PDA

View Full Version : No reply previous question



rudeyd
2007-Jan-13, 10:17 PM
I never got an answer on my question recently. It was about a galactic event that will happen on December 21st, 2012. The Earth will wobble and the Sun will be in the center of the Galaxy at the same time, which happens every 26,000 years. The ancient Mayan people knew about this somehow.

My question was, what will actually happen on that day? Will the wobble be detectable to humans somehow? Does the two events mean anything really? I know we won't explode and there won't be the doomsday crap that some believe, but I'm curious if the Earth will lose or gain a couple of milliseconds on the day like the Indian Ocean Eartquake of 2004 caused.

Also how could the Mayan people have found out about this event??

Nereid
2007-Jan-13, 10:27 PM
Moved from Astronomy section to Q&A ...

Ken G
2007-Jan-13, 10:33 PM
Also how could the Mayan people have found out about this event??

The entire event is entirely make believe, there's not a shred of truth to the whole idea. How's that for an answer? By the way, the only meaningful number in the whole shebang is the 26,000 years, which is the time it takes the direction of the Earth's rotational axis to precess around in a circle. But this is a very gradual process and does not produce any effects like earthquakes, etc. Maybe there is a serious question here the Mayans might have known about the 26,000 year cycle, like the ancient Greeks did, but that's the only sensible question that might be residing there and I don't know the answer.

antoniseb
2007-Jan-13, 10:33 PM
on December 21st, 2012. The Earth will wobble and the Sun will be in the center of the Galaxy at the same time, which happens every 26,000 years.

I have NO idea where you got this, but:
- The Sun will NOT be at the center of the galaxy on that date, or any time in the next trillion years.
- The Earth wobbles a little bit all the time, but not in some obvious or easily measureable way. Some of the wobbles are predictable and some are not. The ones cause by Earthquakes are not.
- It is unfair to the Mayans to attribute these wrong ideas to them.

Swift
2007-Jan-13, 10:33 PM
Rudeyd,

The Earth and sun will not be anywhere near the center of the galaxy at anytime in the future, they are actually far out from the center. There is the idea that the solar system oscillates above and below the plane of the galaxy, but this is very slowly and would certainly not happen on a single day.

The Mayan calendar may turn over in 2012 (how exactly it matches up with our calander is not absolutely certain). But there is no more significance to that than there is to the turnover from Dec. 31, 1999, to January 1, 2000.

The Mayan knew a lot about astronomy - they had a very good calendar, they knew the length of the year and could predict the Venus cycle and eclipses, but there is no evidence that they knew anything about the galaxy.

If you search around BAUT, look for things like 2012 and Mayans and you will find a lot more information.

01101001
2007-Jan-13, 10:39 PM
Hi, rudeyd


I never got an answer on my question recently.

What are John Mendenhall and I, tasty liver pÔtÚs?

Was this your question: Question about Earth's Wobble?? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=899648#post899648)?

Did you read John Mendenhall's reply and the topics I suggested?

publius
2007-Jan-13, 10:49 PM
Let me shed some light on where the OP is getting this. This is sort of a botched "pass it on" rendering of one of the myriad of 2012 doomsday theories.

It's not the center of the galaxy, but the galactic plane. I have no idea if the sun is anywhere near about to cross the galactic plane, but the idea is this cycle of "destruction" happens when the sun crosses the plane due to the "up and down" (z axis, if we like) component of it's motion around the galactic center.

And this cycle is supposedly correlate with the precessional cycle someway somehow.

Anyway, that's what's behind what the OP heard, I'm sure. Like I said, I have no idea about the sun's z-axis motion, nor where it is in that cycle right now. Are we anywhere near a plane crossing?

This particular doomsday theory got a nice Ed Dames twist on it a while back. For those of you who don't keep up with the Art Bell universe, ol Ed is one of the top tier of guests, up there with Hoagie in the yarns they can spin. Ol' Ed has been pushing this "solar kill shot" doomsday theory for about 10 years or more. Mr. Sun is going to belch out a huge solar flare that will scortch the surface of the earth. He keeps saying it's gonna happen real soon, now...........

And he was on with Art one past weekend, just like in the good ol' days before George whats-his-name took it over most of the time, and put a new twist on this.

The solar kill shot is going to be caused by gravitational waves caused by "something to do with" the sun's crossing of the galactic plane around
2012. These large amplitude waves will shake everything in the solar system like a bowl full of jelly, causing the sun to hiccup out those big solar flares, and then shake the earth itself a good bit, causing earthquakes and tsunamis, etc, etc. Basically, Biblical destruction events.

Anyway, that's where this one is coming from.

-Richard

grant hutchison
2007-Jan-13, 10:58 PM
Anyway, that's what's behind what the OP heard, I'm sure. Like I said, I have no idea about the sun's z-axis motion, nor where it is in that cycle right now. Are we anywhere near a plane crossing?No. We're 70 light years from the galactic midplane, and that distance will increase for the next 14 million years.

Grant Hutchison

publius
2007-Jan-13, 11:14 PM
Grant,

So we're nowhere near a plane crossing....

I googled a bit on this. There was some speculation trying to correlate plane crossing events with those mass extinction events, and that's probably where this doomsday idea got started. But how they turned that into a Mayan calender 2012 thing, I don't know.

-Richard

JohnD
2007-Jan-13, 11:25 PM
Apparently, we are now passing through an area of interstellar space that has a low density of gas hydrogen. If and when we go back into normal density, the effect on the heliopause may be to force it back in towards the Sun, and increase the flux of cosmic waves, with unkown effects.
This is the subject of the Innovative Interstellar Explorer project, written about in this week's New Scientist: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325850.900-interstellar-space-and-step-on-it.html
See also: http://interstellarexplorer.jhuapl.edu/

John

ozark1
2007-Jan-13, 11:58 PM
Apparently, we are now passing through an area of interstellar space that has a low density of gas hydrogen. If and when we go back into normal density, the effect on the heliopause may be to force it back in towards the Sun, and increase the flux of cosmic waves, with unkown effects.
This is the subject of the Innovative Interstellar Explorer project, written about in this week's New Scientist: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325850.900-interstellar-space-and-step-on-it.html
See also: http://interstellarexplorer.jhuapl.edu/

John

Yes, John. We are still 100,000 years from Loop 1 though, so the effects won't be seen for a while. The increases from unpredictable components of the local fluff are going to be minor.

publius
2007-Jan-14, 01:39 AM
Well, I finally figured out this "galactic plane crossing" thing. I figured, that since as Grant said, we're just barely on the rising side of this 30ish million year cycle and aren't due to cross again, then where did this "plane crossing" come from?

As near as I can figure, it's an *alignment*. According to this, the sun's position at the winter solstice in 2012 is supposed to exactly align with the galactic plane on the celestial sphere. Or something like that. I've always MEGLO'd at astronomical aligments -- when does something moving in this plane at an angle to this plane exactly line up with this other plane..... :)

But as near as I can tell, that is what is meant by "the sun crossing the galactic plane", and that would indeed go with the precessional cycle.

So this alignment is supposed to be a portent of doom and what the Mayan long count calendar was based upon. A "new age" starts at that marker.

Now, those of you who do know how all that stuff moving in those various planes aligns with this and that, is this true? Will the 2012 winter solstice "line up" with the galactic plane?

-Richard

Ken G
2007-Jan-14, 02:04 AM
If so, note the alignment of which you speak would happen every 13,000 years, not every 26,000. I guess the Mayans can't count.

publius
2007-Jan-14, 02:06 AM
If so, note the alignment of which you speak would happen every 13,000 years, not every 26,000. I guess the Mayans can't count.

I think it is a 13,000 year cycle, but I'm not sure. :)

-Richard

Occam
2007-Jan-14, 02:15 AM
So, we've had a bunch of hysterical nonsense about 1984, 1999 and 2000, all of which came and went without the world ending. Now it's 2012, based on some old Mayan twaddle. When 2012 passes without incident, what will be the next date for the apocalypse, do you think? I'm putting 50 bucks down on March 23rd, 2019

Kaptain K
2007-Jan-14, 02:19 AM
IIRC (It's been awhile since I've been to GLP), the "alignment" is that in 2012, the galactic longitude of the winter swolstice will be zero. In other words, the Sun will line up with the center of the galaxy. How that will cause widespread destruction, only the woo woos know!

publius
2007-Jan-14, 02:22 AM
If so, note the alignment of which you speak would happen every 13,000 years, not every 26,000. I guess the Mayans can't count.

Look at the Wiki article. The cycle of that crazy thing involves 13. If I understood it right, the cycle that ends is 2012 is a 13*400 = 5,200 years. The last "end of the world" was around 3100BC.

So there's a 13 in that mess of cycles, but it's 13*400, not 13 *1000. Two of those would 10,400 years ago, not 13,000, so the last "galatic alignment" would not have lined up with this cycle at all.

So, if this business about the winter solstice aligning with the galactic plane is true, it's just a coincidence that it lies at the end of one of the Mayan cycles. There's nothing in their cycles that matches the actual precessional cycle that I can see. But because of that coincidence, we have this belief the "Mayans knew something"..........

-Richard

Kaptain K
2007-Jan-14, 02:22 AM
So, we've had a bunch of hysterical nonsense about 1984, 1999 and 2000...
You missed 2003 (Planet X)!

Jeff Root
2007-Jan-14, 02:28 AM
How could you forget May 15, 2003, when Earth's crust rotated
by about 90 degrees in the grip of the magnetic field of the giant
Planet X, killing 90 percent of the world's population?

Sheesh. Some people just don't know any history!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

grant hutchison
2007-Jan-14, 02:32 AM
It so happens that the galactic plane cuts the ecliptic very close to 90 degrees and 270 degrees ecliptic longitude at the present epoch, which means that the position of the sun passes through the galactic plane at the solstices.
The relevant galactic node on the ecliptic is at λ = 270.0232 degrees for the J2000.0 equinox, and precession should be making that bigger, rather than smaller. So it seems like the boat has already harmlessly sailed, if we're using the standard astronomical definition of the galactic equator.
Somehow, I suspect we're not ...

Grant Hutchison

Sam5
2007-Jan-14, 02:34 AM
This chart from an archaeology book about Mayans shows the big cycle rolling over every 394 years. The last roll-over was in 1618. The one before that was in 1224. The next one will be in 2012.

http://i12.tinypic.com/29uyp78.jpg

grant hutchison
2007-Jan-14, 02:46 AM
IIRC (It's been awhile since I've been to GLP), the "alignment" is that in 2012, the galactic longitude of the winter swolstice will be zero.As far as I can see, the zero point of galactic latitude/longitude sits several degrees south of the ecliptic. Sgr A* isn't at the coordinate origin, but it isn't near the ecliptic, either.
It certainly looks like the whole galaxy thing is being shoehorned into the Mayan calendar for dramatic effect.
Surprise.

Grant Hutchison

publius
2007-Jan-14, 03:55 AM
And yet another woo-woo data point: The winter solistice of 2012 will occur at exactly Dec. 21st, 11:11PM UTC. That's the infamous
eleven-eleven, that looms large in some of these circles, where people claim they see 11:11 on clocks all the time, and it has some supernatural significance.

Think about 11:11. The first time I heard this stuff, I started noticing it when I saw 11:11, and 1:11 on the clock. When it's in your mind you notice it. You see all the ones (or any other "special" combination you might like) out of the corner of your eye, and it clicks and your conscious attention is directed to it. So one gets it in his head he's magically seeing 11:11 all the time.

So this 2012 thing has it all. Mayan calendars, solar galactic alignments, and 11:11 all wrapped up in one.

Now, as someone else asked, will all this doomsday stuff die down after 11:11PM, Dec 21st, 2012 passes without incident? It got started with 2000, with various end of the world prophecies, and the Mayan thing extends it to 2012. Will it die down until the next millenium :), or is their some other significant date that can be pulled out of some hat somewhere.

-Richard

publius
2007-Jan-14, 04:19 AM
Well, let's see, while 400 is an integral factor of 1000, it is of 2000, so 5 of these 13*400 = 5200 year cycles is indeed 26,000 years. 400 years is just ballpark, and if Sam5's 394 years is correct, this would be 5*13*394 = 25,610 years.

Wiki gives the precessional cycle as 25,765 years, but the precessional speed is actually a variable, and I think is slightly increasing.

So is this evidence that the precession was indeed encoded in the Mayan calendar?

-Richard

Ken G
2007-Jan-14, 04:38 AM
I wonder if anyone has done a more complete analysis than that one!

DaveC426913
2007-Jan-14, 04:58 AM
For the love of Pete, the destruction of civilsation isn't front page news enough, now it's a galactic event.

Hey rudeyd, I want to get my dead grandfather's $10,000,000 out of Romania. Can you give me your account number to deposit it in and I'll give you $100,000 free and clear.

Ken G
2007-Jan-14, 05:13 AM
No thanks, I'm already independently wealthy for helping the others who emailed me.

Jeff Root
2007-Jan-14, 06:29 AM
That's the infamous eleven-eleven, that looms large in some of
these circles, where people claim they see 11:11 on clocks all
the time, and it has some supernatural significance.
Weird. I just noticed when my computer clock said 11:11
an hour and ten minutes ago. I didn't notice the time again
until several minutes after midnight, and I have no idea how
long before 11:11 was the previous occasion that I noticed.
Could easily be two hours.

I had no idea anybody else noticed 11:11. That's the one time
that I see the most, whether morning or evening.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

publius
2007-Jan-14, 07:03 AM
Weird. I just noticed when my computer clock said 11:11
an hour and ten minutes ago. I didn't notice the time again
until several minutes after midnight, and I have no idea how
long before 11:11 was the previous occasion that I noticed.
Could easily be two hours.

I had no idea anybody else noticed 11:11. That's the one time
that I see the most, whether morning or evening.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff,

:) Yes, there a legions of people who notice this, and put all sorts of meaning into it.

With me, I hadn't noticed it until I heard of it. Then, I started seeing it, along with 1:11 just about all the time. I'd look down at the corner of the computer screen and see it. Or I'd be in the car and see it, or looking at a clock radio. You'll notice it's alway digital clocks. You don't notice it on analog clocks because it's as remarkable an event as all four (or 3) digits displaying 1's. You can train yourself to notice other combinations like this, 2:22, 3:33... up to 5:55 etc, even 10:10, 12:12.

What it is is you're seeing the clock digits subconsciously all the time, or a good fraction of the time -- you're just not aware of it -- that information doesn't make it all the way up to the high command center because it's not deemed important. However, when the seed is planted in your mind, your subconscious sees that as a "flag" and brings it to your conscious attention.

And it's a self-feeding cycle. Once you notice it, and think it's an improbable, strange thing, it becomes an even stronger flag for your subconscious.

With me, I noticed it day in day out for a long time, but it subsided, and I haven't paid it much attention. Now that I've brought it back in the forefront of my mind, it might happen again, but I don't know. Maybe I'm immune to it now after one go 'round.

I guarantee you that many of the people who read this will start noticing it too.

-Richard

Ken G
2007-Jan-14, 07:37 AM
I notice 11:11 and 12:34, that's pretty much all so far.

Jeff Root
2007-Jan-14, 07:52 AM
What it is is you're seeing the clock digits subconsciously all the
time, or a good fraction of the time -- you're just not aware of it --
I don't think I can provide any evidence to support this assertion,
but I'm quite sure I don't see it very often. Of course it depends
a lot on what I'm doing. The thing is, most often when I notice
the time, it is because I deliberately look to see the time. I think,
"What time is it?" and then I turn my head and eyes so that I can
see it.

The day before yesterday, though, when I was writing a reply
to the question about circles, I wanted to check that the Sun
is a circle, so I went to the south side of the building and was
shocked at how low and how far west the Sun was. WAY too
low and too far west for 1:10 PM. I came back, checked my
clock, and then checked the Sun again. Then I checked the
clock on the computer. 3:20. My wall clock battery died two
hours and ten minutes earlier. A while later I noted that I
should take something out of the oven in five minutes, at 1:15.
That sounded a bit too familiar though and nothing got burned.

Anyway. I had a grocery bill total $111.11 a couple years ago.
And a month or two ago I noticed that I had been online for
four hours, fourty-four minutes and fourty-three seconds.
Almost.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Kaptain K
2007-Jan-14, 08:04 AM
I notice 11:11 and 12:34, that's pretty much all so far.
Then there's my favorite: pi oclock - 3:14.

publius
2007-Jan-14, 08:13 AM
Then there's my favorite: pi oclock - 3:14.


Oh great, now I'll start seeing that all time..............


-Richard

evanoconnor
2007-Jan-14, 09:37 AM
Then there's my favorite: pi oclock - 3:14.

This one get me too, especially on Pi Day, March 14th... but I guess then it should be 1:59 :)

grant hutchison
2007-Jan-14, 01:31 PM
And yet another woo-woo data point: The winter solistice of 2012 will occur at exactly Dec. 21st, 11:11PM UTC.Hmmmm. Not according to Jean Meeus' 3000-year tables: 11:12:43 is the appointed second.

Grant Hutchison

Jeff Root
2007-Jan-14, 05:21 PM
I just came back to this thread, read the new posts, then looked
down at the clock. It changed from 11:13 to 11:14 as I looked.
Missed it by that much.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2007-Jan-14, 05:26 PM
I've been using a system of putting compacted dates in filenames
since the days of DOS. December 02 is carbon dioxide day: C02.

How far off topic can I get? Farther, farther!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

publius
2007-Jan-14, 07:25 PM
Hmmmm. Not according to Jean Meeus' 3000-year tables: 11:12:43 is the appointed second.

Grant Hutchison

Grant,

The US Naval Observatory says 11:11AM: (Edit: this is AM, not PM, actually!)

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html

They don't give it to the second there, however.

So there is some slight difference in whatever formula and current position data they are using, maybe some slight difference in the *timekeeping* standard itself. One minute is not much to worry about with this stuff, but I do wonder what the difference is.

-Richard

grant hutchison
2007-Jan-14, 07:47 PM
So there is some slight difference in whatever formula and current position data they are using, maybe some slight difference in the *timekeeping* standard itself. One minute is not much to worry about with this stuff, but I do wonder what the difference is.Ah, you're right, it's my mistake.
Meeus is using Dynamical Time, which is rather more than a minute ahead of UT. By 2012 the difference will be something like 78 seconds, which accounts for the USNO's figure, and also for their coy avoidance of exact seconds: they can't know exactly by how much DT and UT will differ until after the event.

Grant Hutchison

publius
2007-Jan-14, 08:20 PM
Ah, you're right, it's my mistake.
Meeus is using Dynamical Time, which is rather more than a minute ahead of UT. By 2012 the difference will be something like 78 seconds, which accounts for the USNO's figure, and also for their coy avoidance of exact seconds: they can't know exactly by how much DT and UT will differ until after the event.

Grant Hutchison


Ah, so.

Hee, hee. I remember you've mentioned that GR calculations sort of waft over your head. Well, this kind of stuff does the same for me. When you get to talking about the various astronomical timekeeping standards, then throw that into calculations of the various positions of objects as seen in various coordinate systems, I'll get a blank, deer-in-the-headlights look on my face.

However, I did have to look up dynamical time. I got that look, but I did notice something that caught my GR interest: Geocentric Coordinate Time and Barycentric Coordinate Time.

The former (always referenced to the clock rate of an observer "stationary at infinity", and assuming asymptotic Schwarzschild-like flatness) is the proper time of a clock following the motion of the center of mass of the earth, but without the earth's gravity well.

IOW, this is the proper time of a clock following the earth's world line through space and in all the other gravitational fields the earth is immersed in.

Barycentric coordinate time is that of a clock following the solar barycenter's world line through space, but absent the surrounding solar system field.

Doing that allows you to separate all the different effects on clock rates in a structured sort of way.

-Richard

Ken G
2007-Jan-14, 08:47 PM
I'm reminded of the proverb: a man with one watch knows what time it is, a man with two is never sure!

grant hutchison
2007-Jan-14, 09:09 PM
When you get to talking about the various astronomical timekeeping standards, then throw that into calculations of the various positions of objects as seen in various coordinate systems, I'll get a blank, deer-in-the-headlights look on my face.Yeah, at any given instant there's a little cluster of Dynamic Times, including the two you mention; and about a minute away there's a little cluster of Universal Times, including UTC.
I just remember that the solar system runs on Dynamic Time (some sort of DT is the independent variable in the equations of motion for the planets), whereas the Earth runs on Universal Time (which is tweaked to keep pace with the rotation of the Earth). The two gradually diverge because of the irregular slowing in the Earth's rotation, which is where all those leap-seconds come in.

Grant Hutchison

Occam
2007-Jan-14, 09:37 PM
How could you forget May 15, 2003, when Earth's crust rotated
by about 90 degrees in the grip of the magnetic field of the giant
Planet X, killing 90 percent of the world's population?

Sheesh. Some people just don't know any history!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I was off-planet that day and missed it

Swift
2007-Jan-15, 04:49 AM
I just noticed that my computer clock reads 11:40 PM, and you know what that means..... :think:

I should have gone to bed an hour and a half ago. :p

Ken G
2007-Jan-15, 05:26 PM
Or, it means your clock is 29 minutes fast!

publius
2007-Jan-30, 06:39 PM
Well, George Noory had a big proponent of this Galactic Alignment/whatever on last night. He's got a web site,

http://www.thehorizonproject.com/

but it is mostly about selling dvds about his doomsday theories. Which is typical.

Anyway, as the Mayan's foretold, some time around H hour, 11:11AM, D day, Dec. 21st, 2012, the solar system "crosses the galactic *plain*" (that's how he spells it) into something he calls the "dark rift", which is a big gravitational "thing" which is "an extension of the central black hole".

The dark rift causes Mr. Sun and all his planets to shake, wobble, and roll a bit. And we're all gonna die. The earth's crust will shift over the mantle, and we'll have a "pole shift" at least relative to the crust. And this happens over and over again with the precessional cycle. Civillization rises, only to be destroyed by the "dark rift" and start over again.

-Richard

Ken G
2007-Jan-30, 06:47 PM
Anyway, as the Mayan's foretold, some time around H hour, 11:11AM, D day, Dec. 21st, 2012, the solar system "crosses the galactic *plain*" (that's how he spells it) into something he calls the "dark rift", which is a big gravitational "thing" which is "an extension of the central black hole". And what makes him think we'll make it that long? Any of us could get hit by a bus, or the whole planet could wipe itself out, within the next five years. Why do people think doomsday models are apocalyptic, and not optimistic?

Civillization rises, only to be destroyed by the "dark rift" and start over again.


Interesting how we got ours going so late in the cycle-- kind of waited until the eleventh hour to get TV, didn't we? Such a shame.

Kaptain K
2007-Jan-30, 10:11 PM
I listened to the program. Early in the show, I sent a "fast blast" to point out that if you "stopped the Earth's rotation 'dead in its tracks'" (one of the claims), you would wind up with a ball of impure molten iron. In terms of mis-applied or just flat out wrong science, this was one of the densest shows I've heard in a long time! One of the most blatant was that the bigger the black hole, the faster it spins and the BH at the center of the MW is so big that it is no longer a sphere, but a disk with a hole in the middle like a CD! I could go on and on ...

satori
2007-Jan-31, 02:13 PM
stupidity lurks everywhere

desertmonk
2007-Feb-04, 10:21 AM
I listened to the program. Early in the show, I sent a "fast blast" to point out that if you "stopped the Earth's rotation 'dead in its tracks'" (one of the claims), you would wind up with a ball of impure molten iron.

So what would happen to all the energy present in the Earth's rotation? I read Isaac Asimov saying the Earth's rotation stopped suddenly would cause the surface to liquify, in regards to bible literalists saying god stopped the Earth spinning.

Kaptain K
2007-Feb-04, 01:15 PM
Not just the surface, but the mantle as well. As I said, "a ball of impure molten iron"!

Ken G
2007-Feb-04, 01:54 PM
That sounds like an exaggeration. I get a .5 km/s speed corresponds to a temperature increase of less than 50 C, and most of the Earth isn't rotating even close to that speed. I don't see anything melting but the ice, and probably the worst problem would be increased vulcanism.

Jeff Root
2007-Feb-04, 06:39 PM
Would stopping the Earth's rotation be significantly different from
doubling the current rate of rotation? Obviously things like day/night
cycles and a tinsy-weensie change in weight from the loss or gain
of centrifugal effect, but whether you are speeding up or slowing
down, the same amount of energy would be required, wouldn't it?

What I'm really getting at with the above question is I'm not sure
whether stopping the spinning Earth means putting energy in or
taking energy out, or if it is possible to look at it either way.

If stopping the Earth's rotation means taking energy out, I would
think that most or nearly all of the energy could go into whatever
was stopping the Earth, rather than into the Earth.

Alternatively, if stopping or doubling the Earth's rotation means
putting energy in, it seems to me that virtually all of it would be
kinetic energy, with heat only resulting from inefficiency in the
mechanism.

And the part of the Earth that would be heated would be whatever
part of the Earth the mechanism grabs onto. If it grabs the iron core,
then the core would be the part that heats up. But if the mechanism
is efficient, it shouldn't be too bad. Of course, if it grabs hydrogen,
we are in for one big tsunami!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Ken G
2007-Feb-04, 07:46 PM
If stopping the Earth's rotation means taking energy out, I would
think that most or nearly all of the energy could go into whatever
was stopping the Earth, rather than into the Earth.
There's an efficiency issue, generally you get some heat whenever you do work. But I agree, it's a not really the key point about what science says about stopping the Earth and restarting it-- science has found no evidence that this is possible. That's all you can really say, it's pointless to argue about "whether or not it happened". Nobody knows.

Jeff Root
2007-Feb-04, 09:03 PM
I'm not the least bit interested in whether or not it happened.
I wanna know what would happen if Earth's rotation were
somehow stopped. I had a big argument about this several
years ago, when people were telling Nancy Lieder that Earth's
surface would melt if things went the way she predicted, and I
knew that wasn't right. The energy to change the speed of
Earth's rotation would have to go into kinetic energy, not heat.
Otherwise the speed wouldn't change.

I think. :)

Do you put energy in, or take energy out? Or is either way of
describing the process equally valid?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Ken G
2007-Feb-05, 05:29 AM
I wanna know what would happen if Earth's rotation were
somehow stopped. I had a big argument about this several
years ago, when people were telling Nancy Lieder that Earth's
surface would melt if things went the way she predicted, and I
knew that wasn't right. The energy to change the speed of
Earth's rotation would have to go into kinetic energy, not heat.
Otherwise the speed wouldn't change.I'm not sure what you mean here, heat is a form of kinetic energy transfer, it's just disordered (if you shoot a bullet into a hill of dirt, you may be assured that the kinetic energy of the bullet will go into heat). Still, I agree with your basic point that just where the energy will go will depend on just how it is removed from the Earth's rotation.

That some of it will end up as heat is a natural assumption though, because as I said, any process that transfers kinetic energy from one large system to another will generally result in a fraction of the energy showing up as heat, that is essentially the second law of thermodynamics. Then one must assume an efficiency, and then calculate the heat generated. Then there's the issue of where the heat goes (as well as any remaining organized bulk kinetic energy, as you pointed out). So all in all, even if you are obeying the laws of physics, you still have more questions than answers, and cannot say unequivocally that anything in particular will melt. I'm rather surprised a scientist would even choose that approach, when the more natural approach is, "anything's possible in principle, but if we restrict to the realm of what is plausible in terms of reproducible phenomena, there's no way the Earth can be stopped like that, period, regardless of the repercussions. If we go outside plausible reproducible phenomena, then it isn't science, so scientists have little to say on the matter."

Do you put energy in, or take energy out? Or is either way of
describing the process equally valid?

There is certainly a difference there, which depends on whether the Earth ends up with more energy or less, but if your point is there's going to be some heating either way, and possibly some melting, I agree.

astromark
2007-Feb-05, 09:54 AM
So lets just put aside the assertion that this stopping of Earths rotation simply could not happen., and I agree, I can not happen. More correctly stated as It will happen that the Earth will become tidally locked to the moon at about the same time as the planet is engulfed by the expanding sun entering its death throws. Even then the Tidal locking will not stop the Earths rotation. Just matching it to the moons orbital period. whatever that might be by then.
So for the sake of the question Its stopped. .
These are not in any order just the random workings of a tired mind.
One hemisphere is going to get very hot as the other will freeze.
Weather patterns will change rather abruptly.
Oceans would freeze and boil and I have little idea what that might do to the weather other than mess it up abruptly
We would all die as would all living things.
The only exception from this dooms day might be if the axis was tilted enough so that an area near the terminator might remain stable although the wind speeds might still get you.
Thats assuming we still have an atmosphere.
Planet Earth would be a very unfriendly place.
Why do you want to be told what seems so clear to me. Use your imagination and think for your self. Being wrong is not yet a crime and caries no punishment other than a little embarrassment that arises from being obviously foolish. Just ask me. I'm good at this.
It could be added that being corrected is furthering my education.
You can not loose

Jeff Root
2007-Feb-05, 01:04 PM
Ken,

My basic point here is that there would not necessarily be nearly as
much heating as people suggested would occur. I agree that such
heating is inevitable if all of the energy of Earth's rotation is put into
the Earth's crust in the form of heat. But since we don't know what
the mechanism is which performs this stopping of Earth's rotation,
we don't know how efficient it is, and therefore have no idea how
much-- if any-- of the energy ends up as heat in the Earth.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2007-Feb-05, 01:16 PM
Mark,

There has been at least one previous thread here speculating about
what would happen to the Earth if it were not rotating or if it were
rotating at one rotation per year. My interest in this thread is that
I disagree with specific speculations about the amount of heating
that would result from changing Earth's angular velocity.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

BigDon
2007-Feb-05, 01:34 PM
Hey, the original poster never came back to thank you all for the replies. How rude.

Ken G
2007-Feb-05, 03:22 PM
But since we don't know what
the mechanism is which performs this stopping of Earth's rotation,
we don't know how efficient it is, and therefore have no idea how
much-- if any-- of the energy ends up as heat in the Earth.


I agree. Indeed, let's face it, any such "mechanism" would need to be so far outside anything science has encountered that I'd say all bets would be off anyway, no matter what the argument.

DJ Barney
2007-Mar-05, 01:19 AM
Weird. I just noticed when my computer clock said 11:11
an hour and ten minutes ago. I didn't notice the time again
until several minutes after midnight, and I have no idea how
long before 11:11 was the previous occasion that I noticed.
Could easily be two hours.

I had no idea anybody else noticed 11:11. That's the one time
that I see the most, whether morning or evening.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

"Even a stopped clock tells the right time, twice a day".

(A sample in a track by the British band "Orbital", taken from some documentary).

This kind of study of numbers, and the mind is called "Numerology". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology) And, no, there's probably absolutely no scientific evidence for it, but it is used by some people as a guide to their mind/emotions.

I wonder how much of this 2012 area has a lot to do with people's own personal journey of self discovery. It was through a "new age" book about the Mayans ("The Mayan Factor"), that I discovered the extraordinary, well known, nature of planetary orbits and all sorts of things.

The misinformation and the willingness of Coast to Coast / Art Bell (for example) to take advantage of the unwary worries me as well, but I sometimes think that some people forget that they are criticising what are often artistic endeavours, in fact bordering on religion.

I once looked for Planet X, and thought something would happen on the Millennium...but now I see the misguided nature of that....but look at Jungian psychology. Jung described UFO's as "The Shadow Archetype" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28psychology%29) manifesting in society as an unease when new ways of thinking were about to arise.

Could 2012 symbolise fears of the future ? Or even desire for transformation in society ?

Does everything have to be looked at in totally Scientific terms or can we have a cross disciplinary approach that respects all beliefs ?

Yes....it would nice if the physics/astronomy was right as well!

DJBarney

foreignkid
2007-Mar-08, 04:50 AM
For the love of Pete, the destruction of civilsation isn't front page news enough, now it's a galactic event.

Hey rudeyd, I want to get my dead grandfather's $10,000,000 out of Romania. Can you give me your account number to deposit it in and I'll give you $100,000 free and clear.

*obnoxious on*

ROMANIA IS COOL!

*obnoxious off*

Windwalker
2009-Nov-15, 02:57 AM
Hello people first I am brand new here and I will go to the introduction page and say hello in a moment.But I just had to say something here regarding the Mayan calendar and the ever famous 2012.First I will say that I am Native American.Second I have to say...According to the Mayan Elders 2012 is NOT I repeat NOT about the end of the world!!!!!!!! It is about the worlds transformation. For further reading on this go here. (http://www.manataka.org/page1578.html) This Fearmongering that is going on all over the place right now regarding 2012 is plucking my last nerves.Yes it is an alignment.. is it possible for this alignment to bring solar system and earth changes yes it is go here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17882-space-radiation-hits-record-high.html)
and Go here (http://manataka.org/page1330.html)
It is about an awakening and choosing new ways.
So I want to thank U all for bring a dose of sanity into the 2012 panic and for being here so that I can say this to someone who will understand..life on earth will be here after 2012 I promise.

Jens
2009-Nov-15, 08:42 AM
Necromancy alert! You are responding to a thread that has been inactive since 2007. And welcome to BAUT.

There are tons of threads on 2012. Most here do not agree that there will be any change on that date. We will wake up the next morning feeling pretty much the same.

tusenfem
2009-Nov-15, 12:53 PM
Indeed, no need to re-start such an old thread.
Closed.