Rotations of Earth and other Rigid Bodies

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mathematical modeling of rotations in rigid bodies, particularly planets, using one-parameter group actions. It highlights the complexities of Earth's rotation due to its non-spherical shape, which leads to phenomena like nutation and precession. The International Earth Rotation and Reference System Service (IERS) is mentioned as a key resource for reference frames in navigation and astronomy. A recommended reference for further reading is "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications" by David Vallado. The conversation also touches on the distinction between geometric definitions of rotation and their physical, time-dependent nature, questioning the applicability of one-parameter actions in this context.
Peaks Freak
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know of a good mathematical reference covering the use of one-parameter group actions to model rotations of planets and/or other rigid bodies?

Thanks in advance!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It's not that simple. The Earth is not a spherical body, so it undergoes nutation and precession as well as rotating.

That said, the International Earth Rotation and Reference System Service (IERS) is the official organization that defines reference frames used for navitation and astronomy. See http://www.iers.org/MainDisp.csl?pid=36-25787&prodversid=11221 .

I also suggest "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications", 3rd Edition, David Vallado.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the reply.

Since I'm mostly interested in the geometry and mathematics involved, I'm assuming that Earth is spherical. My main concern is the use of one-parameter group actions to model time-dependent rotations. As a mathematician, whose specialties are far afield from physics and astronomy, I'm not sure of the right search terms to use here. Kinematics? Dynamical Systems?

Any further help/insight would be appreciated!

Thanks.
 
OK, I think I've formulated a better question, one closer to my actual confusion.

In geometric terms, we define a rotation to be an orientation-preserving isometry that fixes some point p. Thus, a rotation is a map with properties.

In everyday terms, however, a rotation is a time-dependent, physical process. We observe rotations over time, the rotating rigid body passing through a continuum of orientations in between its starting and ending positions.

Whereas the former definition is of a particular kind of map, the second surely involves an action of the real numbers (acting as the passage of time). I'd like to conclude that this action is simply a one-parameter action of SO(3), but don't have experience with this physical setting. Do you know of a reference that addresses this scenario?

Also, does this conversation better belong in a different forum?

Thanks!
 
Peaks Freak said:
I'd like to conclude that this action is simply a one-parameter action of SO(3), but don't have experience with this physical setting.
That is only true for a body that has a spherical mass distribution and no external torques -- Not a particularly interesting or realistic situation.
 
Is a homemade radio telescope realistic? There seems to be a confluence of multiple technologies that makes the situation better than when I was a wee lad: software-defined radio (SDR), the easy availability of satellite dishes, surveillance drives, and fast CPUs. Let's take a step back - it is trivial to see the sun in radio. An old analog TV, a set of "rabbit ears" antenna, and you're good to go. Point the antenna at the sun (i.e. the ears are perpendicular to it) and there is...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
How does light maintain enough energy in the visible part of the spectrum for the naked eye to see in the night sky. Also, how did it start of in the visible frequency part of the spectrum. Was it, for example, photons being ejected at that frequency after high energy particle interaction. Or does the light become visible (spectrum) after hitting our atmosphere or space dust or something? EDIT: Actually I just thought. Maybe the EM starts off as very high energy (outside the visible...
Back
Top