General Discussion

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)

19. "in space" implies beyond the planet's atmosphere.

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 01:25 PM

Apr 2016

Generally meaning the solar system and beyond. From the frame of reference of the planet, which planetary rotation necessarily invokes, "movement in space" is irrelevant.

The only part where your comment was wrong is by saying "in space". If the planet's axis shifted all the way to the equator, it would not affect (to any meaningful measure) the planet's "movement in space", i.e. the orbit around the sun would be unaffected.

I'm not telling you anything you probably don't know, I'm telling people who don't know, but would get that impression from your comment, that no, the orbit remains the same.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The melting of Greenland and Antarctica is changing the Earth's rotation [View all] TexasTowelie Apr 2016 OP

Here we go! RobertEarl Apr 2016 #1

can it change our orbit? hollysmom Apr 2016 #3

I doubt it RobertEarl Apr 2016 #4

... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2016 #6

No. The mass of the earth does not change in this, Thor_MN Apr 2016 #14

hillary with help from kissinger will fix this SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2016 #2

uh-h-h-h-h... Peace Patriot Apr 2016 #5

16 to 18 cm per year muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #7

Says some random guy not named Neil DeGrasse Tyson. ish of the hammer Apr 2016 #8

No, says the study muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #9

Tides and Plate tectonics come to mind immediately. ish of the hammer Apr 2016 #11

But the change in where the axis it is not about movements of plates, or tides muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #12

It's a change, it's the earth, by definition, it's earth changing. ish of the hammer Apr 2016 #13

No, it is not not "It's about the movement in space of the whole planet." Thor_MN Apr 2016 #15

Rotation is movement muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #16

Rotation is movement, but not "in space". Thor_MN Apr 2016 #17

Of course it's in space. It's in three dimensions. muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #18

"in space" implies beyond the planet's atmosphere. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #19

space: muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #20

Notice the lack of "in" as in "in space" Thor_MN Apr 2016 #21

No, I didn't imply it; you infered it muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #22

You said it, not me. "movement is space" is not interpreted by most people Thor_MN Apr 2016 #23

Yes, that does help. It wasn't wrong muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #24

If one placed a ball on a table and asked people to move it in space, Thor_MN Apr 2016 #25

That doesn't mean that rotation is not movement. muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #26

You were technically correct by the same percentage as the percentage of people that spin the ball. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #27

Tyson says there is a good chance this is just a simulaiton. former9thward Apr 2016 #28

It is, by definition, a world-changing amount. Scuba Apr 2016 #10

you're setting your timeline too short 0rganism Apr 2016 #29

Without GPS, how would you notice a 1.6km difference in where the pole is? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #30

so you don't think our descendants will have something like GPS? 0rganism Apr 2016 #31

No, I'm saying that a change of that amount in the pole wouldn't affect everyday life muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #34

As the ice melts, the water will head to the equatorial regions. roamer65 Apr 2016 #32

something to ponder yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #35

K&R and it's even worse than that... Jeffersons Ghost Apr 2016 #33