Oh my! Things don't look good in SE Asia.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <ZExAd.1374$Cc.229@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news😛an.2004.12.29.03.34.07.620639@att.bizzzz...
> >
> > > RedNova News - Earthquake Rattled Earth Orbit
> > > http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=114564
> >
> > I find this sort of reporting amazing (not really, considering the
> hoopla
> > over "global warming"). Was there a significant change in the COG?
> Was
> > there matter ejected from the Earth that would change the net energy
> of
> > the (rest of the) Earth? What net energy was imparted to the orbit
> that
> > caused the change? Where did said energy come from?
>
> Keith, consider an ice skater. When entering a spin, the arms are
> outstretched and the spin is slow. When the arms are pulled in, the
> spin rate increases dramatically. This is due to conservation of
> angular momentum.

Ok, but the ice skater is still orbiting around the sun at the same
rate. ...and rotating around the earth at the same rate.

> Rock is a lot heavier than water. If you cut off Mt. Everest at the
> base and drop it into the Mindinao Trench, the spin rate of the earth
> will increase significantly because more of the mass of the Earth
> moves toward its center. This, in effect, is what happened a couple
> of days ago: one tectonic plate dove under another, causing the whole
> tectonic plate near the junction to drop (thus causing the tidal
> wave). So the earth's spin rate increases.

....but not it's orbit. As I said, I'm told that the day changed by
three microseconds, but the year?

> The orbital effect was much smaller, but yes, the COG did change
> [evidently significantly enough to measure]. As you indicate, the
> earth-system's [including the mass of the moon] COG follows a highly
> stable elliptical orbit around the sun. Cut off Everest and drop it
> in the Trench and the COG does change - and that (slightly) changes
> the orbit.

The COG of the E-M system is still in the same orbit around the sun,
even if the COG shifted relative to the earth's center, so no, I don't
buy what you're selling. ;-)

> Keith, next time send me my Xmas gift a few days earlier? ;-)

You mean it hasn't gotten there yet? How about last years? ;-)

> Felger Carbon
> who remembers when there weren't any tectonic plates

You *are* old. ;-) We learned about them in first grade along with the
strange "coincidence" that the Africa coastline looks strangely like it
would fit into S. America.

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:4pd5t09hm3vfhd51ftdhjihim0n8dhsidm@4ax.com...
> "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote:
>
> >Rock is a lot heavier than water. If you cut off Mt. Everest at
the
> >base and drop it into the Mindinao Trench, the spin rate of the
earth
> >will increase significantly because more of the mass of the Earth
> >moves toward its center. This, in effect, is what happened a
couple
> >of days ago: one tectonic plate dove under another, causing the
whole
> >tectonic plate near the junction to drop (thus causing the tidal
> >wave). So the earth's spin rate increases.
>
> But doesn't the rock "sliding under" push the rock above it up some,
> resulting in a net change of zero (at least potentially)?

The operative word is "some", Chris. ;-)

> As for Mt. Everest, yes, it's "large", but my understanding is that
> the Earth is in fact smoother than a billiards ball.

Never measured the smoothness of a billiard ball, so I can't comment
on that. Sigh. There goes my rep for omiscience! ;-) ;-)

Hey, the speedup in the Earth's 24-hr rotational rate was a very few
microseconds.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:57:12 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:46:17 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Keith R. Williams wrote:
>>> I, for one, am glad I didn't *see* this one. BTW, the Richter Scale is
>>> an open-ended logarithmic scale (not "out of 10").
>>
>>Then I guess we're lucky to have never seen a 10 anywhere in the world.
>>Probably those are limited to the moons of Jupiter or something.
>
>I don't think any one of us want to see a 10.

A 10 like this one can rock my world anyday:
http://www.pophouse.com/site_images/small_photo/bopink.jpg


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3c867abfb5e153989809@news.individual.net...
> > The orbital effect was much smaller, but yes, the COG did change
> > [evidently significantly enough to measure]. As you indicate, the
> > earth-system's [including the mass of the moon] COG follows a
highly
> > stable elliptical orbit around the sun. Cut off Everest and drop
it
> > in the Trench and the COG does change - and that (slightly)
changes
> > the orbit.
>
> The COG of the E-M system is still in the same orbit around the sun,
> even if the COG shifted relative to the earth's center, so no, I
don't
> buy what you're selling. ;-)

Keith, the COG wuz following (by definition) a certain orbit. If the
COG suddenly changes (even by a tenth of an inch), the orbit has
suddenly changed.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3c84a0369f12f4989808@news.individual.net...
>
> > On the other hand, you're entitled to be shook up a little bit.
;-)
>
> As long as it's shaken and not stirred.

"It"? Keith, that's Lil' Angel we're talking about, and this is a
family NG! ;-)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <g3CAd.11932$RH4.4815@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
> "Keith R. Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c3c867abfb5e153989809@news.individual.net...
> > > The orbital effect was much smaller, but yes, the COG did change
> > > [evidently significantly enough to measure]. As you indicate, the
> > > earth-system's [including the mass of the moon] COG follows a
> highly
> > > stable elliptical orbit around the sun. Cut off Everest and drop
> it
> > > in the Trench and the COG does change - and that (slightly)
> changes
> > > the orbit.
> >
> > The COG of the E-M system is still in the same orbit around the sun,
> > even if the COG shifted relative to the earth's center, so no, I
> don't
> > buy what you're selling. ;-)
>
> Keith, the COG wuz following (by definition) a certain orbit. If the
> COG suddenly changes (even by a tenth of an inch), the orbit has
> suddenly changed.

Nope. The COG is still in the same orbit. The COG may have shifted
location, but it is still in the *same* orbit since no energy has been
added/subtracted from the system. The year is still the same length as
long as the COG doesn't change (and that won't change without energy
being added/subtracted from the system).

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

chrisv wrote:
> But doesn't the rock "sliding under" push the rock above it up some,
> resulting in a net change of zero (at least potentially)?

It's actually this rock that's pushed up that's causing the change in
momentum. The rock that's pushed up is a massive amount of rock (like
the island of Sumatra) and it adds some additional momentum from being
pushed out that slight bit. Even if it's only been thrown out by a
couple of metres it's still farther enough out that it slowed the
Earth's spin rate by a few microseconds.

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Felger Carbon wrote:
> Hey, the speedup in the Earth's 24-hr rotational rate was a very few
> microseconds.

Was there a speedup or a slowdown?

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:45:49 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

> "Keith R. Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c3c84a0369f12f4989808@news.individual.net...
>>
>> > On the other hand, you're entitled to be shook up a little bit.
> ;-)
>>
>> As long as it's shaken and not stirred.
>
> "It"? Keith, that's Lil' Angel we're talking about, and this is a
> family NG! ;-)

Talk to Jim. It's his line. ;-)

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> writes:

> chrisv wrote:
> > But doesn't the rock "sliding under" push the rock above it up some,
> > resulting in a net change of zero (at least potentially)?
>
> It's actually this rock that's pushed up that's causing the change in
> momentum. The rock that's pushed up is a massive amount of rock (like
> the island of Sumatra) and it adds some additional momentum from being
> pushed out that slight bit. Even if it's only been thrown out by a
> couple of metres it's still farther enough out that it slowed the
> Earth's spin rate by a few microseconds.

The claim being objected to wasn't that it changed the spin (which is
quite reasonable), but that it changed the orbit.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer