# Thread: Do planets rotate due to an 'interstellar Coriolis Effect'?

1. Originally Posted by 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.
If the start already does not make sense, because you do not understand coriolis force, than any continuation at this point would be for the cat's ***

Originally Posted by Dave Zelenka
Let me clarify: The rotating frame for the earth is the sun system. We are a integral part of the sun system.
As basically in between the Sun and the Earth is vacuum (or as near as) there is no rotating system. The Earth is pulled by gravity towards the Sun, and keeps on falling into the Sun. But because it has also a transverse velocity it keeps on missing the Sun (luckily for us).

So, basically first explain what this "Sun system" is.

Originally Posted by Dave Zelenka
Differential rotation is not necessary.
To get Foucault's pendulum to rotate you need that at higher latitudes the velocity of the Earth is smaller than at lower latitudes. This is the easiest way to understand this phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Dave Zelenka
It simply curves the rotation.
What on Earth does that mean?

Get a basic physics book and read up on coriolis force.

2. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2007
Posts
132
Originally Posted by tusenfem
To get Foucault's pendulum to rotate you need that at higher latitudes the velocity of the Earth is smaller than at lower latitudes. This is the easiest way to understand this phenomenon.
Well, thanks for taking the time to continue with this tusenfem and others. It seems that I might be confusing the issue by the flat animation that I posted above and not explaining the second part of this ATM in the beginning. Where I may have gone wrong in my discussion is that inheriting a Coriolis spin is not the same as developing a Coriolis spin. The reason that I am wasting our time with this is because my assumption (rightly or wrongly) is that these relationships are very similar:

Jupiter:cyclone
Jupiter:moon
Sun:Jupiter

I thought that beginning the discussion with Coriolis might demonstrate the analogies, but obviously I have caused more confusion than clarity. My error. Where my discussion went wrong was that the moon is inheriting the effect of the Coriolis effect from its parent system. Then (under this idea) it gains rotational velocity from gravity following curve of the inherited spin. This is what I meant by "it simply curves the rotation." The inherited curve is already there. Gravity drives it and keeps it the rotation at a constant velocity rather than a decaying velocity.

I'm sorry that I kept us running circles when inherited is different than a direct effect.

But the core to this idea is that rotations are not decaying, as currently is assumed, and that there is a force driving the rotation.

What's really getting me here is why the ~98 degree shift in axis in Uranus' orbit. I just cannot buy the collision answer. I wonder if there could be some reason due to the relationship between the angular momuntum of its rotation?

3. Originally Posted by Dave Zelenka
I thought that beginning the discussion with Coriolis might demonstrate the analogies, but obviously I have caused more confusion than clarity. My error. Where my discussion went wrong was that the moon is inheriting the effect of the Coriolis effect from its parent system. Then (under this idea) it gains rotational velocity from gravity following curve of the inherited spin. This is what I meant by "it simply curves the rotation." The inherited curve is already there. Gravity drives it and keeps it the rotation at a constant velocity rather than a decaying velocity.
This is even more confusing than discussing the C-word.
What do you mean by: inheriting the effect?
What do you mean by: it gains rotational velocity from gravity following curve of the inherited spin?

What exactly are you trying to describe here, what kind of action, what kind of force? I see a lot of words, some of which I recognize, but that make no sense put together in these sentences.

4. My posting chances have been limited over the last couple of days, so I have a few things to catch up on here.

First off, that animation that was linked in post #20 in no way, shape, or form, aided your argument David. With that animation, I'm left to assume that your rotating reference fram there has the same period as the Earth's orbit. As I've said before, given that reference frame there is no Coriolis Force acting on the Earth.

The big point here I'm trying to make and I think you may be missing, is that, when you change your rotating reference frame, the Coriolis Force changes. If you veiw something from a non rotating reference frame, then Coriolis Force no longer exists. Even if you observe a cyclone on Earth from a fixed point in space, there is no longer a Coriolis Force on it. What you need for this theory to work is a force, like gravity, which is the same, no matter how you observe it.

Your theory is asking Coriolis to be something it isn't, and it's asking the Coriolis Force to do things that it can't do.

The proposed idea of planets naturally spawing their own moons seems almost outrageous to me. The pressure gradient that would be required in order to achieve a wind speed able to reach a planet's escape velocity would be nothing short of insanely steep. Your example about Saturn and Titan does not help the theory much in my opinion. The example requires a gaseous planet, composed mainly of Hydrogen, to eject soild material, including silicates and ice. As far as we can tell, Saturn's atmosphere is only .1% water vapor, and it contains no silicates whatsoever.

In any case it seems to me that, on the whole, it would be physically impossible for a planet to naturaly eject its own material from itself.

5. On an interesting side note, the coriolis effect would actually cause the moon to have a rotation OPPOSITE that of the earth around the sun, as when it went to the inside of the earth, it would "outrun" the earth, and on the outside it would lag behind.

So much for that theory...

6. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2007
Posts
132
I should have started with the whole idea to begin with, rather than building up. I have confused others and myself. I should have refined these thoughts first. I beg your pardon. Here are your answers as best as I understand them.

Originally Posted by tusenfem
What do you mean by: inheriting the effect?
Earlier it was said that tornadoes are not affected by Coriolis. Tornadoes are not directly affected by Coriolis, but they do spin (usually) with the counter-clockwise rotation (in the Northern H.). This is because they inherit the effect from the larger thunderstorm or system that is affected by Coriolis. The reason that I feel that gaseous planets' moons have inherited the Coriolis effect is because I feel that they may be born from low pressure systems on gas planets.

Originally Posted by tusenfem
What do you mean by: it gains rotational velocity from gravity following curve of the inherited spin?
It's just like a hurricane. To keep with the tornado example, let's read this excerpt from Wikipedia:

I think this is very interesting, because I think the same processes is what develops gas planets and their moons (and stars produce planets) So, when I try to describe how moons and planets evolve, I try to apply what I understand of meteorology.

I should have started this thread with this thought.

So, when I stated "it gains rotational velocity from gravity following curve of the inherited spin?" I'm trying to say that stellar bodies have their inherited rotation from the planet they evolved from. Then gravity drives the rotation of a stellar body. This is what happens with cyclones. The rotation happens whether from Coriolis or inherited Coriolis. Then the rotation is driven by winds.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2007
Posts
132
Swordfish, My posts were confusing. Please re-read my 01-February-2007 12:50 PM post. Thanks for continuing with this.

Originally Posted by Swordfish
The proposed idea of planets naturally spawing their own moons seems almost outrageous to me. The pressure gradient that would be required in order to achieve a wind speed able to reach a planet's escape velocity would be nothing short of insanely steep. Your example about Saturn and Titan does not help the theory much in my opinion. The example requires a gaseous planet, composed mainly of Hydrogen, to eject soild material, including silicates and ice. As far as we can tell, Saturn's atmosphere is only .1% water vapor, and it contains no silicates whatsoever.

In any case it seems to me that, on the whole, it would be physically impossible for a planet to naturaly eject its own material from itself.
This is the root to my discussion. As said in my repsonse to tusenfem, it would have been more responsible for me to start the discussion with this thought.

It does seem outrageous. However, one thing that I think is often overlooked in astronomy is that principles from various sciences closer to home should be investigated to find correlation to other sciences. We have made some very solid, fundamental understandings on the surface of planet Earth and I fully expect that those ideas apply, at least generally, to the sciences that involve realms more distant than our earth and atmosphere. Specifically, I feel that the fundamental principles of meteorology and ecology need to be applied to the remote sciences (astronomy, chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics). Then we will understand those realms better.

So, fundamentally, I believe that there is and interconnected 'purpose' for all things. I.e., there is a reason that Jupiter, say, has huge storms on its surface. These storms do something and have a role greater than just being pretty. Now, I'm sure that you would not deny this. But what I try to do is to look at a system and say, "okay that's neat, but what does it affect, what does it do?"

The other principle that I think under is this principle: All fundamental processes that we prove to be true in one system have analogous processes in other systems.

Back to your specific question, "The pressure gradient that would be required in order to achieve a wind speed able to reach a planet's escape velocity would be nothing short of insanely steep. " For a solid object, such as a rocket, this is true. But is it true for a loose amalgamation of materials, like a cyclone? The friction it encounters would help it at the surface of a gaseous planet where the escape velocity was huge (just like a clould on earth), then if its rotation and pressure gradient, and the speed of its travel in a band on the gaseous planet was high enough it may be able to gain the necessary altitude to put it into an orbit. Lastly it's rotational axis would then align with the axis of the planet itself. Again, friction is important here. Feathers fall more slowly than a lead ball.

"As far as we can tell, Saturn's atmosphere is only .1% water vapor, and it contains no silicates whatsoever." This is a problem, but it could be that an evolving moon, would lose most of the materials to space. Water tends to bond together because of electromagnetic bonds. Hydrogen on the other hand may escape. So, if it started with .1% water vapor, soon due to losses of helium, the mass could be up to 80% water. Silicates are a question. Unfortunately, I have no good answer, except that there is good reason to believe that a planet such as Jupiter could draw minerals to the surface. The proposed low pressure system that would be able to create a moon, would have to be quite powerful, and thus would have an incredible draw (like dust in a tornado). But even still, again, the percentage of any other elements would be very slim. So, either that most of the original materials are lost to space of there is some unknown way that planets evolve. There is a lot of research, sketchy and refined, on growth mechanisms for stellar bodies: stars, planets and moons. For better or worse, expanding earth one example.

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally Posted by Dave Zelenka
Swordfish, My posts were confusing. Please re-read my 01-February-2007 12:50 PM post. Thanks for continuing with this.

This is the root to my discussion. As said in my repsonse to tusenfem, it would have been more responsible for me to start the discussion with this thought.

It does seem outrageous. However, one thing that I think is often overlooked in astronomy is that principles from various sciences closer to home should be investigated to find correlation to other sciences. We have made some very solid, fundamental understandings on the surface of planet Earth and I fully expect that those ideas apply, at least generally, to the sciences that involve realms more distant than our earth and atmosphere. Specifically, I feel that the fundamental principles of meteorology and ecology need to be applied to the remote sciences (astronomy, chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics). Then we will understand those realms better.

So, fundamentally, I believe that there is and interconnected 'purpose' for all things. I.e., there is a reason that Jupiter, say, has huge storms on its surface. These storms do something and have a role greater than just being pretty. Now, I'm sure that you would not deny this. But what I try to do is to look at a system and say, "okay that's neat, but what does it affect, what does it do?"

The other principle that I think under is this principle: All fundamental processes that we prove to be true in one system have analogous processes in other systems.

Back to your specific question, "The pressure gradient that would be required in order to achieve a wind speed able to reach a planet's escape velocity would be nothing short of insanely steep. " For a solid object, such as a rocket, this is true. But is it true for a loose amalgamation of materials, like a cyclone? The friction it encounters would help it at the surface of a gaseous planet where the escape velocity was huge (just like a clould on earth), then if its rotation and pressure gradient, and the speed of its travel in a band on the gaseous planet was high enough it may be able to gain the necessary altitude to put it into an orbit. Lastly it's rotational axis would then align with the axis of the planet itself. Again, friction is important here. Feathers fall more slowly than a lead ball.

"As far as we can tell, Saturn's atmosphere is only .1% water vapor, and it contains no silicates whatsoever." This is a problem, but it could be that an evolving moon, would lose most of the materials to space. Water tends to bond together because of electromagnetic bonds. Hydrogen on the other hand may escape. So, if it started with .1% water vapor, soon due to losses of helium, the mass could be up to 80% water. Silicates are a question. Unfortunately, I have no good answer, except that there is good reason to believe that a planet such as Jupiter could draw minerals to the surface. The proposed low pressure system that would be able to create a moon, would have to be quite powerful, and thus would have an incredible draw (like dust in a tornado). But even still, again, the percentage of any other elements would be very slim. So, either that most of the original materials are lost to space of there is some unknown way that planets evolve. There is a lot of research, sketchy and refined, on growth mechanisms for stellar bodies: stars, planets and moons. For better or worse, expanding earth one example.
Could your idea be falsified, even if only in principle?

9. You know, after all of this, I'm still going to go with "no."

10. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2007
Posts
132
Originally Posted by Nereid
Could your idea be falsified, even if only in principle?
Good question again, but first let me say that the users who responded to me on this are correct: Planets and moons do not rotate directly due to Coriolis. But I still hold that they inherit the Coriolis Effect from their parent system, where they were born, because I still feel that they are growths out of planetary (or stellar) cyclones.

I think the best way to falsify this idea would be look to see whether or not all planets and moons are actually slowing down in rotation, while not changing in diameter and their location in their orbit. If the bodies are actually slowing down, then yes, this idea is false. In fact, find one body that is actually slowing down, then this idea is falsified. Please note, that slowing down is relative to their diameter and orbit. If a body’s diameter and orbit changed, then its rotational velocity would change also. The ‘slowing down’ would need to also reflect those changes.

I think the best way to test this idea would be to look at a system such as Jupiter and Saturn. Make the assumption that none of the moons were ‘captured.’ Develop a model for, say Saturn, and see if that model correlated well to ‘Saturn.’ This seems like a reasonable task.

11. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally Posted by Dave Zelenka
Good question again, but first let me say that the users who responded to me on this are correct: Planets and moons do not rotate directly due to Coriolis. But I still hold that they inherit the Coriolis Effect from their parent system, where they were born, because I still feel that they are growths out of planetary (or stellar) cyclones.

I think the best way to falsify this idea would be look to see whether or not all planets and moons are actually slowing down in rotation, while not changing in diameter and their location in their orbit. If the bodies are actually slowing down, then yes, this idea is false. In fact, find one body that is actually slowing down, then this idea is falsified. Please note, that slowing down is relative to their diameter and orbit. If a body’s diameter and orbit changed, then its rotational velocity would change also. The ‘slowing down’ would need to also reflect those changes.

I think the best way to test this idea would be to look at a system such as Jupiter and Saturn. Make the assumption that none of the moons were ‘captured.’ Develop a model for, say Saturn, and see if that model correlated well to ‘Saturn.’ This seems like a reasonable task.
(my bold)

The Earth's rotation rate is slowing.

Is the Dave Zelenka ATM idea thus falsified?

12. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2007
Posts
132
Originally Posted by Nereid
(my bold)

The Earth's rotation rate is slowing.

Is the Dave Zelenka ATM idea thus falsified?
See, I am with the Expanding Earthers. So the earth is slowing due to expansion! Like the ice skater who pulls out of a spin.

13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally Posted by Dave Zelenka
See, I am with the Expanding Earthers. So the earth is slowing due to expansion! Like the ice skater who pulls out of a spin.
And you have done the calculations to show that the observed slow-down rate is consistent with the upper bounds on the expansion? Using standard physics, I mean ...

14. I think the best way to falsify this idea would be look to see whether or not all planets and moons are actually slowing down in rotation, while not changing in diameter and their location in their orbit.

See, I am with the Expanding Earthers. So the earth is slowing due to expansion! Like the ice skater who pulls out of a spin.

Hmmm, so here's the cruch. If the planet is slowing down, you just say that this is because it's expanding, which means that you already have a cover for the one thing that would falsify your claims, thus it can't be falsified. That means it's not science.

15. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2007
Posts
132
Originally Posted by Nereid
And you have done the calculations to show that the observed slow-down rate is consistent with the upper bounds on the expansion? Using standard physics, I mean ...
Yes, that would be the way to do it. See if th slow-down rate is consistent with the expansion rate. Both data sets are known and thus should be easy to do for someone with the knowledge and skill. This will take some studying on my part.

16. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2007
Posts
132
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf
I think the best way to falsify this idea would be look to see whether or not all planets and moons are actually slowing down in rotation, while not changing in diameter and their location in their orbit.

See, I am with the Expanding Earthers. So the earth is slowing due to expansion! Like the ice skater who pulls out of a spin.

Hmmm, so here's the cruch. If the planet is slowing down, you just say that this is because it's expanding, which means that you already have a cover for the one thing that would falsify your claims, thus it can't be falsified. That means it's not science.
This is the crux of all science. It's the dilema of philosophy: the 'two horns' of the bull. At the depth of knowledge, it is impossible to prove either side. Knowlege horizons exist at the depth of knowledges that prevent us from entirely 'getting it'.

However, your solution "look to see whether or not all planets and moons are actually slowing down in rotation" is definitely the best way to do this.

17. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally Posted by Dave Zelenka
Originally Posted by Nereid
And you have done the calculations to show that the observed slow-down rate is consistent with the upper bounds on the expansion? Using standard physics, I mean ...
Yes, that would be the way to do it. See if th slow-down rate is consistent with the expansion rate. Both data sets are known and thus should be easy to do for someone with the knowledge and skill. This will take some studying on my part.
Is that a no (I, DZ, have not done any such calculations)?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•