Skip to main content

The Many Motions of Planet Earth.

September 27, 2007 by donzzz

donzzz's picture

All Motion is Relative - to something else. To describe the motion of any body at least two points of reference must be taken into account. (a body's motion must be compared to something else, the observer, the background, etc.). For example; an automobile's motion compared to the surface over which it is traveling, this goes for the Earth too. The Earth's motion compared to the sun or moon or stars, etc. You cannot describe the motion of the Earth without comparing it to something else. Its motion will be different in each case, with the reference to what it is being compared to.
We live on our tiny planet, that has many motions in the vast cosmos. It is part of a star system that revolves around a spiral galaxy. The galaxy itself is accelerating (falling?) toward the outer regions (border?) of the universe.

The following is a list of the many motions of planet Earth. You will note that all the motions on this list are motions relative to other references, bodies, backgrounds, etc. The one notable exception to this is the Earth does not move relative to space itself. The Earth's motion relative to universal space is zero. The Earth and all other bodies' motion, relative to space, is zero. Universal space is all one, it has no references, no direction, therefore no motion can be detected. The Earth's motion relative space alone, excluding all matter and energy is zero (0). The Earth is stationary - relative to universal space!

Space alone, devoid of all matter and energy, is not empty however, it has all the "laws of nature" that govern the matter and energy within the universe. These "Laws" are the framework that creates space and give the universe its personality.

The Earth rotates 'relative' to the sun. The planet rotates on its axis taking approximately 24 hours to complete one day/night cycle. This rotation is gradually slowing - it has been slowing ever since its birth, when it exploded out of the sun with the other planets and debris, around four and a half billion years ago. In the past the Earth's rotation was much more rapid. This caused the Earth's shape to be more elliptical and perhaps , when it was very young even have a Saturn type ring around it.

The planet is slowly becoming rounder. As the planet’s rotation gradually slows, relative to the sun - the planet slowly becomes a more perfect sphere (rounder). This causes the circumference of the equator to also gradually shrink. This has profound effects on the Earth’s crust, oceans and atmosphere as the earth slowly changes its shape. "The effects of the Earth's slowing rotation.

The Earth's revolution, relative to the sun - the Earth takes the planet 365.25 days to complete one revolution around the sun. In this scenario - at aphelion - the sun is traveling its slowest rather then visa versa.

Relative to the background of stars, the axis of the planet wobbles (precesses) - it takes 26,000 years to complete one cycle. This can be observed over long periods of time using the stars as a background.

*** Relative to space itself - taking no other body into account - the planet is completely motionless.
This was indicated by the Michelson - Morley experiment and all other subsequent experiments. No motion has ever been detected between Earth and space. Fitzgerald offered an adhoc explanation that the Earth contracted just enough to compensate for the motion of the Earth through space. Einstein came up with a slightly different explanation but the simple truth is that - the Earth is not moving - relative to space - its speed is zero.
(Ref: The MIND of Mankind, chapter 16 - The Michelson Morley experiment).

Taking the sun’s galactic motion into account - the planet is oscillating back and forth across the sun’s galactic path - traveling from behind the sun to the front of the sun. It takes one Earth year to complete an oscillation. In this scenario - at aphelion - the Earth is traveling at its fastest.

All the planets in the solar sytem travel at approximately the same speed as they oscillate back and forth across the sun’s galactic path. Since each planet is at a different distance from the sun - each has its own individual year but they are all traveling at approximately the same galactic speed.

Relative to the Milky Way, as an integral part of the solar system, the planets oscillate up and down - relative to the neighboring stars as it travels around the Milky Way.

As an integral part of the galaxy the Earth is accelerating (falling) outward toward the outlying region of the universe (or its border if the universe is finite). The "Falling" Galaxies

The magnetic poles of the planet’s magnetic field reverses every so often. Is this an indication that the interior of the planet or its magnetic core is also slowly rotating in a north-south direction??

It was the ancient Greek philosophers in particular the Pythagoreans who came up with the theory that the heavenly bodies floated free in space and that their motion was circular. From that idea it was accepted that the Earth is a free floating rotating sphere. Aristarchus suggested the heliocentric (sun centered) theory but that was rejected for the Earth centered theory which was totally wrong but was accepted by the philosopher scientists for the next 1800 years until Copernicus revived the sun centered idea based on Aristarchus's theory.

Don Hamilton, author of - "The Mind of Mankind"

http://novan.com/sel.htm
http://novan.com

Reference: Chapter 15 - Inertia, A Requirement of Space.

Comments

RE: uh-huh

October 1, 2007 by donzzz, 2 years 8 weeks ago
Comment: 25198

I suppose you could say that if locations in space have no distinguishing characteristics, space is "one", or space is "universal", but that seems problematic.... Don seems to be relegating Einstein's solution to Michelson-Morley to the "ad hoc", along with time dilation and spacetime, without providing a cogent refutation or coherent substitute. It seems to be a half-formulated concept at best.

If every-thing is motionless in space, if time is independent of space, surely the earth (and everything else) moves in time, does it not?

(Don)** I didn't say everything is motionless IN space, I said everything is motionless, relative TO space! (Big Difference!). The earth (and everything else) moves, relative to other bodies in space BUT everything is motionless, relative to universal space itself. When a force is exerted on an accelerating body its energy level changes, relative to space, we percieve this as a change in its inertial mass. The body has no motion relative to space BUT it does have motion, relative to other bodies or references. Time is just a measure of a series of events measured against another series of events and has nothing to do with space itself.

If relative motion is space results in variations in motion in time (as is verified by experiment), doesn't that mean space has some connection with time... wouldn't it be better to say that everything moves rather than that nothing does?

** This experimental time dilation such as the two atomic clocks - one in an airplane and one remaining on the ground, is just a miniscule change in the atom's inertial mass, of the clock due to the airplane's accelerations during its flight. When they are compared after the flight there will be a extremely slight difference in the time - due the change of atom's inertial mass - not because of time dialation.

And if you're going to insist on concluding from Michelson-Morley that no-thing moves in space, you'd have to agree at least that light moves absolutely in space, would you not?

** Light moves all over the place, relative to other bodies or references BUT it does not move relative to space itself. When a body emits a ray of light, the body must be considered motionless. The ray of light will speed away from the "motionless" body (relative to space) at inertial infinity (the speed of light) no matter what direction it is emitted.

And if light moves in space, wouldn't space have to be considered to have locations, and therefore, wouldn't particular locations in space be distinguishable... wouldn't space therefore be, in some sense, not-one?

** Light moves in space, relative to other bodies BUT not relative to space itself. Bodies within space do have locations, relative to other bodies or references BUT not to space itself.

What about inertial acceleration? Isn't that an absolute motion in space, resulting in the absolute change in location? I'm not persuaded.

** If a rocket is accelerating in space, an astronaut inside will feel the effect of the inertial acceleration BUT if he looks outside, unless he sees another body to compare his motion with he will not know if he is accelerating or just feeling the effect of weight created by the accelerating rocket.

Don Hamilton http://novan.com
http://novan.com/sel.htm

uh-huh???

September 30, 2007 by jarnold, 2 years 8 weeks ago
Comment: 25186

I suppose you could say that if locations in space have no distinguishing characteristics, space is "one", or space is "universal", but that seems problematic.... Don seems to be relegating Einstein's solution to Michelson-Morley to the "ad hoc", along with time dilation and spacetime, without providing a cogent refutation or coherent substitute. It seems to be a half-formulated concept at best. If every-thing is motionless in space, if time is independent of space, surely the earth (and everything else) moves in time, does it not? If relative motion is space results in variations in motion in time (as is verified by experiment), doesn't that mean space has some connection with time... wouldn't it be better to say that everything moves rather than that nothing does? And if you're going to insist on concluding from Michelson-Morley that no-thing moves in space, you'd have to agree at least that light moves absolutely in space, would you not? And if light moves in space, wouldn't space have to be considered to have locations, and therefore, wouldn't particular locations in space be distinguishable... wouldn't space therefore be, in some sense, not-one? What about inertial acceleration? Isn't that an absolute motion in space, resulting in the absolute change in location? I'm not persuaded.

Inertial and accelerating reference frames

September 27, 2007 by jarnold, 2 years 8 weeks ago
Comment: 25147

"An accelerating object is stationary to an inertial reference frame"

I'm not sure you meant to say that, Candice. An inertial reference frame is one that is not accelerating, so an accelerating object will appear to be accelerating from any inertial frame. Although there has been some confusion over the meaning of "general relativity", acceleration (except unobstructed gravitation) is absolute (recall Newton's thought of swinging a pail of water), and therefore, conversely, so is uniform motion, although the measure of each will be relative.

(Please see my article on scienceblog, "Gravitation and its misappropriation by quantum theory.")

The Earth is rotating, thus is NOT an inertial reference frame

September 27, 2007 by Anonymous, 2 years 8 weeks ago
Comment: 25146

Mr. Hamilton,

The earth is rotating, which is a constant acceleration. Even if no other object existed in the universe, this would still be true. An object on the surface of the earth experiences an acceleration towards the center of the earth, otherwise it would keep going in a straight line on a tangent to the surface of the earth. An accelerating object is stationary to an inertial reference frame; thus the earth is *not* stationary to an inertial reference frame.

What is true, is that the 'center of mass' of the earth is stationary to an inertial reference frame. This is not quibbling, this distinction is important for experimentation.

What I believe you meant to point out is that if one only had one (perhaps point-like)object at rest to an inertial reference frame, one couldn't detect motion, as there is no universal spatial reference, only relative.

--Candice H. Brown Elliott

This has the same error as in Don's "Laws of Nature" posting

September 27, 2007 by Fred Bortz, 2 years 8 weeks ago
Comment: 25143

"The Earth is stationary - relative to universal space!"

As I pointed out before, the idea of "universal space" harks back to the long discredited notion of the "aether."

The Theory of Relativity points out that the word "stationary" has no useful meaning. Every object is stationary to its own frame of reference, but no frame of reference is preferred. There is no "universal space."

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

"The Earth is stationary - relative to universal space!"

September 27, 2007 by donzzz, 2 years 8 weeks ago
Comment: 25150

You say "every object is stationary to its own frame of reference". I say "every object is stationary (has no motion) relative to universal space". BUT it does have an energy level relative to space - this is its "inertial mass".

Michelson's experiments could find no evidence of earth's motion through an aether or through space itself. Fitzgerald, Lorentz & Einstein came up with some adhoc theories to explain these findings. Why couldn't they just except the results of the Michelson's experiments at face value? It would have made for a much simpler universe.

The Laws of Nature created "universal space". They are the framework of the universe and give it its personality. The "Laws" control all the actions of matter and energy. Where the laws end, universal space ends. Nothing exists beyond this area - not even space. If universal space is expanding, it is the laws of nature that are expanding. What would space be without gravity, inertia and all the other laws of the universe?

Don Hamilton

http://novan.com

For greater detail see: http://novan.com/sel.htm

Huh?????

September 28, 2007 by Fred Bortz, 2 years 8 weeks ago
Comment: 25153

Could someone other than Don make sense of "The Earth is stationary - relative to universal space!"?

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

plz solve my querry?????

June 23, 2009 by Anonymous, 22 weeks 2 days ago
Comment: 37492

sir i wanted to knw that will we land up in a different place if assumingly we are sitting in a chopper for a consideribly a long perod of time, which is stationary in space within the earths atmosphere?????



About us

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.


Premium Drupal Themes by Adaptivethemes