see in one of your assumptions. To say they are "interconnected" is, in my opinion, a bit shakey at best. It sounds to me that you are giving atmospheric events more credit then they deserve. The reason I don't like the word "interconnected" there is that it's more of a one way street. Stellar bodies can affect the atmosphere, but not the other way around. Nothing else in the Universe cares about a hurricane on Earth.

Because this assumption is not taken seriously, is why I feel that we have so many unanswered questions in science. Notice I did state that, "these cycles can be short or extremely long. (second assumption)." the point is that there must be feedback, but the period of feedback could be a very long cycle. The main point, though, is less that they are giving anything back in a feedback loop, but that the processes that drive the connected systems are related to each other. Because then the processes must hold certain similar characteristics to their parent. So, say the parent process is how a planet spins, then the child process is how a cyclone spins. They are related in a parent-child relationship. They must have deep similarities in process.

To be honest, I couldn't quite understand what you were trying to say with the rest of the assumptions.

I think that I better described it above in the parent-child process concept. Sorry for the confusion.

Also for rotating reference frames that match, say, Venus' orbital period and Jupiter's, the Coriolis force on Earth would be different.

This is what makes Venus so interesting. It seems like a gravitational harmonic has evolved with the Venus-Earth relationship. And the harmonic, virtually proves that there is some force driving the rotation of the two planets, or the harmonic could not survive. The relationship would decay.

Coriolis is only an apparent force. It's not a real force like gravity.

Although it may be 'apparent' (it is a harmonic of sorts), the apparentness no means invalidates its importance to weather mechanics. Because the Coriolis effect exists, it causes a weather patterns to spiral and vorteces to build. Without the Coriolis effect, cyclonic systems could not grow and develop. This is why we do not have hurricanes at the equator. The spiral, interestingly, allows force interactions to build and feed. Without the coriolis effect we would not have hurricanes...and we would not have the Great Red Spot on Jupiter.

[tusenfem]

This is what I feel is so interesting and so simple. This rotating frame may simply be its orbit around the sun.

I am sorry, but this shows that you have no grip onto what the coriolis force is. Read my post again and read Swordfish's post again. The body experiencing the coriolis force has to move in a rotating frame. The Earth in its orbit around the sun does not fit in here that is just circular motion as described by Kepler's laws.

Please take a textbook and read up on the coriolis force, or for all I care take look at wiki which does not seem too bad.

[Dave Zelenka]

I am sorry, but this shows that you have no grip onto what the coriolis force is. Read my post again and read Swordfish's post again. The body experiencing the coriolis force has to move in a rotating frame. The Earth in its orbit around the sun does not fit in here that is just circular motion as described by Kepler's laws.

Please take a textbook and read up on the coriolis force, or for all I care take look at wiki which does not seem too bad.

tusenfem, Before you discount this so quickly please take a look at your reference below. I added one for angular velocity, so that you'll see where I am heading with this.

What does the Coriolis effect do? Here are the diagrams from wiki for you:

Coriolis Effect (page link)

Compare to the angular velocity diagram (page link)

Notice the comparison between the two (think big here). The rotating frame for a hurricane is the planet earth. The rotating frame for the earth is the sun. The key for the force to have effect is to have the rotating body somewhat off of of the perpendicular, so that it inherits the spin. The axis of the earth in regards to its orbit around the sun is much closer to parallel (23.5 degrees off), thus it inherits this process. The reason why the rotating frame does not work at the equator for a cyclone is because the cyclone's axis is perpendicular to the axis of the rotating frame and so it is not affected and does not inherit the spin.

Now the question that remains is where does it get the energy to drive that process. In hurricanes the energy comes from wind energy sinking/flowing into the low pressure system. In stellar bodies, the energy comes from gravitational 'winds' sinking/flowing into the mass (gravitational well) of the planet or other body.

[John Mendenhall]

Hey you guys! How about another can of worms now that Margiani has unfortunately been banned?

Spiral galaxies, as we know, have flat rotation curves outside their central regions -- which we wish wasn't so, but it is. Can we start off on any against the mainstream astronomy ideas by considering them a convenient rotating reference frame? Maybe with Coriolis forces?

My apologies, mainstream folks, I just couldn't resist.

[Dave Zelenka]

Ah, (a variant on?) the Arpian method* of doing astronomy!

Since you're keen on "clean logic", how about some clean hypotheses, and some clean tests of those?

In regards to Arp's method, I suppose you’re talking about the overlapping of galaxies with different redshifts. The difference here is that there are a very many galaxies out there, overlapping galaxies is a standard occurrence. The odds that Venus would be locked into a synchronized orbit with Earth is astoundingly small. There is a big difference in Arp’s method and this idea. Just the fact that we are ‘locked’ demonstrates that there is a force locking the two. It may be that we are not truly locked and that we just seem to be locked, and given enough time, we will see Venus fall away. But unless I’m missing something, we haven’t seen that happen yet. Thus, it seems that we would have noticed a small change by now. Our measurements within the solar system are quite precise. We are locked with Venus; what is that force is the important question.

So, here's a start:

1) starting from first principles, derive a list of all 'coincidences' that you would regard as 'very interesting'

I’m not interested in performing an 'Arpian' method here, as you say, it can produce questionable results. I’m interested in exploring the beautiful process behind the rotation, because from all my understanding of the natural world, it should move according to a dynamic process, not simply decaying motion.

Of course, the most logic approach, from your assumptions, may not be to go for the 'coincidences'. But if so, then Venus' rotation is only relevant if you have a fully developed theory, isn't it?

What Venus’ rotation shows is that something is wrong with the current theory. It’s relationship with Earth establishes that the current theory needs to be reworked.

I touched on it above, but I will explain more fully what I think is going on in a following message.

[Swordfish]

I'm sorry Dave, but tusenfem is right, you should go back and consider our posts again.

For mine, you seem to have misunderstood one of my points, and missed the most important point I made altogether, while telling me a few things that I do already know and, so far as I can tell, didn't help your argument.

This is what makes Venus so interesting. It seems like a gravitational harmonic has evolved with the Venus-Earth relationship. And the harmonic, virtually proves that there is some force driving the rotation of the two planets, or the harmonic could not survive. The relationship would decay.

You missed what I was trying to explain here. I was not even concerned with Venus' retrograde orbit or that the same side may or may not always be facing the planet. That was simply an example to discuss reference frames.

When dealing with Coriolis, what's true in one reference frame is not true in another. You said earlier that the reference frame could simply be Earth's orbit. One large problem here is, if you also say that the reference frame's period equals the time the Earth takes to orbit the sun, then there is no Coriolis force on the Earth, because Coriolis requires motion relative to the reference frame. On the other hand, if I change my reference frame to, say, Saturn's orbit and period, now there is Coriolis effecting the Earth, but Saturn is no longer effected. Now, if I just change the period, and keep the orbit, everything has a coriolis effect.

Although it may be 'apparent' (it is a harmonic of sorts), the apparentness no means invalidates its importance to weather mechanics. Because the Coriolis effect exists, it causes a weather patterns to spiral and vorteces to build. Without the Coriolis effect, cyclonic systems could not grow and develop. This is why we do not have hurricanes at the equator. The spiral, interestingly, allows force interactions to build and feed. Without the coriolis effect we would not have hurricanes...and we would not have the Great Red Spot on Jupiter.

All of that I already knew (I'm two and a half years into a Bachelor's program for Meteorology). Furthermore, none of it seemed to help your argument, as you were explaining weather patterns, not the planets. Most importantly, you missed the most important part of my argument.

Unlike gravity, the Coriolis force changes depending on what your reference frame is. For gravity, no matter what your reference frame is, the Earth is experiencing a force from every piece of matter in the universe that points in the direction of the respective piece of matter. Coriolis, however, does change depending on how you look at it. As I explained above, one reference frame can make it appear as though there is no Coriolis force on Earth. Others can change that.

Again, Coriolis is an apparent force. As soon as you no longer have a rotating reference frame, Coriolis no longer exists. As an apparent force, it can do no work on an object, and it can not change the speed (and hence, cannot change the energy or momentum) of an object.

Now, if I'm not misunderstanding your point, you're looking for something to explain the actual orbits and rotations of the planets. Not just how they appear from Earth, but why they are actually orbiting the sun the way they are. As far as I can tell, you need a force that will change the object's energy (especially when considering Venus and Uranus), and Coriolis can not do that.

[Amber Robot]

IThe odds that Venus would be locked into a synchronized orbit with Earth is astoundingly small.

The odds that the Sun and the Moon would have the same angular size on the sky are astoundingly small too, but that doesn't mean it isn't a coincidence.

[marijn]

Hello,

Interesting case. I am not very knowlegebale on the behavior of objects in space. This idea came to me. It's based on how flying objects can experience a boost and/or decrease in energy when exposed to a windshear.

It's actually possible for an flying object to gain kinetic energy seemingly out of nothing by moving in and out of a situation with a different wind speed. This effect is called dynamic soaring. Seabirds master this principle by pulling up and diving behind waves and boats. They take advantage of this free energy to cover large distances (not to confuse with exchanges between potential and kinetic energy).

Since an in- or decrease in kinetic energy is the result of a force could this be the space version of this unknown force you're looking for? It's Earth effects are caused by the slownness of the motion of the body due to it's mass when adapting to reach balance in a new (aerodynamical) situation. It couldn't exist without a form of friction. Maybe some of these principles apply to moving objects in space as well.

Isn't this close to the coriolis-idea? Or much the same? It's effects are real though..

[Dave Zelenka]

Again, Coriolis is an apparent force. As soon as you no longer have a rotating reference frame, Coriolis no longer exists. As an apparent force, it can do no work on an object, and it can not change the speed (and hence, cannot change the energy or momentum) of an object.

Now, if I'm not misunderstanding your point, you're looking for something to explain the actual orbits and rotations of the planets. Not just how they appear from Earth, but why they are actually orbiting the sun the way they are. As far as I can tell, you need a force that will change the object's energy (especially when considering Venus and Uranus), and Coriolis can not do that.

Here is an animation that might help you see where I'm going. My words might not be clear above. Pictures speak better sometimes. Remember that this is a top view and very rudimentary, but it simply demonstrates the analogy.

http://www.interactive-earth.com/vis...lis_kepler.swf

I understand that the Coriolis force has no energy behind it. This is why I wrote "Now the question that remains is where does it get the energy to drive that process." Coriolis is the force that initiates the spin; it is the seed (the helix, if I may), but I am not implying that it is the force behind the rotation. Gravity is what I feel is powering the rotation in stellar bodies.

The second part of the animation above, shows a top view of a cyclone on the Northern Hemisphere (consider it a upper-latitude low pressure system). Please forgive that I didn't animate it in perspective, that would have taken quite some time. Even without perspective, the idea is still valid. The cyclone inherits the spin of the earth through the Coriolis Effect. Similarly, the Earth and the Moon inherit the directional orbit/spin of the Earth-sun system. This I feel is due to a Coriolis-like mechanism which affects stellar bodies, due to their orbit.

I think that this is so simple that it is almost difficult for people trained in mainstream astronomy to see. History and knowledge can be a plagues us all.

[Dave Zelenka]

Hello,

Interesting case. I am not very knowlegebale on the behavior of objects in space. This idea came to me. It's based on how flying objects can experience a boost and/or decrease in energy when exposed to a windshear.

It's actually possible for an flying object to gain kinetic energy seemingly out of nothing by moving in and out of a situation with a different wind speed. This effect is called dynamic soaring. Seabirds master this principle by pulling up and diving behind waves and boats. They take advantage of this free energy to cover large distances (not to confuse with exchanges between potential and kinetic energy).

Since an in- or decrease in kinetic energy is the result of a force could this be the space version of this unknown force you're looking for? It's Earth effects are caused by the slownness of the motion of the body due to it's mass when adapting to reach balance in a new (aerodynamical) situation. It couldn't exist without a form of friction. Maybe some of these principles apply to moving objects in space as well.

Isn't this close to the coriolis-idea? Or much the same? It's effects are real though..

Isn't this process you are describing the same process that allows sailboats to tack? I should learn how to sail...

Excellent idea, and so well placed! I think the reason behind the force you are talking about is partly about the creation and filling of a vacuum by objects. So, your comment is very well placed, because the other related idea that goes along with this ATM concept is how Jovian moons and other bodies are born from larger systems in the parent-child relationship as alluded to above. Excellent synchronicity.

I didn't want to reveal this part of the discussion yet, but I suppose I will have to because your comment is so well placed.

Here is this thread's associated ATM:

In larger systems such as Jupiter (and possibly even the sun), when a cyclonic system becomes powerful enough (the low pressure trough becomes deep enough), the cyclone or part of the cyclone is then able to 'lift off' systems such as Jupiter, Saturn, etc. This may be the way that most of the Jovian moons were created. So, when you look at low-pressure cyclonic systems on the gaseous planets, think potential moon.

[cjl]

The second part of the animation above, shows a top view of a cyclone on the Northern Hemisphere (consider it a upper-latitude low pressure system). Please forgive that I didn't animate it in perspective, that would have taken quite some time. Even without perspective, the idea is still valid. The cyclone inherits the spin of the earth through the Coriolis Effect. Similarly, the Earth and the Moon inherit the directional orbit/spin of the Earth-sun system. This I feel is due to a Coriolis-like mechanism which affects stellar bodies, due to their orbit.

Those two animations are nowhere near equivalent or analogous. The Coriolis effect in the second one happens due to the fact that on a sphere (it has to be a sphere), the areas near the equator have greater rotational velocity than near the poles. Hence, if wind is blowing from the equator to the poles, it will be deflected in the direction of rotation as the ground slows underneath it (and vice versa). Where is the rotating sphere with an object undergoing perpendicular motion in the orbital example? There is none, and therefore no coriolis effect.

[Neverfly]

The odds that the Sun and the Moon would have the same angular size on the sky are astoundingly small too, but that doesn't mean it isn't a coincidence.

As well as the same side of the moon facing the Earth at all times.

as Well as the tilt of the Earth axis
and distance from the Sun
amazing thing perspective....
Basically it would be ALL too easy to see these as some kind of "Sign" of greater forces involved..


but funny thing..
Saturn is considered to be a remarkable gem for its Rings. You see, going by the physics of it, a gas giant having HUGE broad rings such as Saturn has is infinitly small. Yet it has them.

Well if theres a greater force manipulating coincidences.. why mess with Saturn?

[tusenfem]

1. The rotating frame for a hurricane is the planet earth.
2. The rotating frame for the earth is the sun.

1. true, the Earth is rotating around its axis, and thereby creates the coriolis force
2. wrong, the Earth is flying around the Sun, being kept in its place by gravity, which constantly accelerates the Earth towards the Sun, and thus "pulls the Earth around the Sun" as acceleration and velocity are perpendicular. The Earth is, however, not embedded in a rotating body, the Earth is embedded in "vacuum". There is no difference in rotational speed of anything in the solar system, like there is e.g. between different latitudes on the Earth. Thus it follows that there is no coriolis force working on the Earth.
Anywhooo, thinking about it a little more, I think it will be basically impossible to have all planets rotate nicely around the Sun using a coriolis force.

The key for the force to have effect is to have the rotating body somewhat off of of the perpendicular, so that it inherits the spin. The axis of the earth in regards to its orbit around the sun is much closer to parallel (23.5 degrees off), thus it inherits this process. The reason why the rotating frame does not work at the equator for a cyclone is because the cyclone's axis is perpendicular to the axis of the rotating frame and so it is not affected and does not inherit the spin.

Now the question that remains is where does it get the energy to drive that process. In hurricanes the energy comes from wind energy sinking/flowing into the low pressure system. In stellar bodies, the energy comes from gravitational 'winds' sinking/flowing into the mass (gravitational well) of the planet or other body.

So what is the magical frictional force that is working on the Earth, that makes it spin then? If the coriolis force would work, the Earth would rotate around its axis once every year, i.e. the Earth would be always showing the same face to the distant stars.

You still have not understood coriolis force, or you do not understand the solar system.

[Dave Zelenka]

2. The rotating frame for the earth is the sun.

2. wrong, the Earth is flying around the Sun, being kept in its place by gravity, which constantly accelerates the Earth towards the Sun, and thus "pulls the Earth around the Sun" as acceleration and velocity are perpendicular. The Earth is, however, not embedded in a rotating body, the Earth is embedded in "vacuum".

Let me clarify: The rotating frame for the earth is the sun system. We are a integral part of the sun system.

There is no difference in rotational speed of anything in the solar system, like there is e.g. between different latitudes on the Earth. Thus it follows that there is no coriolis force working on the Earth.

Differential rotation is not necessary.

Anywhooo, thinking about it a little more, I think it will be basically impossible to have all planets rotate nicely around the Sun using a coriolis force.

It simply curves the rotation. The force that powers it is gravity.

So what is the magical frictional force that is working on the Earth, that makes it spin then? If the coriolis force would work, the Earth would rotate around its axis once every year, i.e. the Earth would be always showing the same face to the distant stars.

Gravity and other forces (tidal) provides energy and friction necessary to give the rotation periods that we see.

You still have not understood coriolis force, or you do not understand the solar system.

It is either as you say, or I am not doing a good enough job explaining.

So, since I am not doing my job well here, below is a diagram:


Red arrows are the energy that drives the process. In the case of cyclones, the energy comes from heat and wind. In stellar bodies, the energy comes from gravity and maybe something else (if I'm missing something).

The blue arrows represent the orbit and rotation. The best way to describe this is that the child inherits the movement of the parent.

[Dave Zelenka]

As well as the same side of the moon facing the Earth at all times.

This is simply because the moon's center of gravity has slowly shifted overtime, through tidal pressures with the earth, so that it is now gravitationally locked.

Basically it would be ALL too easy to see these as some kind of "Sign" of greater forces involved..?

With Venus and Earth it just demonstrates that something else is behind it...the only way I can explain it is some sort of gravitational harmonic, which in itself is very interesting. But the issue here is, that because they are locked in a patter demonstrates that their orbits have energy behind them and they just aren't just slowing down. They have...(should I say it)...life. Ahh, the beauty of Creation.

[Dave Zelenka]

Those two animations are nowhere near equivalent or analogous. The Coriolis effect in the second one happens due to the fact that on a sphere (it has to be a sphere), the areas near the equator have greater rotational velocity than near the poles. Hence, if wind is blowing from the equator to the poles, it will be deflected in the direction of rotation as the ground slows underneath it (and vice versa). Where is the rotating sphere with an object undergoing perpendicular motion in the orbital example? There is none, and therefore no coriolis effect.

What were to happen if you where to squash the Earth vetically ( a flat earth). The same effect would exist.

[Dave Zelenka]

So, now even though I haven't convinced any of the members above that planets rotate due to an analogous process to that which spins cyclones, I must move on, because this is where it gets interesting.

Above I wrote:

Triton: Under the meteorological analogy, I don't have a better solution than the 'captured by gravity' solution. Part of me doesn't like that solution entirely, I'll think about why.

The main problem with the captured moon concept is that if a moon was on a trajectory toward a planet, barring it not running into atmosphere or another moon or having a little rocket engine on its flanks, it would follow its curve around planet and head back to where it came. And where did it come from, the Kuiper Belt? That’s a good thought, but I expect that it is not a proven fact. A moon wouldn’t just start rotating around a gaseous planet. Force would need to be applied for it to travel on a new orbit.

Thanks to marijin, I think my dislike of the “captured by gravity solution” may be answered. Why does Triton and other small moons orbit in reverse (retrograde)? Above I alluded to the idea that gaseous planets’ moons are born out of extreme low pressure cyclonic systems that are rotating around gaseous planets. Questions: which way do the ‘weather’ bands rotate on Jupiter or Saturn? Both. What if the bands that rotate east-west were able at times to birth moons that were released into a retrograde orbit? Since these types of moons would be less common than ones that inherited the same rotation as the gaseous planet, we would likely see less of these and ones that are smaller. We would also tend to see ones that orbit slower since they would be released in bands that are fighting the rotational speed of the planet. Also, we would likely see more retrograde orbits on planets that rotate more slowly. This is what the data seems reflects. Fortunately, there is a lot of data that would help to see if this idea has any sort of validity. How deep would a low pressure trough need to be to be able to counter the escape velocity? Is it possible that the escape velocity differed in the past due to altering atmospheric conditions? Lot’s of questions.

A similar process that we see here on Earth, of course, is the production of hail. Even though our thunderstorms cannot release hail into space, next time you see a round marble-sized hailstone, think proto-moon.

Just a note, I am not implying that the Great Red Spot is one of those birthing locations. The Great Red Spot is an anticyclone and thus would have the opposite characteristics as a cyclone and could not produce a moon.

[marijn]

Hey, thanks for the credit, although it's probably not what i meant.. I am no expect, just thinking out loud.

I don't think sailboats can actually exploit or even notice this effect I meant. As far as I know the (well understood) technique has only been occasionally investigated by a few (competition) gliderplane enthusiasts. Mainly just for fun, because ordinary flying techniques are way more efficient. The technique doesn't seem to have any other practical use. Therefore, it's hardly known. This article on wikipedia is explaining it very well.

I felt mentioning this concept because there seem to be some similarities when projecting the situation on your case. It seems to have the right ingredients, like slowness of mass, (repeating) motion, friction, missing force, establishing balance.

In the Earth situation, it's the air friction which directly causes the lift of a wing. When a change in this friction happens suddenly, during the time the body needs to reach its new speed as demanded by the new situation, there is a "wrong" speed which is converted into too much or less lift (squared with velocity). All this is added or substracted from the body's original speed.

No idea whether something similar could apply to objects in space. But since planetary objects are a lot heavier than seagulls it's maybe worth considering. No spinning required. But is Coriolis alike. Maybe if an object is flying through or is striking an atmosphere of another source, these effects are added up by the main changes one would expect.

[cjl]

What were to happen if you where to squash the Earth vetically ( a flat earth). The same effect would exist.

Then it would simplify into simple, centrifugal force, which still requires a connection that does not exist in the large scale example.