Can Dark Matter and Black Holes be Associated in Earth's Rotation?

[DaveC426913]

hmm...since the sun rotates too,if there was a greater attraction(more powerful then the sun)would it slow it down too...>.< or this would lead into some different scenarios...?

The sun is a gaseous body; it is not rigid at all.

 

[DaveC426913]

hey,omcheeto,umm i know this will be a stupid question but let's say we were to explode a nuclear bomb on Earth's core...will it lead to some bad consequence?and what kind of consequence..?

None.

 

[thinkies]

my bad,that nuclear thing on the Earth's core was really a stupid question...since the core produces a million time more energy then the nuclear bomb..still...i was hesitating...=.=

also,the sun does rotate right o.0,so that means that all this rotating thing we talked applies to telluric planets only??and why would the sun be rotating...(ive read about sun rotation on couple of websites...)?...

hmm thx

 

[thinkies]

hmm also...since the sun will eventually become a red giant,life will of course wouldn't be possible on earth...since this is to happen in billion of billions of years,i presume that the technology will progress to an extent where we will eventually "move" from this planet to another?

or...will this be the end of humanity...?

i know i may be asking so many questions...srry o.0,just curious..

 

[OmCheeto]

hey,omcheeto,umm i know this will be a stupid question but let's say we were to explode a nuclear bomb on Earth's core...will it lead to some bad consequence?and what kind of consequence..?

I think you ask too many questions...
But I'll answer anyways

Virtually nothing.
The Earth's size in comparison to nuclear bomb yield is incredible.
I doubt anyone would notice.
They used to set off megaton nuclear bombs out in the Pacific and the Earth hardly noticed. Except for the radioactive waste of course.

ah ha!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing
Plumbbob Rainier was detonated at 899 ft underground on 19 September 1957. The 1.7 kt explosion was the first to be entirely contained underground, producing no fallout.

The Earth's core is about 4,000 miles down. Thats 23,500 times deeper than the above mentioned nuclear blast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
The largest quake registered, the 1960 Chilean quake, released almost 60,000 gigatons of TNT equivalent.

That's 600 of the mankinds biggest nuclear bombs. Did anyone outside of Chile notice that earthquake? I doubt it.

 

[DaveC426913]

my bad,that nuclear thing on the Earth's core was really a stupid question...since the core produces a million time more energy then the nuclear bomb.

You got it.

also,the sun does rotate right o.0,so that means that all this rotating thing we talked applies to telluric planets only??

We were talking about slowing of rotation. It works more effectively on rigid bodies. The initial rotation of all planets is from conservation of angular momentum

and why would the sun be rotating

Same reason.

 

[thinkies]

back with another question...

70% of the universe consist of dark energy and 25% of dark matters...since they make up most of the universe,y is that energy not observable and y do we know little about them how can this be even possible...?

 

[thinkies]

also,wut do these matters really do,how are they affecting the galaxies and other stuff.Can a black hole absorb that dark energy,or,is that dark energy present inside dark wholes ...right? then y does it remain a simple mysterious fact...

 

[D H]

The sun is a gaseous body; it is not rigid at all.

The sun still rotates, however, and it therefore has angular momentum. The same mechanism that leads to the transfer of angular momentum from the Earth about its own axis to the Moon's orbit about the Earth applies to the Sun and the planets. Several of the planets we have observed orbiting other stars are massive planets whose orbits are much closer to their parent stars than are the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.

The Sun has about 99.9% of the total mass of the solar system, but only 0.3% of the total angular momentum. Why the discrepancy? Creationists have a silly rationale, and no, I do not ascribe to it. To scientists, the angular momentum problem is an open question but one which they think they will eventually resolve. One hypothesis is that the solar wind has robbed the Sun of much of its angular momentum. While the solar wind removes very little mass from the Sun, it can remove much, much more angular momentum.

Another hypothesis is that the massive planets originally orbited the Sun much closer than they do now. They moved to their present distant orbits by stealing angular momentum from the Sun. The recent observations of planets around other stars bolsters this conjecture: We have observed several massive planets that orbit their parent star at incredibly short distances.

 

[thinkies]

@D H

that information is quit interesting...ah,i really like astronomy...full of wonders...:D

 

[thinkies]

ummm one more questions,since all the planets in this solar system are bounded by sun's gravity,y are we not being 'sucked' by the sun rather then orbiting around it and what cause us to not move from our orbital location(others planet attraction?)...?

 

[DaveC426913]

ummm one more questions,since all the planets in this solar system are bounded by sun's gravity,y are we not being 'sucked' by the sun rather then orbiting around it and what cause us to not move from our orbital location(others planet attraction?)...?

In the classical Newtonian world, we are indeed falling towards the sun. And if we had no angular momentum, we'd simply plunge right into it. But our angular momentum (i.e. our 'sideways motion') carries us past it.

The objects that have the right angluar momentum that matches their distance form the sun have formed stable orbits. The objects that have the wrong angular momentum for their distance aren't stable, which is why mostly we don't see them in present day - they've either accreted into the sun at the SS's formation, or they been flung out into deep space.

 

[DaveC426913]

The sun is a gaseous body; it is not rigid at all.

The sun still rotates, however, and it therefore has angular momentum.

I was responding to Thinkies' comments about the sun slowing down due to friction. It works great on rocky planets. I'm not sure how well it works on gaseous bodies.

 

[RonL]

Reading this thread got the crazy part of my brain going, and i can't make it stop. Here is a link that came up in a search while trying to learn something, and as stupid as it sounds, i have to ask the question, is there any logic to the thought of trying to affect the speed of Earth's rotation??

http://stopthespin.org/action.php

 

[thinkies]

anything regarding my dark matter/dark energy questions...i will be appreciating any kind of response(and am grateful to see many ppl answering my questions :D )...

 

[OmCheeto]

Reading this thread got the crazy part of my brain going, and i can't make it stop. Here is a link that came up in a search while trying to learn something, and as stupid as it sounds, i have to ask the question, is there any logic to the thought of trying to affect the speed of Earth's rotation??

http://stopthespin.org/action.php

That website is just silly.
If they had sone some simple calculations, they would have seen vehicles are very poor devices for slowing down the planet.

Here are my calculations, once again, to stop the Earth's rotation putting everyone on the planet driving a bus that gets 1 mpg at 50 mph converting all of their energy to STOP THE EARTH!

3.46E+07 joules in a liter of gas
0.264 gallons per liter
131,060,606 joules per gallon gas
2.57E+29 Earth's rotational ke
1.96092E+21 gallons to stop planet
6.00E+09 people on the planet
3.27E+11 gallons per person
1 mpg
50 mph
50 gallons per hour
6,536,416,185 hours per person
8,766 hours per year
745,675.9 years

That's quite a bit faster than blowing up the bombs.
Kind of puts energy use by 6 billion people into perspective.

That would be quite the sight to watch though. 6 billion buses circling the Earth for 3/4 of a million years. Ah ha!
Math is fun.

 

[OmCheeto]

anything regarding my dark matter/dark energy questions...i will be appreciating any kind of response(and am grateful to see many ppl answering my questions :D )...

This is the best explanation I've ever seen of dark energy:

Dark energy - little more than a fancy name (for) our ignorance of what seems to make up about two thirds of the matter budget.

But everyone seems to have an opinion:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131094056.htm
Dark Fluid: Dark Matter And Dark Energy May Be Two Faces Of Same Coin
ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2008) — Astronomers at the University of St Andrews believe they can "simplify the dark side of the universe" by shedding new light on two of its mysterious constituents.

Dr HongSheng Zhao, of the University's School of Physics and Astronomy, has shown that the puzzling dark matter and its counterpart dark energy may be more closely linked than was previously thought.

Only 4% of the universe is made of known material - the other 96% is traditionally labeled into two sectors, dark matter and dark energy.

...

I personally have no opinion on the matter.

 

[russ_watters]

That's 600 of the mankinds biggest nuclear bombs. Did anyone outside of Chile notice that earthquake? I doubt it.

Actually, that's 600,000 of our biggest nuclear bombs.

 

[RonL]

Thanks OmCheeto
But going back to my question, the thought that jumped into my mind, was affecting the speed of Earth's rotation in archseconds, not bringing it to a stop.
As silly as that site is, it was in the first steps of my learning something new, that i have never given any real thought to before ( i'll not bore anyone with the thought of how to put an affect into play)
But again thanks for your answer.

That website is just silly.
If they had sone some simple calculations, they would have seen vehicles are very poor devices for slowing down the planet.

Here are my calculations, once again, to stop the Earth's rotation putting everyone on the planet driving a bus that gets 1 mpg at 50 mph converting all of their energy to STOP THE EARTH!

3.46E+07 joules in a liter of gas
0.264 gallons per liter
131,060,606 joules per gallon gas
2.57E+29 Earth's rotational ke
1.96092E+21 gallons to stop planet
6.00E+09 people on the planet
3.27E+11 gallons per person
1 mpg
50 mph
50 gallons per hour
6,536,416,185 hours per person
8,766 hours per year
745,675.9 years

That's quite a bit faster than blowing up the bombs.
Kind of puts energy use by 6 billion people into perspective.

That would be quite the sight to watch though. 6 billion buses circling the Earth for 3/4 of a million years. Ah ha!
Math is fun.

 

[D H]

That website is not only silly, it is wrong. Following their instructions won't change the Earth's rotation rate one bit. There will be a slight change (very slight!) in the Earth's rotation rate when the car accelerates. The car will not change the rotation rate one bit while the car is driving at a constant velocity. Eventually the car comes to a stop. This also changes the Earth's rotation rate, and the change is exactly opposed to the initial change. End result: zero change.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thanks OmCheeto
But going back to my question, the thought that jumped into my mind, was affecting the speed of Earth's rotation in archseconds, not bringing it to a stop.
As silly as that site is, it was in the first steps of my learning something new, that i have never given any real thought to before ( i'll not bore anyone with the thought of how to put an affect into play)
But again thanks for your answer.

You didn't have the Indonesian earthquake of 2004 in mind did you?
I was also curious why it had an effect on the Earth's rotation.

They have what seems to be a satisfactory explanation here:

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PLATETEC/RotationQk2004.HTM
The 2004 Indonesian Earthquake and Earth's Rotation

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
...
change in length of day: -2.676 microseconds
...
How exactly did the earthquake change the Earth's rotation speed? It seems to have done so because the earthquake involved plate convergence, and effectively reduced the Earth's equatorial circumference by a few millimeters while pushing denser material into the earth, like an ice skater pulling in her arms. That would also reduce the Earth's equatorial radius a fraction of a millimeter. The overall fault slip was 10-20 meters, but some of that was directed north-south, so the east-west compression was smaller.
...

 

[DaveC426913]

That website is not only silly, it is wrong. Following their instructions won't change the Earth's rotation rate one bit. There will be a slight change (very slight!) in the Earth's rotation rate when the car accelerates. The car will not change the rotation rate one bit while the car is driving at a constant velocity. Eventually the car comes to a stop. This also changes the Earth's rotation rate, and the change is exactly opposed to the initial change. End result: zero change.

At first I was going to question your conclusion that the stopping of the vehicle would provide an accelerative force. I had to re-read to see that they are, indeed, using the brakes to stop. It seemed to me the idea had some merit if they allowed the vehicle to roll to a stop by friction.

But no, it doesn't matter. Friction is still a force opposing the rotation. To be otherwise would mean you could grab a merry-go-round and come up to speed without the merry-go-round slowing down.

 

[D H]

People could change the Earth's rotation rate by driving a lot of cars to the tops of mountains and leaving them there. This would change the Earth's rotation rate for the exact same reason that the Java earthquake changed the Earth's rotation rate. To conserve angular momentum, the rotation rate must decrease if the inertia tensor is increased.

 

[OmCheeto]

People could change the Earth's rotation rate by driving a lot of cars to the tops of mountains and leaving them there. This would change the Earth's rotation rate for the exact same reason that the Java earthquake changed the Earth's rotation rate. To conserve angular momentum, the rotation rate must decrease if the inertia tensor is increased.

I think a more practical way to do it would be to pump the Earth's mantle up a space elevator and let it solidify into a Dyson ring. hmmmmm... might increase the plate tectonic activity for a while. could be deadly to all life on earth. hmmm... Why do we want to change the Earth's rotation?

 

[RonL]

Here's some good information, helps me a little.
Tiny changes can produce drastic results, we need special instruments to measure some changes.
Now for something very visual, watch the rear wheels of a dragster when the starting light turns green, spin rate really makes a difference.
If climate change is caused by a slowing of Earth's rotational speed, my question would be, (can), and how much rocket force, would produce an increase of any magnitude, if they were placed at proper angles and spaced around the globe at maximum elevations, and fired at the same time. I can't do the math (yet) but i do believe that thoughts like this can lead to some thoughts that might prove worthwhile.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jan/HQ_05011_earthquake.html

 

[DaveC426913]

I think a more practical way to do it would be to pump the Earth's mantle up a space elevator and let it solidify into a Dyson ring.

This would be a tad moe difficult for citizen participation.

Which also answers your other question:

Why do we want to change the Earth's rotation?

Because it's a cheap and fun way to spend a Sunday afternoon!