Earth's angular momentum
Page 1 of 1
Earth's angular momentum
Earth's angular momentum
Q: What should the earth's day length be such that its angular momentum (relative to the solar system) is 0?
[TB, 29 Nov 1999]
A: 23 milliseconds.
The angular momentum of its orbit around the sun, assuming it's a point mass, is MR2v where M = mass of earth, R = orbital radius, v = angular velocity of yearly orbit.
The angular momentum of its rotation about its axis is (2/5)Mr2w where r = planet radius, w = angular velocity of daily rotation.
Thus we want w = (5/2)R2v / r2.
Now R = 1.5e11 m, v = 2 pi /(3600*24*365) = 2e7 radians/s and r = 6.4e6 m, so w = 270 radians/s so the required day length is 23 milliseconds, but in the opposite direction to the actual rotation. Thus the earth would be doing 2600 rpm.
http://www.thomasbending.co.uk/puzzles/physics/angmom.htm
Q: What should the earth's day length be such that its angular momentum (relative to the solar system) is 0?
[TB, 29 Nov 1999]
A: 23 milliseconds.
The angular momentum of its orbit around the sun, assuming it's a point mass, is MR2v where M = mass of earth, R = orbital radius, v = angular velocity of yearly orbit.
The angular momentum of its rotation about its axis is (2/5)Mr2w where r = planet radius, w = angular velocity of daily rotation.
Thus we want w = (5/2)R2v / r2.
Now R = 1.5e11 m, v = 2 pi /(3600*24*365) = 2e7 radians/s and r = 6.4e6 m, so w = 270 radians/s so the required day length is 23 milliseconds, but in the opposite direction to the actual rotation. Thus the earth would be doing 2600 rpm.
http://www.thomasbending.co.uk/puzzles/physics/angmom.htm
Re: Earth's angular momentum
.
Cr6, ah, a puzzle post with an absurd answer – Earth days 23 milliseconds long.
Does the fact that the Earth clearly isn’t rotating at 2600 rpm indicate any problems with the Earth’s angular momentum or the theory behind it? Probably not.
Miles has noted a problem. Current physics has equated tangential velocity to orbital velocity – linear and circular motion – that is a false equivalence. R and w are not related as Thomas describes above.
From THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS by Miles Mathis.
http://milesmathis.com/index.html
Miles has redefined the relationship between angular velocity and radius as;
Cr6, ah, a puzzle post with an absurd answer – Earth days 23 milliseconds long.
Does the fact that the Earth clearly isn’t rotating at 2600 rpm indicate any problems with the Earth’s angular momentum or the theory behind it? Probably not.
Miles has noted a problem. Current physics has equated tangential velocity to orbital velocity – linear and circular motion – that is a false equivalence. R and w are not related as Thomas describes above.
From THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS by Miles Mathis.
http://milesmathis.com/index.html
2. Angular Velocity and Angular Momentum. http://milesmathis.com/angle.html Both current equations are shown to be false. 5pp.
Miles has redefined the relationship between angular velocity and radius as;
.
ω = √[2r√v2 + r2)  2r2]
r = √[ω4/(4v2  4ω2)]
Not as simple as the current equation, but much more logical. Instead of strange scaling, we get a logical progression. As r gets larger, the angular velocity approaches the tangential velocity. This is because with larger objects, the curve loses curvature, becoming more like the straight line. With smaller objects, the curvature increases, and the angular velocity may become a small fraction of the tangential velocity.
LongtimeAirman Admin
 Posts : 1570
Join date : 20140810
Re: Earth's angular momentum
.
With respect to circular motion, please recall I never seem to get it right. I’ve been corrected by both StevenO and Miles on separate occasions. I’m obliged to give the subject plenty of thought.
Miles has plenty of papers to choose from. Linear motion involves a single forward velocity. Circular motion involves two simultaneous orthogonal velocities – therefore circular motion is actually an acceleration. Miles uses the word kinematic to describe circular motion. PI=4 is physical proof of kinematics. I believe circular motion is key in understanding the Charge Field, as important as the fact of real spinning photons. Circular motion is one of the ways of differentiating the world before or after the charge field.
Thanks for the opportunity Cr6.
.
With respect to circular motion, please recall I never seem to get it right. I’ve been corrected by both StevenO and Miles on separate occasions. I’m obliged to give the subject plenty of thought.
Miles has plenty of papers to choose from. Linear motion involves a single forward velocity. Circular motion involves two simultaneous orthogonal velocities – therefore circular motion is actually an acceleration. Miles uses the word kinematic to describe circular motion. PI=4 is physical proof of kinematics. I believe circular motion is key in understanding the Charge Field, as important as the fact of real spinning photons. Circular motion is one of the ways of differentiating the world before or after the charge field.
Thanks for the opportunity Cr6.
.
LongtimeAirman Admin
 Posts : 1570
Join date : 20140810
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

