Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnorkack@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>However, if he reversed the rotation of Earth (which would have solved
>his immediate problem, that of preventing the moon from moving on),
>the centrifugal forces would be unchanged.
>
>The Coriolis forces, however...
That's an interesting point.
One could argue that "the Earth" includes its
atmosphere, hydrosphere, and other loose change,
and that all of this would stop (or reverse)
as well. But the indirect consequences of
rotation couldn't very well change, too.
Coriolis force is the most obvious.
>If Coriolis forces instantly change sign, how long does it take for
>trades and westerlies to overcome the inertia of moving air, and
>reverse? What about the cyclones in being - does the changed
>geostrophic force and the inertia of the rotation cause them to fill
>and invert into anticyclones? What about ocean currents - how long
>will the Gulf Stream need to reverse?
The effect would be gradual. All the existing
cyclonic vortexes would continue to spin for a
while, then run down, and eventually spin up
in the other direction (or be replaced by new
opposite vortexes).
The very-high-inertia vortexes (such as the
oceanic currents) could persist for decades,
till exhausted by friction.
>As for tides, reversing the rotation of Earth would change the tidal
>period from 12 hours 25 minutes to 11 hours 35 minutes. A minor
>change, but how far would the amphidromes move?
Amphidromes (googles)?
Quite possibly to wholly different locations.
One would need a good simulator to figure that out.
--
| People say "There's a Stradivarius for sale for a |
| million," and you say "Oh, really? What's wrong |
| with it?" - Yitzhak Perlman |
|
