I'd like to clarify why so many celestial bodies like stars and planets rotate. Is it because initially the bodies are a loose gas cloud which is forced into a slow rotation by the gravity field of surrounding galaxies and the gravitational pull of the cloud itself? Then later, the cloud starts to condense and rotation speeds up to conserve the angular momentum.

Does this mean then if there was a gas cloud in a place with a zero gravitational gradient from exterior matter, it would not start to rotate? Even if the internal gravity forces were not big enough to overcome the gas pressure?

It would be better to say that the intial gas cloud had some small amount of rotation. There are many ways this could happen, in fact it is more likely than no initial rotation. Then collapse does "spin up" through conservation of angular momentum.

Let us think of how mathematically improbable it would be that every molecule in the young cloud would have velocity and momentum such that all the molecule motions cancelled each other out leaving no net motion. It is extremely likely that every young cloud would have an initial net rotation and would then never lose it.

nah, they rotate because they're magnets, they can't remain still

would then never lose it.

But why never? Rotation is motion, it takes energy. This energy either has to be renewed or it will taper out. Will the Sun rotate till the heat death of the universe?

There are many ways this could happen, in fact it is more likely than no initial rotation.

But let us consider a situation where there really is no initial rotation, however improbable that is. Will the cloud start rotating? Is the rotation like an inevitable outcome of any such system? Could the cloud simply gather itself together without starting to rotate?

But why never? Rotation is motion, it takes energy. This energy either has to be renewed or it will taper out. Will the Sun rotate till the heat death of the universe?
What makes you say that energy has to be renewed or it will 'taper out'? It may seem that way because of friction on earth, but in reality we're never losing energy, its simply being transfered to other objects (whatever objects we're interacting with frictionally). Newton's laws (yes AND Einstein's) tell us that an object in motion will continue in that motion until acted upon by an outside force. Theres no reason to assume that an input of energy would be needed to keep the motion going. If this were the case, the universe would have run out of energy long ago. Thankfully you simply CAN'T run out of energy, you just run into problems keeping it organized and useful.

-AntonK

Newton's laws (yes AND Einstein's) tell us that an object in motion will continue in that motion until acted upon by an outside force. Theres no reason to assume that an input of energy would be needed to keep the motion going.

Hmm. On further pondering, you are right, of course. For some reason, I thought revolving requires additional force to continue.

In the unlikely event of a body having condensed without rotation, an external force, such as a comet strike, hitting it at an angle would impart angular momentum and initiate rotation.

Use of the word "never" is often a conversational convenience meaning "a really long time".

As has been immediately priorly explained, our acceptance of Newton's laws of motion force us to believe that a motion will continue until it is forcibly altered.

Yet all the planets (save Venus I think) rotate in the same direction. Explain that.

If you are talking about revolving on an axis
then think, yes magnetic, but electrostatic rotation is in.

see
http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=548
>> Scientists Anders Wistrom and Armik Khachatourian of University of California, Riverside first observed the electrostatic rotation in static experiments that consisted of three metal spheres suspended by thin metal wires, and published their observations in Applied Physics Letters. When a DC voltage was applied to the spheres they began to rotate until the stiffness of the suspending wires prevented further rotation. The observed electrostatic rotation was not expected and could not be explained by available theory.

Wistrom and Khachatourian designed the study with concepts they had developed earlier. "Experimental and theoretical work from our laboratory suggested that the cumulative effect of electric charges would be an asymmetric force if the charges sitting on the surface of spheres were asymmetrically distributed," said Wistrom. "In the experiments, we could control the charge distribution by controlling the relative position of the three spheres."

Yet, for more than 200 years, researchers have known only about the push and pull of electric forces between objects with like or unlike charges. Since as early as 1854, when Thomson, later to become Lord Kelvin, theorized about an electric potential surrounding charged objects, scientists have concentrated on understanding how electric and magnetic phenomena are related.

"While Thomson's hypothesis of electric potential has brought enormous benefits when it comes to modern electromagnetic technologies, we now realize that his definition of electric potential was not exact," said Wistrom. "The effects are particularly noticeable when the spheres are very close to one another." (Electric potential is the ratio of the work done by an external force in moving a charge from one point to another divided by the magnitude of the charge.)

Indeed, the general applicability of Thomson's theory has not been tested experimentally or theoretically until now. In the Journal of Mathematical Physics, Wistrom and Khachatourian recently published insights that support the theoretical underpinnings for electrostatic rotation. "It is very satisfying to learn that electrostatic rotation can be predicted by the simple laws of voltage and force that date back at least 200 years," Wistrom said.

Spin is used in quantum mechanics to explain phenomena at the nuclear, atomic, and molecular domains for which there is no concrete physical picture. "So the discovery of electrostatic rotation and the identification of electrostatic spin as a natural phenomenon opens up an entirely new field of inquiry with the potential for significant advances," Wistrom said.

http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/images/releases/548_1.jpg

Photo Caption: UC Riverside researchers Anders Wistrom and Armik Khachatourian first observed the electrostatic rotation in static experiments that consisted of three metal spheres suspended by thin metal wires. When a DC voltage was applied to the spheres, the spheres began to rotate until the stiffness of the suspending wires prevented further rotation. (Photo credit: Anders Wistrom.)

As far as all the planets orbiting in the same direction and in the same plane, the most widely accepted theory of solar system formation is that

The solar system started as a nebular cloud that began to collapse toward its center of mass.
The collapse created a central mass, a protosun, about which the rest of the cloud began to orbit.
Most of the cloud collapsed into the protosun. The rest of the cloud formed an accretion disk (i.e., it flattened out).
The accretion disk formed due to the initial angular momentum of the cloud.
The planets formed about uneven mass distributions in the accretion disk. The planets formed from the accretion disk, which was already rotating. The planets have to share a common orbital plan (more or less) due to the way they formed.


As far as the rotation of the planets goes, Venus is not alone. Uranus and Pluto also exhibit retrograde rotation.

<i> Edited to add</i>
Magnetism is not required. I do not know of a single credible theory of planet formation that involves magnetism.

>> As far as all the planets orbiting in the same direction and in the same plane >>

same plane, is the equatorial Bloch wall of the Sun's magnetic field

same direction.... the planets are ejected from the Sun when the Sun's core becomes too positive..... they spiral outwards and follow the power wave.

THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY>>> some researchers agree with some of these assertions.

I don't think there is any support for planets being ejected from the sun, these days.

Do you have any references, URI?

URI: Admittedly not yet being very familiar with the interesting experiment you brought to our attention, I must make one comment about static electricity.

WHILE A STATIC CHARGE IS BEING APPLIED, it is a time-varying CURRENT until equilibrium is reached. While it is a time-varying current, it is producing a magnetic field.

In your understanding of the experiment, and, perhaps, in my future understanding, can a growing magnetic field induce the observed rotation?

>> Do you have any references, URI?

only " Earth's Flight Beyond" by Louis Jacot....

My analysis indicates that ejection is the only method that could yield the structure of the Solar System as it is.... but ?proof is hard to find.

I think of the Universe (by analogy), as one large radioactive atom.... "decay" is equivalent to ejection

>> can a growing magnetic field induce the observed rotation?

Look into Lenz's law. The Sun's immense magnetic field is always varying, and the static electric charge around all planets is constantly being reinforced and reduced by this fluctuation.

The whole electric/magnetic system is in harmonic flux

If you examine the 'gas giants', the net energy output increases their rotation rate (as well as their field spin velocity)

So, if the solar system originated from a "central nut" which then flang ( flung ) ( flong ) off the planets, the comets, the Oort cloud, etc., WHERE DID THE "CENTRAL NUT" (my slang expression ) COME FROM?

>> Do you have any references, URI?

only " Earth's Flight Beyond" by Louis Jacot....

My analysis indicates that ejection is the only method that could yield the structure of the Solar System as it is.... but ?proof is hard to find.

I think of the Universe (by analogy), as one large radioactive atom.... "decay" is equivalent to ejection

>> can a growing magnetic field induce the observed rotation?

Look into Lenz's law. The Sun's immense magnetic field is always varying, and the static electric charge around all planets is constantly being reinforced and reduced by this fluctuation.

The whole electric/magnetic system is in harmonic flux

If you examine the 'gas giants', the net energy output increases their rotation rate (as well as their field spin velocity)

Your analysis???

URI, you're an outright fraud! You aren't even capable of making an "analysis." We've already called your bluff more than once on your so-called "calculations" and you could show nothing - because they were pure bunk. I'm pretty sure that there's hardly anyone here that doesn't see you for exactly what you are.

Hopefully, by the time you finish school and get into college (if you intend to) you will have learned that the "theories" you've presented here are just as phoney as you are yourself. There's absolutely nothing to substantiate anything you've said.

>> WHERE DID THE "CENTRAL NUT" (my slang expression ) COME FROM?

where did anything come from ???
maybe a bigger nut, like me.

I am sure there is a recycling of matter and energy.

Hot matter pushes ejected particles out

Cold matter contracts..... to become hot again

Details are very sketchy, but the mechanisms must be harmonic and reversible
IMO

All I can say is that a system such as the Solar System (and I expect all cosmic systems) is can not be analysed in a relative manner, it demands a 'preferred' frame of reference.... the 'central nut'... centre of spin

Perihelion /aphelion velocity differences show this to be true.

It is becoming very apparent that all cold matter at some distance from a heat source ( even as close as our Moon's distance from the Sun in this solar system) is frosted with solid/liquid hydrogen peroxide.. this diamagnetic coating changes the orbital characteristics that normal magnetic matter takes.

I am not even pretending to know the secrets, all I can give is the picture that is emerging from my investigations.

URI, how old are you?

We can understand what you mean by "investigations" and "calculations" under this simple premise. Then, we can talk to you about all the teletubby science, fake moon landings, and quantum planetary models you want.

As for the main topic, I'm not really sure how accretion starts. Here's a qualitative description of what I think might occur: a spinning set of particles forms from a sufficiently dense gas cloud from gravitational perturbations. Since the gas by nature is inherently in random motion, any dense agglomeration that occurs must necessarily preserve the angular momentum that results from the gravitational attraction, and this multiplies as the mass grows larger (and from this thinking, I think it should probably increase in tangential velocity as the body grows larger). I believe this explanation is consistent with D H's post.

>> URI, how old are you?

way too old to think you are being polite.

If you find my science too "out there", well you can try to bring it back into the mud

you can post your understanding.......... and reasonably discuss the topic.

Cosmology is not a finished piece.

I see you have refused to reveal your age, likewise with your ludicrous "calculations" for the trajectory of the fake moon landing.

Try this simple problem. If you spin dense mass located on a cord 2 meters from a fixed frictionless center of rotation at a rate of 200rpm and reduce the radius to 1 meter, by what factor does the rpm increase?

Try this simple problem. If you spin dense mass located on a cord 2 meters from a fixed frictionless center of rotation at a rate of 200rpm and reduce the radius to 1 meter, by what factor does the rpm increase?

Hey Facial,

He won't be back until he can find someone off-line or on another forum to solve it for him. :D

And here's another small thing that the little twit isn't smart enough to know. Any real mathematician would be MORE than happy to show his work! After all, it's just like an artist having a chance to display his masterpiece. He couldn't resist an opportunity to show off! ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

He makes ludicrous, unfounded conjectures just to get attention. Don't feed the troll!

Details are very sketchy, but the mechanisms must be harmonic and reversible IMO.LOL :D That is the first time I have ever heard thermonuclear fusion described as reversible!

-Dale

URI: We have briefly discussed magnetism being an inverse fourth power force, here or in another thread.

my reference:
BOOK: MAGNETISM, An Introductory Survey
AUTHOR: E. W. Lee
PUBLISHER: Dover
ISBN: 0-486-22665-4
PAGE: 17