July 20, 2017

Earth as a solid sphere rotation, with no contribution to conservation of angular momentum from interior? Angular momentum exchange for closed systems. Angular inertia for Oort cloud, and even for our galaxie?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , — zankaon @ 3:39 pm

If the moon is still receding, then now a greater moment of inertia mr^2, and lesser angular orbital velocity. For earth, there is related change in angular velocity (lower), and hence in angular momentum; with momentum exchange with moon. So can one have both conservation of angular momentum, as well as angular momentum exchange, for variously considered closed systems?

For a closed system, one can have exchange of angular momentum. Did the solid earth core form comparatively early, by ~100 million years? If so, then there would be a shift (decrease) of mr^2 moment of inertia i.e. mass re-distribution to a lesser radius. Would this then account for a compensatory increase in moment of inertia (i.e. increase in orbital radius) for the moon? Might the moon`s present increase in orbital radius, in part be due to a continued radial inertia (?) from such long ago earth`s change in moment of inertia; and/or ongoing transfer of momentum, from associated slowing of earth’s rotation?

Early on, did one also have some concomitant increase in angular velocity for earth, consistent with core formation and conservation of angular momentum for earth? Was there also significant angular momentum transfer to the sun (like for Mercury, Venus?), associated with such decrease in angular momentum for earth?

Also in general, might spacing and adjustments to our system’s planets in part be due to transfer of angular momentum between planets and other objects, involving spin (rotation rate) orbit angular momentum transfer? Hence a broader perspective (i.e. entanglement) of past and ongoing angular momentum re-distribution for the solar  system, inclusive also of KBO objects, Oort cloud, any ejected planets or nacent cores, and even for neutrino belt formation?

For example, did Oort cloud objects form closer in, and then via angular momentum exchange with KBO objects, recide i.e. increasing momentum of inertia? Might this be consistent with slower rotation for large KBO objects such as Pluto, Sedna etc. i.e. spin orbital angular momentum transfer?

Might gravitational field (calculated?) be insufficient to account for orbiting of Oort cloud objects? Thus is transfer of angular momentum not only involved with migration of KBO objects outward, but also essentially alone is such angular momentum transfer responsible for orbital motion of Oort cloud objects? Likewise for neutrino belt?

Such orbital motion, in absence of gravitational field, and hence no central force, would not follow Kepler`s Laws. Thus such orbital motion would seem to have a constant speed – hence the designation of such motion as angular inertia.

So angular inertia alone describes such objects in orbit. Hence obviating tappering gravitational potential model? Also then the outer extent of our solar system (and all stellar systems?) would seem to be defined by angular inertia (from angular momentum transfer) in a flat 3-space, and not by curvature i.e. gravitation. Also see tappering gravitation potential model vignettes for further discussion.

Rheologically, the earth seems quite quiet in regards to differential rotational motion? Such as for core – mantle interface, wherein deep plumes seem to be fixed. Also the solid core has perhaps just slight rotation. The asthenosphere (upper mantle) apparently has some flow; always in step with lithospheric plate motion? Still insufficient to contribute to angular velocity and momentum?

Thus must one consider other possible contributions to angular momentum, and momentum exchange, if earth is considered as essentially a solid rotating sphere?

Might there have been more than one planetesimal collisions with proto-earth? However might there not be any isotope compositional differences, since all such objects in close orbits, and hence a shared solar nebula environment?

Mercury has a strong magnetic field, and hence fluid interior. Yet Mercury has essentially no precession. Might this be consistent with no planetesimal collision, contributing to any hypothetical precession?

While for earth, precession of the equinoxes, and resultant changing polar star, gives only one periodicity i.e. one frequency. This would seem consistent with only one collision, with resultant external torque changing the angular momentum vector. Whereas multiple planetesimal collisions with earth would seem to give multiple periodicities.

If earth`s rotation is slowing down currently, might this not be due to earthly influences, but rather mainly to angular momentum exchange with the moon, and also the sun to lesser extent? That is, also increasing angular velocity, and hence momentum of our star? Similarly momentum transfer for Mercury, which is in 3:2 resonance with the sun i.e. 2 rotations per 3 orbits; and also for Venus, with tidal lock i.e. one rotation per revolution.

Might hot Jupiter’s, although supposedly in long duration stable orbits close to their star, still have further dynamics? That is, might there have also been transfer of angular momentum from hot Jupiter to it’s star? Thus has the rotation rate (angular velocity) of a hot Jupiter slowed down, with consequential increased angular velocity and momentum of it’s star? Hence might one predict tidal locking (one rotation per revolution) for such hot Jupiter’s?

Thus although such exo-planet orbits might be considered as long term gravitationally stable, still in terms of angular momentum, might such exosystems be considered as active as our solar system, in regards to angular momentum exchange in essentially closed systems? Also might tidal locking be considered as one manifestation of such angular momentum transfer, and in fact an end point for such angular momentum exchange?

Might such scenario of angular momentum exchange for closed 2 body (and more) systems be considered as examples of entanglement, wherein the system as a whole has to be considered in order to fully explain observations? So can both conservation of angular momentum and exchange of angular momentum be considered in concomitant descriptions? Thus is our solar system still very active, in sense of angular momentum transfer, such as for any ongoing Oort cloud formation from outward migrating KBO objects, associated with decreased spin (rotation) for larger KBO objects? Likewise for any distant orbiting neutrino belt?

Thus the outer extent of our solar (stellar) system would not seem to be described by gravitationally bound Oort cloud objects, nor by gravitationally bound neutrino belt, but rather by angular inertia of such orbiting objects in a flat 3-space; the latter part of inter-stellar flat 3-space?

Also our Sun revolves in our galaxy over ~240 Myrs, and resides at a radius of ~26-30 klyrs? But what is the calculated gravitational potential at the Sun’s radial distance from center of our galaxy? One might assume Newton’s 2nd Theorem, and consider all of galaxie’s luminous and Dark matter halo as a central point mass. Then might one consider a heuristic scenario wherein such potential is negligible at Sun’s distance?

Alternatively then might the Sun’s revolution in our galaxie be described as angular inertia, resulting from angular momentum transfer within our galaxie? Thus does angular momentum transfer, and so-called angular inertia, play a greater role than thought for our galaxie’s dynamics?


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at