A day on Mercury lasts approximately as long as 59 earth days

[Metspitzer]

That would mean Mercury is turning a lot slower than Earth. Does the
earth's spin try to throw us off the planet?

[Boikat]

On Apr 26, 3:01 pm, Metspitzer <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> That would mean Mercury is turning a lot slower than Earth.  Does the
> earth's spin try to throw us off the planet?

Yes. That is why you weigh less at the equator than at the poles.

But don't let Pagano know about that.

Boikat

[Mitchell Coffey]

But it would feel even longer.

Mitchell Coffey

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:01:43 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
wrote:

>That would mean Mercury is turning a lot slower than Earth. Does the
>earth's spin try to throw us off the planet?

Mercury has 3 days in 2 years. The Earth has aprox a 365.25 days in 1
year. The gravity is perfectly balanced with the spin on Earth.
Mercury will hit Venus in the next five billion years which will
probably disturb Earth but lets stay here for now!

Steve

--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, April 27, 2012 11:06:16 AM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:01:43 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
> wrote:

> >That would mean Mercury is turning a lot slower than Earth. Does the
> >earth's spin try to throw us off the planet?

yes as another poster pointed out you weigh less at the equator than at the poles. And its detectable by bathroom scales, about 5% if i recall correctly

> Mercury has 3 days in 2 years. The Earth has aprox a 365.25 days in 1
> year. The gravity is perfectly balanced with the spin on Earth.

WTF does that mean? The gravity is not "perfectly balanced with the spin on Earth". We'd fall off it was.

> Mercury will hit Venus in the next five billion years which will
> probably disturb Earth but lets stay here for now!

did you just make that up or do you have a cite?

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:53:51 -0700 (PDT),
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, April 27, 2012 11:06:16 AM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:01:43 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >That would mean Mercury is turning a lot slower than Earth. Does the
>> >earth's spin try to throw us off the planet?
>

.

>yes as another poster pointed out you weigh less at the equator than at the poles. And its detectable by bathroom scales, about 5% if i recall correctly

0.3%
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=310

>> Mercury has 3 days in 2 years. The Earth has aprox a 365.25 days in 1
>> year. The gravity is perfectly balanced with the spin on Earth.
>
>WTF does that mean? The gravity is not "perfectly balanced with the spin on Earth". We'd fall off it was.
>
>> Mercury will hit Venus in the next five billion years which will
>> probably disturb Earth but lets stay here for now!
>
>did you just make that up or do you have a cite?

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Mark Buchanan]

It's

It's also the cause of the Eotvos effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect

Mark

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, April 27, 2012 12:07:08 PM UTC+1, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:53:51 -0700 (PDT),
> nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Friday, April 27, 2012 11:06:16 AM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:01:43 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
> >> wrote:

> >> >Does the earth's spin try to throw us off the planet?
> >
>

> >yes as another poster pointed out you weigh less at the equator than at the poles. And its detectable by bathroom scales, about 5% if i recall correctly
>
> 0.3%
> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=310

serves me right for relying on memory. I was sure I'd seen numbers suggesting even someone from Weight Watchers would be interested (not so much Mass Watchers though). Hmmm. even 0.3% is nearly 0.5lb (for a medium sized person)

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:53:39 -0700 (PDT),

nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, April 27, 2012 12:07:08 PM UTC+1, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:53:51 -0700 (PDT),
>> nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >On Friday, April 27, 2012 11:06:16 AM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:01:43 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>> >> wrote:
>
>> >> >Does the earth's spin try to throw us off the planet?
>> >
>>
>> >yes as another poster pointed out you weigh less at the equator than at the poles. And its detectable by bathroom scales, about 5% if i recall correctly
>>
>> 0.3%
>> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=310

.

>serves me right for relying on memory. I was sure I'd seen numbers suggesting even someone from Weight Watchers would be interested (not so much Mass Watchers though). Hmmm. even 0.3% is nearly 0.5lb (for a medium sized person)

I wouldn't have known that this effect existed unless you'd mentioned
it. Took me 60 seconds to find the correct value via google.

[jillery]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:53:51 -0700 (PDT),
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:

Son of Velikovsky. Or perhaps he's referring to the estimation that
by then the Sun will be a bloated red giant, and this will somehow
push Mercury into Venus.

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:52:00 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I received the request for a cite by email so I answered by email. My
email answer was :-

^ Laskar, J.; Gastineau, M. (2009-06-11). "Existence of collisional
trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth". Nature 459
(7248): 817–819. Bibcode 2009Natur.459..817L. doi:10.1038/nature08096.
PMID 19516336.

[Ernest Major]

In message <ioflp7tv8mehiuro2...@4ax.com>, jillery
<69jp...@gmail.com> writes

Some long-term numerical integrations of the solar system have Mercury's
orbit as unstable on a billion year timescale. Hitting Venus is just one
possible outcome.

For example, Batygin and Laughlin, On the Dynamical Stability of the
Solar System, The Astrophysical Journal 683(2): 1207-1216 (2008)
--
alias Ernest Major

[Boikat]

When Pagano first started his Paganocentric crusade, I brought that
up. The only hint that he noticed the posts was the trail of dust.

Boikat

[jillery]

I apologize for doubting your statement. I thank you for this
information. Now I know something I didn't know before.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <29529840.582.1335524031648.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbcg6>,

<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 27, 2012 11:06:16 AM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:01:43 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >That would mean Mercury is turning a lot slower than Earth. Does the
>> >earth's spin try to throw us off the planet?
>
>yes as another poster pointed out you weigh less at the equator than at
>the poles. And its detectable by bathroom scales, about 5% if i recall
>correctly

That seems like enough to become a sore point in international trade.
A "key" shipped from Columbia would be found to be a bit short if
anyone in in, say, Seattle bothered to actually measure it.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <nqglp7p9diapelg6u...@4ax.com>,

Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>
>I received the request for a cite by email so I answered by email. My
>email answer was :-
>
>^ Laskar, J.; Gastineau, M. (2009-06-11). "Existence of collisional
>trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth". Nature 459
>(7248): 817–819. Bibcode 2009Natur.459..817L. doi:10.1038/nature08096.
>PMID 19516336.

Without bothering to read the article--_Nature_ is behind a paywall,
right?--is the distance between Earth and the Sun increasing or
decreasing over time?

And is there any good estimate for just how much increase in solar
luminosity the Earth can tolerate before in goes into irreversibly
thermal runaway?

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <jnh65s$mpd$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <29529840.582.1335524031648.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbcg6>,
> <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Friday, April 27, 2012 11:06:16 AM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:01:43 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >That would mean Mercury is turning a lot slower than Earth. Does the
>>> >earth's spin try to throw us off the planet?
>>
>>yes as another poster pointed out you weigh less at the equator than at
>>the poles. And its detectable by bathroom scales, about 5% if i recall
>>correctly
>
>That seems like enough to become a sore point in international trade.
>A "key" shipped from Columbia would be found to be a bit short if
>anyone in in, say, Seattle bothered to actually measure it.

Whoops, sorry, wrong direction, and the effect is much smaller, as
someone else pointed out.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jnh6p4$mpd$3...@reader1.panix.com>,

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> In article <jnh65s$mpd$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >In article <29529840.582.1335524031648.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbcg6>,
> > <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Friday, April 27, 2012 11:06:16 AM UTC+1, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:01:43 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> >That would mean Mercury is turning a lot slower than Earth. Does the
> >>> >earth's spin try to throw us off the planet?
> >>
> >>yes as another poster pointed out you weigh less at the equator than at
> >>the poles. And its detectable by bathroom scales, about 5% if i recall
> >>correctly
> >
> >That seems like enough to become a sore point in international trade.
> >A "key" shipped from Columbia would be found to be a bit short if
> >anyone in in, say, Seattle bothered to actually measure it.
>
> Whoops, sorry, wrong direction, and the effect is much smaller, as
> someone else pointed out.

And you see or used to see signs on signs that said "No Springs". If
you really want precise measure you measure by mass.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Robert Grumbine]

In article <jnh6mh$mpd$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
> In article <nqglp7p9diapelg6u...@4ax.com>,
> Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>>

[trim]

> And is there any good estimate for just how much increase in solar
> luminosity the Earth can tolerate before in goes into irreversibly
> thermal runaway?

About 0.5-1 Ga. The long term trend in solar brightness is up,
and the long term trend in atmospheric CO2 is, correspondingly,
down. In that range, the CO2 (dry greenhouse gas) level needed
to keep earth comfortable goes negative. Then water vapor's greenhouse
effect is all that's present, so the warmer = more water vapor = warmer
feedback gets to run wild. The spread is, in part (iirc) due to
clouds delaying the feedback for a while.

In any case, we need to find a new home long before the sun
goes red giant -- about 4.5 Ga ahead.


--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

[jillery]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 14:34:32 -0500, Robert Grumbine
<bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:

>In article <jnh6mh$mpd$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>
>> In article <nqglp7p9diapelg6u...@4ax.com>,
>> Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>>>
>[trim]
>
>> And is there any good estimate for just how much increase in solar
>> luminosity the Earth can tolerate before in goes into irreversibly
>> thermal runaway?
>
> About 0.5-1 Ga. The long term trend in solar brightness is up,
>and the long term trend in atmospheric CO2 is, correspondingly,
>down. In that range, the CO2 (dry greenhouse gas) level needed
>to keep earth comfortable goes negative. Then water vapor's greenhouse
>effect is all that's present, so the warmer = more water vapor = warmer
>feedback gets to run wild. The spread is, in part (iirc) due to
>clouds delaying the feedback for a while.
>
> In any case, we need to find a new home long before the sun
>goes red giant -- about 4.5 Ga ahead.

Not a high priority, then. Unfortunately. It would be nice to have
something to motivate the bean counters to invest in space
colonization.