kingjon wrote:
No, no, that's not what I meant. In a parallel case, the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, rotating once per revolution; it's reasonable to say that, relative to the Earth, it does not rotate at all ... but, relative to the solar system, it certainly does rotate. Do you mean that the Earth would become tidally locked to the Sun, or stop rotating from the perspective of some other frame of reference?
Earth would only stop rotating in relation to its own axis. In relation to every other cosmo-sized axis upon which it rotates or revolves, unless necessary by logic at some future point, would be left unaffected by this terrible incident. The world would still revolve around the sun as it had. Daytime would last 4383 hours at any specific equatorial position.
kingjon wrote:
That still feels (to my instinct ... I'd strongly recommend doing the calculation of the acceleration that would have to be applied to bring anything from the current speed of the Earth's rotation to "zero" in however long you have in mind, and then investigate what effects that much acceleration would have) several orders of magnitude too fast.
To use the worst point, we are looking at the speed at the equator, which is 464.92 meters per second, or 1040 miles per hour, give or take a bit. To slow the earth to a standstill in exactly a year with a perfectly consistent force would cause the acceleration of earth to be -0.000014732 meters per second squared, or .000032954 miles per hour squared. The velocity of earth at the equator would change minutely under nine thousandths of a "meter per second" per minute. To be honest, I would question if humans could even detect with their sensory organs such a change in velocity. That being said, I could see that sudden change in accelerative force causing some pretty big natural disasters in the world initially (after that it would just be the sun's effect).
Now if we were talking about force... then that'd be scary. Slowing a planet isn't worth the energy expenditure to create the force... unless it's from, say, a "warp bubble" (Yes, this is vague on purpose... I see this as one of many massive weak points.) to supply energy from some unknown source.kingjon wrote:
Things wouldn't be as extreme as that article describes if the change were more gradual. But it entirely depends on the acceleration curve of whatever you come up with to cause this: if the deceleration is slow at first and then "snowballs" somehow (which doesn't seem plausible to me if it's a "short sharp shock"), then yes, the effects would go from bad to worse. If it's the reverse, then effects would be very bad and then moderate somewhat.
Yeah, as a "short sharp shock", talk about devastation. I just re-read my initial description of the situation and found a reason to believe this is what was suggested. Viewing physics, for it to even remotely work the change of velocity must be gradual. I will go in and edit the description to make it greater than a short burst of acceleration. *shudders at my propensity to completely miss things* I am considering going with an initial jump in acceleration where it then settles down
(as the vague warp bubble disappears). The weird side-effects of the explosion include time bending. Would it be out of the realm of possibility for it to also cause a drag on the planet with large enough force to grind it slowly to a halt
, benefits of unknown physics laws surrounding warp "bubbles/holes/vague stuff"?
kingjon wrote:
...The big thing is, if it's really supposed to stop and not start spinning the other way, the amount of acceleration can't be too large, since the forces trying to slow the rotation down "naturally" (the equivalent, on that scale, of friction) only do so at a rate closer to seconds per epoch than minutes per millennium, let alone two dozen hours in a century.
My initial logic on it not continuing to accelerate was that the force slowing it down is equated to friction: all it wants to do is resist motion. Now this being said, would it be probable that this would also affect Earth's revolution around the sun? I certainly hope it wouldn't, because then being tidally locked would be the least of Earth's problems... *waves goodbye to Earth as it slowly wades it's way into the sun*
My thought is that because the "warp bubble" initiated on the planet's surface, it only affects internal planetary forces, not forces mainly involving other masses in the solar system (such as Earth's revolving habits around the sun being caused more by the sun's gravity versus Earth)... Is that too irrational? I fear it is...
*attempts to explain away this nonsensical explanation to himself with, "warp bubbles are ornery things... they like being aligned with their sibling (the matching warp bubble across the stars that was opened) which is something they can do on a revolving planet when the matching bubble is across the universe somewhere."...*kingjon wrote:
I once read a bit of a Star Wars novel set on a planet that was almost tidally locked, which only had an area a few (or maybe as much as a hundred) miles across that was habitable, on the border between the "day side" and the "night side" of the planet.
I sincerely hope that I do not have to tide-lock this planet to make it habitable... Time and analysis will tell.
Now to debunk my own thoughts to better logical standing, based on
this article (where the quote i from) along with an
analysis by ArcGIS... (NOTE: The analysis by ArcGIS is sweet.)Quote:
What's that? You're relocating to the relatively stable (though still awfully cold) polar regions? Bad move. They're deep underwater. In fact, the boundaries between ocean and land on a spin-free Earth would look nothing like they do today. Because the Earth rotates, centrifugal force causes the planet to bulge along the equator. No rotation, no bulge. Without that bulge, all of the extra water held in place along the equator would go rushing back toward the poles. Esri, a company that develops geography-focused technology, modeled the world's land and oceans after its equatorial bulge subsided and found that the Earth would have a band of land -- one giant supercontinent -- that circles the equator and separates two massive oceans to the north and the south.
... I have made major errors in the changing of the oceans and continents:
Kenton Long wrote:
...Because of the slowly increasing dramatic change from the high and low temperatures of the ever-expanding day, the oceans and lakes more quickly evaporated and froze over. The earthquakes from the blast had opened up many crevices around the world that allowed for the ocean to lower their levels to fill in these new zones. But as the earth continued to slow, the continents started to shift on their molten supports, shifting more central on the equator and towards the poles. This, combined with the lower water levels, created ring-like continents, connected only by small strips of land that followed the newly located underwater mountain ranges
To fix these, I am also conforming to the giant, equatorial supercontinent shown by this article. I will be posting a revised description sometime later today.
Kingjon, thank you so much for your help in all of this. Invaluable barely begins to describe it.
