principle of planetary rotation

There are many problems with that hypothesis. First of all there is no
interaction between photons and a magnetic field. Secondly photons
present a pressure, not an attraction.

I have a better idea.

As the planet circles the sun, there is coupling of the iron core to the
sun's magnetic field. (Yes the iron core is not ferromagnetic due to the
heat being over the curie temperature, but there is still coupling due to
it being conductive and the associated electrical eddy currents).

This causes electrical currents, forces on the core and eddies, which
generate heat and a magnetic field. Since there is curl in the magnetic
field from the sun, there will be more field lines penetrating the earth
on the sun side than on the far side. The effect would be a braking
effect on the sun side of the earth that exceeds the braking effect on
the far side. This effect would impart an angular moment to the earth
until it is spinning at exactly the right rate so that the same number of
lines are penetrating each side per unit of time are the same (as an
approximation).

I have done some math on the expected rate of rotation if this effect
were true using the average orbital radius of the earth, and the radius
of the middle of the magma in the earth, and the actual rotation of the
earth and the rate I computed were fairly close.

I have never heard this proposed before, but it might be worth following
up.

I never posted it because there are a few flies in the ointment. First
some planets such as mercury do not rotate. But that could be due to
tidal locking, and lack of an iron or conductive core. The second
problem is that the orbit of the earth should be losing energy. Maybe it
is, but I have never seen any reference to that. If it is not losing
energy then where is the energy coming from? The only answer I could
come up with would be from the ZPE, but I am not aware of an theories as
to how that would work. It keeps the electrons in orbit around atoms (by
some theorys), but not sure it works on the astrological scale.

Marshall

peter wrote:

PRINCIPLE OF PLANETARY ROTATION

STATES
when photons emitted from the sun enters planetary magnetic field on
the side facing the sun, photons will be deflected by planetary
magnetic field and absorbed at an angle on the planet surface the
absorbsion of photons will generate attarction force between the
planet and the sun due to inter-photon attraction of the radiated
photons,the genearted attraction force between the sun and the planet
will than be resolved at an tangent to the point of absorbsion into
rotational force of the planet by trigonometrical resolution of of
resultant angle of photon absorbsion.

PROPOSED BY PETER JULY/10/2003

PRINCIPLE OF PLANETARY ROTATION

STATES
when photons emitted from the sun enters planetary magnetic field on
the side facing the sun, photons will be deflected by planetary
magnetic field and absorbed at an angle on the planet surface the
absorbsion of photons will generate attarction force between the
planet and the sun due to inter-photon attraction of the radiated
photons,the genearted attraction force between the sun and the planet
will than be resolved at an tangent to the point of absorbsion into
rotational force of the planet by trigonometrical resolution of of
resultant angle of photon absorbsion.

PROPOSED BY PETER JULY/10/2003

"peter" wrote in message
om...
PRINCIPLE OF PLANETARY ROTATION

STATES
when photons emitted from the sun enters planetary magnetic field on
the side facing the sun, photons will be deflected by planetary
magnetic field and absorbed at an angle on the planet surface the
absorbsion of photons will generate attarction force between the
planet and the sun due to inter-photon attraction of the radiated
photons,the genearted attraction force between the sun and the planet
will than be resolved at an tangent to the point of absorbsion into
rotational force of the planet by trigonometrical resolution of of
resultant angle of photon absorbsion.

PROPOSED BY PETER JULY/10/2003

Peter should study some physics, and employ a
spell checker.

Proposed by Greg July/10/2003

John Zinni wrote:

"Marshall Dudley" wrote in message
...

I never posted it because there are a few flies in the ointment. First
some planets such as mercury do not rotate.

I would double check my facts here if I were you.

Your are right. I had no idea that I was taught wrong in school about mercury
in the early 60's. But I checked and sure enough the textbooks back then do
not agree with what I find now.

I was also taught the moon is locked in it's rotation with one face toward the
earth at all times. That one I believe still stands.

Marshall

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplan...s/mercury.html

Until 1962 it was thought that Mercury's "day" was the same length as its
"year" so as to keep that same face to the Sun
much as the Moon does to the Earth. But this was shown to be false in 1965 by
doppler radar observations. It is now known
that Mercury rotates three times in two of its years. Mercury is the only body
in the solar system known to have an
orbital/rotational resonance with a ratio other than 1:1 (though many have no
resonances at all).

"Marshall Dudley" wrote in message
...


Your are right. I had no idea that I was taught wrong in school about mercury
in the early 60's. But I checked and sure enough the textbooks back then do
not agree with what I find now.

I was also taught the moon is locked in it's rotation with one face toward the
earth at all times. That one I believe still stands.


Not exactly. Since the Moon's orbit is slightly elliptical,
and so speeds and slows slightly in its path as it does,
the face it presents oscillates slightly too. This effect
is called "libration". It allows us to view, over time,
slightly more than 50% of the Moon. Of course, there's
also the fact that the Moon's orbit is inclined to the
equator, so from our vantage point we can also see a bit
above and below its poles throughout a month.

Marshall Dudley wrote:

There are many problems with that hypothesis. First of all there is no
interaction between photons and a magnetic field. Secondly photons
present a pressure, not an attraction.

I have a better idea.

As the planet circles the sun, there is coupling of the iron core to the
sun's magnetic field. (Yes the iron core is not ferromagnetic due to the
heat being over the curie temperature, but there is still coupling due to
it being conductive and the associated electrical eddy currents).

(snip)

Why is there any need for input of energy from an external source to
"keep planets rotating"?

Conservation of angular momentum does the job quite nicely....

DP

--
Nattering Nabob #1 of the MOHSG

(alpha version of .sig)

wrote in message
...
Marshall Dudley wrote:

There are many problems with that hypothesis. First of all there is no
interaction between photons and a magnetic field. Secondly photons
present a pressure, not an attraction.

I have a better idea.

As the planet circles the sun, there is coupling of the iron core to the
sun's magnetic field. (Yes the iron core is not ferromagnetic due to the
heat being over the curie temperature, but there is still coupling due to
it being conductive and the associated electrical eddy currents).

(snip)

Why is there any need for input of energy from an external source to
"keep planets rotating"?

Conservation of angular momentum does the job quite nicely....


Not to mention that Dudley's mechanism would act as a
brake rather than maintaining the rotation. The
planet's rotation would be damped into synchronous
rotation with the Sun, keeping one face towards it
and thus freezing the magnetic lines of force in
place.

Also not to mention that the magnetic fields involved
are pitifully weak and the energies that they can
generate in interacting with the Earth are utterly
negligible when compared with the angular momentum
of the planet's rotation.

wrote:

Marshall Dudley wrote:

There are many problems with that hypothesis. First of all there is no
interaction between photons and a magnetic field. Secondly photons
present a pressure, not an attraction.

I have a better idea.

As the planet circles the sun, there is coupling of the iron core to the
sun's magnetic field. (Yes the iron core is not ferromagnetic due to the
heat being over the curie temperature, but there is still coupling due to
it being conductive and the associated electrical eddy currents).

(snip)

Why is there any need for input of energy from an external source to
"keep planets rotating"?

Conservation of angular momentum does the job quite nicely....

Simple. It is called the second law of thermodynamics.

The tides get their energy from the rotation. Most is dissapated through
friction and heat, but there are some areas that use damns to pull energy from
the tides and generate energy. This causes tidal braking, which slows the
rotation of the earth down according to theory. Of course angular momentum
must be conserved as well. With the moon, the earth loses rotational energy,
but the moon gains exactly the same amount of angular momentum, so the total
system angular momentum is unchanged. With the sun as a source of the tides
any loss of angular momentum is compensated for via momentum being transferred
to the sun, and/or the earth's orbit.

Marshall

Greg Neill wrote:

Not to mention that Dudley's mechanism would act as a
brake rather than maintaining the rotation. The
planet's rotation would be damped into synchronous
rotation with the Sun, keeping one face towards it
and thus freezing the magnetic lines of force in
place.

I disagree. If I get a chance I will try to duplicate with an aluminum disk
representing the earth, and a strong magnet experimentally.



Also not to mention that the magnetic fields involved
are pitifully weak and the energies that they can
generate in interacting with the Earth are utterly
negligible when compared with the angular momentum
of the planet's rotation.

I might point out that a trivial force can cause significant motion to even the
largest bodies when applied for millions of years. Just like a man can move a
loaded train boxcar when on level track.

Marshall

"Marshall Dudley" wrote in message
...
Greg Neill wrote:

Not to mention that Dudley's mechanism would act as a
brake rather than maintaining the rotation. The
planet's rotation would be damped into synchronous
rotation with the Sun, keeping one face towards it
and thus freezing the magnetic lines of force in
place.

I disagree. If I get a chance I will try to duplicate with an aluminum disk
representing the earth, and a strong magnet experimentally.

Better use a very weak magnet, if you want to approximate
the Earth-Sun system.

BTW, eddy current breaking is old news.


Also not to mention that the magnetic fields involved
are pitifully weak and the energies that they can
generate in interacting with the Earth are utterly
negligible when compared with the angular momentum
of the planet's rotation.

I might point out that a trivial force can cause significant motion to even the
largest bodies when applied for millions of years. Just like a man can move a
loaded train boxcar when on level track.

Sometimes the orders of magnitude can get one bamboozled.
Breaking times for the Earth in the Sun's magnetic
field would be many times the age of the universe.