home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.astro
- Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!news.belwue.de!eratu.rz.uni-konstanz.de!nyx.uni-konstanz.de!phfrom
- From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
- Subject: Re: Sky&Telescope Weekly News Bulletin
- Message-ID: <phfrom.443@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
- Sender: usenet@eratu.rz.uni-konstanz.de
- Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
- References: <C10rtG.A6y@utdallas.edu> <C14DyK.5xD.2@cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:36:27 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- ref@CS.CMU.EDU (Robert Frederking) writes:
-
- >> WHY PLANETS SPIN
- >> A report in today's issue of the journal SCIENCE describes a new study
- >> of why planets spin. Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine conclude that
- >> Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars all spin the way they do not because of
- >> some orderly influence during their formation, but instead because of
- >> random collisions with massive objects. They're not sure, however, how
- >> the giant outer planets were set spinning so fast.
-
- >Is this really right? Does anyone have more details, in particular,
- >why the traditional explanation involving the angular momentum of the
- >particles they were formed from isn't right?
-
- Especially: why do Earth and Mars then both spin "regularly", i.e. in
- the same sense as Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune and with only slightly longer
- periods ? (on the other hand, the "irregular" rotation of Mercury seems to
- have a rather "natural" explanation from tidal deformation by the Sun
- so that only Venus (and perhaps the eq. inclination of Uranus' equator)
- need for exceptional explanation in the "standard model". Also: what
- happened to the "initial" angular momentum in the Dones-Tremaine model ?
- Hartmut Frommert <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
- Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
- -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
-