The Mystery of Earth's Rotation & Revolution

[rewebster]

You have said that the gravitational force of the Earth is caused by the Earth's rotation, which is not correct. The gravitational of the Earth will be there even if the Earth is not rotating.

Notice that all the planets revolve around the Sun in the same direction, indicating the common origin of all the planets from a rotating gas cloud, as has been pointed out in the previous post.

They all revolve the same direction, but they all don't rotate the same.

 

[MrXow]

They all revolve the same direction, but they all don't rotate the same.

Actually, Venus move around the sun in retrograde motion.

 

[pixel01]

They all revolve the same direction, but they all don't rotate the same.

Sure! there must have been lots of impacts that have changed the rotation axes of planets. As I remember, Uranus has the rotation axis on the plane of its revolving around the Sun.

 

[Sifrtekhne]

Earth is rotating because the Earth was formed out of rotating cloud of gas before 5 billion years

this theory is known as the nebular hypothesis ; it was first put forward in substantial detail by the german philosopher immanuel kant in 1755 .

quote : “In the current notion … space is completely empty , or at least as good as empty ; thus [space] must have been … filled with sufficient capable [reads rotating] matter [before] to transfer the movement on all heavenly bodies found [in space] … and after the attraction had cleaned the said space and had gathered all extended matter in specific chunks [reads formation of planets] : thus the planets had from then on to continue their circling with the once expressed movement [my emphasis] in a space without friction free and unchanged .” (Kant's 1755 article available at www.mala.bc.ca)

comment : without taking anything away from this achievement , kant’s way of thinking suffers from metaphysical underpinnings prevalent in his day ; a process is understood by identifying a primordial origin which is then understood to explain the whole process , rather than studying the process in the entirety of its determinations (oops , old word) ;

example to clarify comment : if I throw a rubber ball against an outside wall , it jumps back at me without me thinking that at the moment of contact both the rubberball and the wall gave way ; it bounces back behind me and I leave it , months later I pick it up in the long grass and notice that the rubber ball , having been exposed to the sun’s heat has cracks in it ; it is somehow difficult for me to see that these cracks were already beginning to form that first time I threw the shiny ball against the wall ;

comment 2 : kants notion of space as empty , or as good as empty , and of movement in a space without friction can be concretised in the light of the work of Planck and Einstein ;

comment 3 : as a starting point : try an imagine that the planets on the one hand do not circle the sun on the other extreme , but rather , in the light of the material properties of the sun’s particles & waves being right around is , that the planets are circling inside the sun ; this not the way I would put it ,but , as starting point : try and imagine that we are still inside a rotating gas cloud

question : it has been said in the discussion here that the Earth is getting heavier because of its relation to the sun ; I would really be interested to know more about this aspect . . .

 

[-RA-]

Out of interest, is there anybody with considerable mass in space that does not rotate? Although there is no significant friction for space to slow bodies down i would have thought that bodies would start to slow down very, very, slightly over time as they would have slight friction form particles in space (solar wind). Or is that effect completely negligable?