21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ogbThey'd be rotating about their central point so different parts of their body would be moving at different linear speeds depending how far out from the axis of rotation the bit is. But to practical purposes they'd be stationary.
the earth spins at about 1040 miles per hour at the equator..so how fast would a person be spinning if at the exact North pole or exact South pole?
21 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @ogbThat person would be making one full turn every day (24 hours).
the earth spins at about 1040 miles per hour at the equator..so how fast would a person be spinning if at the exact North pole or exact South pole?
As to how fast he would be spinning, I don't know. It depends on how wide he is. His width determines the length (circumference) of the circle the outermost part of his body travels in one day. But however fast that is, a snail can travel much faster than some guy 'spinning' at one of the poles.
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @lemon-limeAssume he is 2.4 feet wide, then he would be spinning at the incredible rate of 1/10th foot per hour or about one inch per hour or about 2 cm per hour. Probably won't get dizzy🙂
That person would be making one full turn every day (24 hours).
As to how fast he would be spinning, I don't know. It depends on how wide he is. His width determines the length (circumference) of the circle the outermost part of his body travels in one day. But however fast that is, a snail can travel much faster than some guy 'spinning' at one of the poles.
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonhouse and also in reply to @lemon-limeFollowing the OP I worked on the assumption that we are ignoring the earth's orbital speed, but an effect we've neglected is the precession of the spin axis, which from memory has a period of something like 5,000 years. I don't think it changes the answer by much though.
Assume he is 2.4 feet wide, then he would be spinning at the incredible rate of 1/10th foot per hour or about one inch per hour or about 2 cm per hour. Probably won't get dizzy🙂
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @deepthoughtI forgot to do the circumference so the speed is about 5 times greater, 9 cm per hour. Still won't get dizzy🙂
Following the OP I worked on the assumption that we are ignoring the earth's orbital speed, but an effect we've neglected is the precession of the spin axis, which from memory has a period of something like 5,000 years. I don't think it changes the answer by much though.
22 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ogbwhich twin will become older, quicker
so Part II..if a person spends their entire life at the exact North Pole and their brother spends entire life at the equator, which one is aging faster. In other words, which twin will become older, quicker..?
The colder one will become the older one... quicker.
22 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ogbHa, that's quite a good question - I've just read your post and need to do a little maths to get to the answer. It's complicated by the way the Earth is an oblate spheroid and so the gravitational field at the poles is different from the field at the equator. It's also 3am so you're going to have to wait until tomorrow for your answer. Best guess is that the twin at the pole will have a clock that runs very slightly faster and so will age faster (biological issues with cold, heat, and sunlight notwithstanding).
so Part II..if a person spends their entire life at the exact North Pole and their brother spends entire life at the equator, which one is aging faster. In other words, which twin will become older, quicker..?
22 Mar 18
Originally posted by @deepthoughtAnd the grav variation due to the fact the person on the equator is moving faster so time will slow down, maybe the two effects cancel?
Ha, that's quite a good question - I've just read your post and need to do a little maths to get to the answer. It's complicated by the way the Earth is an oblate spheroid and so the gravitational field at the poles is different from the field at the equator. It's also 3am so you're going to have to wait until tomorrow for your answer. Best guess is ...[text shortened]... faster and so will age faster (biological issues with cold, heat, and sunlight notwithstanding).
22 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseI think the grav variation is probably so slight as to be negligible.
And the grav variation due to the fact the person on the equator is moving faster so time will slow down, maybe the two effects cancel?
GPS automatically adjusts for time clock variation to insure accurate locations on earth, but I've never read where grav variation is also taken into account. This doesn't mean it isn't or can't be taken into account, it just means I've never read or heard of it being incorporated into a GPS system. But even if it could be incorporated, and might add some extra level of accuracy, I suspect it would be a very complex and complicated adjustment.
22 Mar 18
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIt is on the sats themselves since they are way up, some 8000 miles up so that would be in a field 1/4th or so of ground level gravity so the clocks would run faster and have to be compensated for. Each of those sats has an atomic clock onboard to track local time flows.
I think the grav variation is probably so slight as to be negligible.
GPS automatically adjusts for time clock variation to insure accurate locations on earth, but I've never read where grav variation is also taken into account. This doesn't mean it isn't or can't be taken into account, it just means I've never read or heard of it being incorporated i ...[text shortened]... d some extra level of accuracy, I suspect it would be a very complex and complicated adjustment.
22 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseRight, but if there is a significant gravitational strength difference between the equator and the North Pole (as DT suggests there may be) it could mean there will be less of a difference in the aging.
It is on the sats themselves since they are way up, some 8000 miles up so that would be in a field 1/4th or so of ground level gravity so the clocks would run faster and have to be compensated for. Each of those sats has an atomic clock onboard to track local time flows.
Having said that, I can't imagine any surface grav variation completely cancelling out the difference in aging between the twins.
Imagine looking straight down from space at the North Pole. One of the twins will appear to be a point in the center of a circle, and the other appears to be a point on the circle travelling very fast around the center point... and taking into account that (for all practical purposes) the center point remains motionless.
24 Mar 18
Originally posted by @lemon-limeBut Earth is corkscrewing its way in orbit around our galaxy and the whole galaxy is moving from the gravitational gradients so figuring all that would add to the complexity but I imagine those movements would be effecting the twins at the same rate so can be canceled out as an affector.
Right, but if there is a significant gravitational strength difference between the equator and the North Pole (as DT suggests there may be) it could mean there will be less of a difference in the aging.
Having said that, I can't imagine any surface grav variation completely cancelling out the difference in aging between the twins.
Imagi ...[text shortened]... . and taking into account that (for all practical purposes) the center point remains motionless.