1

Unit 5―The Earth as a Planet

Even though this is a course in astronomy, one could scarcely start a topic on the Earth as a planet without men-
tioning at the start that “it is a beautiful and wonderful place to live.” One part of the Earth that produces ex-
treme ranges in emotion for any viewer is the daytime sky, even though astronomers spend most of their time
talking about the nighttime sky.
Few, but educated, people can explain the things they see over and over. (1) Ask a friend, “Why it is so cold in
winter” and they typically respond with “Because the days are shorter,” as if that explains it all. We will show
below that that is not the case. We might turn to astronomy to answer the following questions as well. (2) Why
is the sky blue? (3) Why is the Sun redder at sunset than during the day? (4) On a cloudless summer day, why
does the Zenith look closer than the horizon? (5) Why does the Moon look larger on the horizon?
44. The size of the earth. Most students have long since learned that the Earth has a diameter of approximately
8,000 miles. But how is that number determined? While modern methods are a little more sophisticated, the
basic concept behind that measurement is little different than the method used by the Greek Eratosthenes more
than 2,000 years ago. Even more important than his approximate value, he had actually proved that the Earth
was round. Even Aristotle had presented several arguments for a spherical Earth including the round shadow
cast on the Moon at the beginning of a lunar eclipse.
In spite of the fact that we should have accepted the roundness of the Earth 2,000 year ago, Columbus was
warned by groups who believed in a flat Earth that he might fall off the edge of the Earth if he went too far.
Such groups that rallied around such a principle were called Flat Earth Societies and we still use that phrase to
mimic people who have not kept up with newer ideas.
In science, we prefer to use angular measure, not in degrees, but in radian measure. That way there is a simple
connection between the radius of a circle R and the length of arc D that θ extends, namely D = R θ Suffice it to
say there are 2pi radians in a complete circle, so its circumference is the familiar value C = θ R = 2piR.

FIGURE25: Measuring the size of the earth.

Eratosthenes, about 200 BC, knew that on the summer solstice the Sun was directly overhead in what is now
Aswan, Egypt. On that day, vertical poles do not cast shadows and the sunlight completely illuminates the bot-
tom of a well. The town of Alexandria was directly north of Aswan and hence lay on the same meridian. The
same longitude was important. Why?
 2

Vertical sticks at Alexandria cast shadows when measured at exactly the same time. As in the above drawing,
he determined that the angle between the sticks and the Sun’s rays was 7.20 and he attributed that angle to the
curvature of the Earth and the “angular measure” between the locations of the cities on the Earth.
From land surveys he knew the distance D between the cities was 5,000 stadia which was his unit of measure at
the time. Using the above formula he was able to compute the radius of the assumed spherical Earth as well as
its circumference, which would have been 24,662 modern miles. That is very close to the current accepted val-
ue of 24,901 miles for the diameter and 6,371 kilometers, or 3,959 miles, for the radius.
Several assumptions Eratosthenes made greatly simplified the measurement. (a) For one thing, he assumed that
the Sun was far enough from Earth that all of its rays run parallel to each other. Imagine the extreme case
where the Sun is 10 feet directly above the well. The bottom of the well would be completely lighted but a stick
only 10 feet to the side would still cast a shadow. So how much of that angle of 7.20 was due to the curvature of
on the Earth and how much was due to the angle of the Sun’s rays? (b) How precise was his “directly north”
determination. (c) He lived fairly close to the Equator and so his value applied there. What about other loca-
tions around the Earth?
So, as you might guess, there were many improvements made in more modern times to extend the precision that
Eratosthenes achieved but it is still amazing that he got that value over 2,000 years ago. Modern methods in-
clude sighting a distant star from several positions along the same meridian line (like Eratosthenes’ due North
approach) If the Earth were a perfect sphere, the change in the angle to the star would be equal for equal dis-
tances moved along the meridian―say, so many degrees for each 100 miles.
Now imagine the Earth is an apple where you slice off the top along the Arctic Circle. As you move along this
flat top towards the core of the apple, the angle to the same star would not change at all. In making these mea-
surements it was observed that the “angle per mile” was lower when closer to the North Pole of the Earth, indi-
cating that the Earth is slightly flattened at the poles. Current values indicate that the diameter of the Earth at the
Equator is about 27 miles larger than through the poles, called The Equatorial Bulge.
EXERCISE 19: Measuring Earth’s Radius. Do you know a friend who lives about 200 miles south/north of
you? Are you travelling that distance for the holidays? As long as the altitude of the same star is determined at
the same time of night, the difference in the two angles measured can determine the radius of the Earth. If the
second location is not exactly south/north of you, the projection of that angle (multiply by the Cosine of the
angle) onto the north-south line would correct for that.
45. The mass of the earth. In Unit 4 we discussed Newton’s Law of Gravitation applied to a two body prob-
lem and concluded that if (a) we only could determine the radius Re of the Earth as a planet and (b) determine
the gravitational constant G, we could then determine the mass of Earth by means of this equation.
Me = gRe2/ G
With “tongue in cheek,” the next steps are typically called “weighing the Earth” but, of course, you now know
better.
Once we know the mass of the Earth and the earlier obtained Ro, the radius of the Earth’s orbit, if we then could
determine G we could determine the mass of the Sun, Ms, by using the equation:
Ms = (2pi)2 Ro2/GP2
From there we maybe could determine the masses of all the other planets in the solar system, so we obviously
need a very accurate measurement for the constant G.
 3

Since G involves the numerical relationship between ANY two bodies that are attracting each other by means of
gravity, we only have to observe two bodies interacting that way and be able to measure the force that results
between them.
Henry Cavendish, a British scientist in 1798, was the perfect person to first make those measurements as he was
already making similar measurements on electrical forces when electrically charged particles interact.
Cavendish’s equipment for gravity involved a six foot wooden
beam, suspended by a metal wire. The wire was finely cali-
brated for how much force, actually torque, was required to
twist the wire so many degrees. Attach a reflecting device to
the wire and by shining a light beam onto the mirrored surface
allowed the tiniest twists of the wire to be amplified as move-
ment of the light spot considerable distance across the room.
Two small bars on the ends of the arm could then be attracted
by two larger balls on a separate set of arms that could be ro-
tated into position. He obviously needed to know the distance
between the balls in order compute G from the resulting force.

Cavendish’s apparatus, called a torsion balance, was heavily modified from his previous work with electrical
forces of repulsion and attraction, since the objects used in a gravity experiment have to be much larger, and
hence heavier, than the charged objects he had been using.
G will have a different value depending upon what system of units is being used. We not only expect the nu-
merical values to be satisfied in any equation but the units must be the same on both sides of any equation.
When mass is measured in kilograms, distance is measured in meters and time is measured in seconds. Caven-
dish’s experiments have been repeated many times by others and the currently accepted value for G is:
G = 6.673 x 10-11 m3kg-1sec-2
The value 10-11 indicates that the decimal should be moved from its indicated position eleven spaces to the left
with corresponding zeros as place holders. Picture Newton’s formula for the gravitational attraction between
two bodies. Think of approximately large numbers for the radius R and the masses M1 and M2. With G as a
multiplier out in front of that equation, G reduces the final number by a factor of more than one million, show-
ing that gravity is indeed a very weak force. Cavendish had to use very massive balls to even record a small
amount of movement in the arms. When his torsion balance was set up for measuring electrical forces, a tiny
amount of charge on the balls moved the arms significantly, indicating that electrical forces are a million times
stronger.
Exercise: Rewrite the above equation so that:
G = gRe2/ Me
Recalling the “g,” the local free fall acceleration by gravity, has the units of meters
(second)2 show that G has
the units of :
(meters)3(kilograms)-1(seconds)-2
Notice above the shorthand expression we used for the same units.
Practice with Big Numbers. Let’s review how to multiply large numbers together by now calculating the mass
of the Earth. Recall that when the same base numbers are raised to an exponent, their product follows the pat-
tern 10a •10b = 10a + b or we add the exponents. We typically handle all the smaller numbers (less than 10) as
 4

one product. Then the powers of ten are handled separately. Then the final numerical answer is written as a
number less than 10 multiplied by a power of 10. To avoid carrying the physical units all the way through a
problem, we carefully check the consistency of the units and they MUST be part of the final answer. The units
we will use are kilograms, meters and seconds. Let’s do it in steps. We start with:
Me = gRe2/ G
We know the following values and their units. g = 9.81 meter/(seconds)2, Re = 6.371 x 106 meters and G =
6.673 x 10-11 (meters)3(kilograms)-1(seconds)-2. Inserting these values we have:
Me = gRe2/ G = (9.81)(6.371 x 106)3
6.673 x 10-11 (m)(sec)-2(m)2(m)-3(kgm)(sec)2
Me = 59.671 x 1012 x 1011 (kgm)
Me = 5.9671 x 1024 kilograms
Knowing that 106 represents a factor of one million, the Earth’s mass is a million, million, million, million kilo-
grams. Now we can see where the “strong” pull of gravity comes from.
Mass of the Sun: Calculator Required. Starting with the equation:
Ms = (2pi)2 Ro3/GP2
we make a list of all the values we now know. (2Pi)2 = 4 x (3.14156)2 = 4 x 9.869 = 39.478. Ro = 1.49 x 1011
meters. G = 6.673 x 10-11 meters)3(kilograms)-1(seconds)-2. P = 365.25 days = 3.155 x 107 seconds. Inserting
these values:
Ms = (2pi)2 Ro3/GP2 (m)(sec)-2(m)3(m)-3(kgm)(sec)2
Ms = (39.478) (1.49 x 1011)3
(6.673 x 10-11)(3.155 x 107)2
Ms = (39.478)(3.31 x 1033)
(6.673 x 10-11)(9.954 x 1014
Ms = 1.96 x 1030 kilograms
We can already see that 1.96 x 1030
5.9671 x 1024 = 328,803 or the Sun is more than 300,000 times more
massive than the Earth. Note that in the table on page 21 of Unit 4, we had the approximate value listed there as
329,000. There is almost a million times more matter in the Sun than the Earth. That will become important
when we describe The Sun’s Process. What role does mass play in any stellar, or solar, process?
Mass of Other Planets: Whenever you discover a “process that works,” it is useful to summarize, or paraph-
rase, what you have just learned before moving on. Sometimes just the right phrase can “say it all” and provide
you with an outline, or process, for continuing. It is too simple to say that in the above calculations we “exclu-
sively” used Newton’s Laws to calculate the mass of two objects in the solar system. That’s not quite correct.
In order to extend some of the equations we developed to determine the mass of the Sun and the Earth, it is im-
portant to notice that one of the equations we used contained the experimental quantity “g,” the acceleration
produced by gravity at the surface of the Earth. Hence, any equations that resulted from that cannot be applied
to other planets since the equivalent acceleration on their surfaces is both different and unknown.
Thought Question: Point to one or more equations we used in Units 4 and 5 that confirm that the period, and
hence the speed, of a planet in its orbit is independent of the mass of that planet. That means if Jupiter were in
the orbit of Mars it would travel essentially the same speed that Mars currently travels. On the other hand, point
to an equation that says the Sun can effect, and hence partially determines, what speed that planet will use. That
means if the Sun were bigger all the planets would have to travel faster to maintain those orbits.
 5

So if we start thinking of a planet, or object, orbiting a much larger body as a satellite of that body, we now
know that observing the satellite in its orbit does not reveal the mass of the satellite, but Newton’s Laws will
reveal the mass of the object it orbits.
Thinking of Earth as a satellite of the Sun, the methods we used should apply to any planet that has a satellite
orbiting it. It is too bad that our Moon does not have a little moon orbiting it. We could use these methods to
determine the mass of our Moon. Ah, but Mars does have a moon.
Let us introduce you to “critters” that will involve
you in the practice problems that follow. Mars is
known to have two moons, Phobos and Deimos.
Unlike Mars itself, which was known in ancient
times, and the moons of Jupiter which Galileo dis-
covered with a simple telescope, the moons of Mars
were not discovered until 1877 when the U.S. Naval
Observatory began astronomy studies with a larger
telescope 29 inches in diameter. From there it was
the Galileo process over again―watch carefully
night after night and record the periods of the moons
as they orbit around the planet.
For additional photos of Mars like these go to: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/
Some of the reasons it took a long time to discover the moons of Mars is that they
are very tiny so it would take a much bigger telescope than Galileo’s to observe
them. Modern photos taken from space make them looks like “stray chunks of
rock” in that they hardly look like our own round Moon. That has led to the con-
jecture that they probably were not formed as part of the process of forming Mars
and were captured by the gravity of Mars from the Asteroid Belt just outside of
Mars. In addition, the two moons have such extreme positions to Mars that on the
relative scale shown to the right, Phobos is almost skimming the surface of Mars at
a fast rate and would be hard to locate.

Practice Problem: Calculator Required. Use our “sun equation” of Mm = (2pi)2 R3/GP2 now adapted for Mars
and compute the mass of Mars Mm using observational data for the moon Deimos which are R, its orbital radius,
and P its orbital period. Hint: copy our Sun calculations and replace the corresponding data that applies to
Deimos. We will even help you get started with the numbers. For Deimos the observational data yields R =
2.3495 x 107 meters and P = 1.26244 days = 1.09075 x 105 seconds.
Compare your result to a published result for the mass of Mars as 6.4191 x 1023 kilograms. We got the value of
6.4492 x 1023 kilograms. How did you do? Notice that Deimos “zips” through the sky on an almost once-a-day
basis.
Practice Problem: Calculator Required. Now repeat the calculations for the mass of Mars using the observa-
tional data for Phobos whose orbital radius is R = 9.378 x 106 meters and period is P = 0.31891 days =
2.7553824 x 104 seconds.
Compare your result to the published value above for the mass of Mars. We got 6.4267 x 1023 kilograms. How
did you do?
Thought Questions: (a) If your two calculations were very close to each other but differed some from the pub-
lished value, what might that say about your given data versus your ability to perform calculations? If one of
 6

your moons produced a better value than the other, what is there about the moon’s orbit itself that might pro-
duce that result? Remember. Phobos is very close to the planet Mars and hard to see.
Things to Ponder: (a) Did you notice that Phobos rises and sets three times a day? What kind of “romantic
encounters” would that produce? We started this Unit mentioning that Earth is a beautiful place to live. (b) Did
you notice that Deimos is nearly 10 times further away from Mars than Phobos? Picture Earth having a second
moon, about the same size as our current one, but it was ten times farther away. (c) Would the ancients have
even discovered that “it belonged to our planet?”
Practice Problem: Calculator Required. Divide the mass of the Earth we calculated above Me = 5.9671 x 1024
kilograms by your mass for Mars determined by the motion of Phobos to see how many times more massive the
Earth is compared to Mars. We got 15.5. From that you should be able to estimate in your head how much you
would weigh while walking the planet Mars. How high do you think you could jump?
Practice Problem: Calculator Required. Divide the mass of the Sun we calculated above Ms = 1.96 x 1030 ki-
lograms by your mass for Mars determined by the motion of Phobos to see how many times more massive the
Sun is compared to Mars. We got 3.049776 x 107 = 3,049,776 times greater, or one would have to put together
more than three million planet Mars to make up the Sun. Compare your value to the estimated value listed in
the table on page 21 of Unit 4.
Already we can see some problems ahead when talking about the structure of the Sun. While the Sun may be
three million times more massive than Mars that doesn’t necessarily make it “bigger” by that amount. If that
represented the radial size of the Sun, it can be shown that the Sun’s outer edge would extend beyond the orbit
of Earth, or the Earth would be inside the Sun―more on that later.
Optional Practice Problems: You would be very disappointed if you did not at least attempt a calculation with
some of the most famous moons in astronomical history. Modern space research is suggesting that Jupiter may
have as many as 60 moons of various sizes and shapes. Close up images show that they are smoother than those
of Mars and are more like our own. Their simple appearance alone suggests their origin was probably different
than those of Mars. Since Jupiter is so massive (and therefore you would want to calculate that) there probably
was a lot of material in that region of the solar system and some of it went into forming Jupiter and rest into its
moons. In other words, Jupiter and its moons probably had a common origin where the moons of Mars were
probably captured from elsewhere and at a later time.
Most of the moons of Jupiter have individual names but
they also have family names depending upon how and
when they were discovered. At the right you are looking
at the four Galilean Moons, pretty much as Galileo first
saw them over 400 years ago. They are named Io, Euro-
pa, Ganymede and Callisto in the order of their distance
from Jupiter. Even a simple photo like this suggests that
they are close to lying in the same plane and they do or-
bit in the same direction which in turn suggests possibili-
ties as to how and when they were formed.

For additional photos of Jupiter like these go to: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/

Use the orbital data separately of the two moons Ganymede and Callisto to (1) compute the mass of Jupiter. (2)
Compare your result to the published value for Jupiter’s mass as 1.8987 x 1027 kilograms. (3) Divide the Sun’s
mass above by your mass for Jupiter and compare your result to that listed in the table on page 21 of Unit 4.
(a) For Callisto, R = 1.8827 x 109 meters and P = 16.689 days = 1.4419 x 106 seconds.
 7

(b) For Ganymede, R = 1.070412 x 109 meters and P = 7.1545 days = 6.1815 x 105 seconds.
How did you do? We got 1.9313 x 1027 kilograms using Callisto’s data and 1.7859 x 1027 with Ganymede’s
data. That means we were within 3% of the published value with Callisto’s data but were off by 11% using Ga-
nymede’s data. We deliberately selected Ganymede and Callisto as they are the outermost of the Galilean
moons and have the least chance of interfering with each other. Remember that perturbations are “deviations”
from Newton’s Laws. We came closest with Callisto’s data. Could there be a reason for that?
The inner three Galilean moons are known to interact with each other and their respective orbits seem to be try-
ing to create harmonic 1:2:4 ratios. That could affect our calculations, as Newton’s Laws assume we are deal-
ing only with gravitational attraction and not “being bumped” by other objects. That becomes a good lead-in to
the topic called Perturbation. Notice that Callisto and Ganymede have orbits that are not that far apart and, if
the moons are perturbing each other, which data item would you assume would be the most affected―the pe-
riod or the orbital radius? It is important to know that as the orbital radius is “cubed” in the equations and the
period is only “squared.”
46. Precession. Most of us think we have a good sense of “how things are supposed to move” and if things are
not moving that way, either we are being tricked by a magician or there is some extra, or unknown, force push-
ing things around. By now you understand that rest and motion are relative, not absolute, terms in that the only
thing that is really happening when an object is “moving” is that it appears to be moving as measured within a
specific frame of reference. In another frame of reference it might not be moving at all. As soon as you start
asserting “it really is moving―it only appears to be at rest in that other frame,” then you do not understand
“uniform relative motion.”
But when we finally have an intuitive sense of how things are supposed to move, our judgment still mostly
works when things are moving at a constant speed in a steady direction. As soon as an object is in any way ac-
celerating, what we see does not always make sense as we are not used to making judgments in accelerating
frames of references.
Here are some common examples where our descriptive words do not match what is really happening. An ele-
vator starts downward very quickly and you claim for a few seconds you were lighter. Not so. Your weight
remained exactly the same as the Earth was attracting you with the same exact force, say 150 pounds. Yes, a
bathroom scale under your feet at the time would record a lesser value momentarily but that simply means your
feet were not pushing on the floor with the same intensity but that push is not your weight and you are confused
as you are making judgments from within an accelerating frame of reference―the few seconds before the eleva-
tor settled down to a constant speed where your personal judgment has more experience.
Grandpa is pushing the grand kids on a play ground merry-go-round. The speed becomes too much for Grand-
pa and he flies off the merry-go-round in a more-or-less straight line. To the children on the ride, Grandpa was
“pushed” off. Often the terms used are “by a centrifugal, or center repelling, force.” There was no force push-
ing Grandpa off but it was the momentary lack of a centripetal, or center seeking, force that allowed Grandpa to
move in the required straight line. The children were confused because they were making judgments from a
frame of reference that was accelerating.
That same affect becomes more pronounced when riding a fast rotating ride where the occupants stand against
the ride’s outside wall. When the rotation reaches the maximum safe speed the operators will allow, riders can
perceive that they are lying on the floor of something and the persons on the opposite side are somehow glued
to the ceiling. Again the riders describe the force that was pushing them against the wall when actually there
was no such force at all. Their perceptions were made within an accelerating frame of reference.
All these forces that observers want to supply to explain what they are experiencing, for lack of a better word
are called pseudo forces―they are not there.
 8

A pseudo force we sometimes have to recognize in astronomy, but has to be dealt with on a constant basis in
meteorology if you expect to make accurate weather predictions, is called the Coriolis Effect. Any of us who
have lived in one of several “tornado alleys” in the United States know that (a) tornados are typically driven by
weather forces in a west-to-east direction but (b) we go to the southwest corner of our basements as the tornado
will most likely pass over our house in a SW to NE direction, even though it is being pushed eastward. So what
force is pushing it northward as it moves eastward as required? There is no such force. The tornado is moving
eastward as required by the laws of physics but you are measuring its motion measured on the surface of the
Earth which is an accelerating frame of reference since the Earth rotates on its axis.
The straight arrow on the spinning globe represents a tornado that is try-
ing to satisfy the requirements of being pushed eastward. If that is sup-
posed to be straight line motion, the tornado would end up in outer space.
If the atmosphere later pulled it down to earth, since the tornado is part of
that atmosphere, it would find itself located south of the latitude from
which it started. “Moving eastward” on a spherical globe means moving
so that it intersects longitude lines in a perpendicular fashion at all times.
That means it is required to follow the curved path shown relative to the
surface of the Earth and it would find itself north of the latitude from
which it started, or tornados “driven” eastward travel in a SW to NE di-
rection relative to the surface of the Earth which accelerates by moving in
a circle.

One of the most fascinating toys, but complicated to explain, is the spin-
ning top or gyro. The novice to motion always wants to know “Why
doesn’t the gyro fall down since gravity (downward arrow) is pulling it
downward” or sometimes “What pushes it around the pivot?” The an-
swer to the last question is “There is no force pushing it around the pi-
vot.” A simple answer to the first question is “It is falling―it falls in a
circle like the Space Shuttle falls in a circle around the Earth.” Again,
the complexity of the motion is that all parts of the disk of the gyro are
accelerating as the parts are moving in a circle and constantly changing
directions.
First of all, gravity is not applying a force to the gyro but a torque, which is a force applied to the end of an arm
called a moment arm. If you have ever done any plumbing, you push down on the wrench but the pipe fitting
does not move down―it rotates. While a force pushes things in a line, a torque generates rotation.
Newton extended his Second Law to include the rate of change of angular velocity, or angular momentum, res-
ponding to an applied torque. He extended his Third Law to include conservation of angular momentum in the
absence of an applied torque.
So the gravitational torque tries to produce an increase in rotation directed into the page, so the gyro must pro-
duce an additional angular rotation directed into the page as required by Newton’s Second Law, all the while
the angular momentum around its axis (blue arrow) must remain constant as required by the Third Law. The
only way it can satisfy both requirements at once is to swing its axis of rotation so that it is directed more into
the page. The angular momentum around the spin axis is still the same but its direction has changed in response
to the applied torque. We saw something like this with the circular orbits of planets―they accelerate while
moving at constant speed in their orbits by changing the direction of their velocity. Here the gyro keeps its
angular velocity constant by changing its direction in response to the torque.
 9

If the gyro were spinning around its axis in the opposite direction, the same applied gravitational torque would
make the gyro’s spin axis move out of the page. The extra rotation of the gyro around the support pin is called
its Precession of Axes to distinguish it from the spin on its axes. Since there are only two directions the gyro
can spin on its axes, there are only two possible directions it can precess.
It should have been obvious that we are now discussing “things that spin” because the Earth spins, or turns, on
its axes. By now you understand the Celestial Sphere only seems to move around daily because the Earth is
spinning on its axis. Because the Earth is isolated in space, it continues, seemingly forever, orbiting the Sun
and spinning on its axes. So if the Earth’s angular momentum seems to go on and on, there must not be any tor-
ques on the Earth―or are there?

The Earth and Sun are shown at an exaggerated

scale. Presumably the Earth is at its perihelion
with its axis tilted toward the Sun. The Earth is
known to have a slight bulge at the equator.
That means the Sun pulls on that bulge with a
slightly larger force than at other latitudes so it
is attempting to rotate the Earth in the direction
of the red arrow. While conserving its angular
momentum around its spin axis, it responds to
the applied torque by tipping the direction of
angular momentum to produce the “change”
required by Newton’s Second Law.

If the blue line represents the Earth’s Equator, when the Earth
axis is tilted toward the Sun, the gravitational force on the Earth’s
bulge is trying to lift it up and into the orbital plane. The produc-
es a torque to increase its rotation out of the page represented by
the red arrow. 180 degrees around in its orbit, the Earth now has
its bulge above the orbital plane and gravity is trying to move it
down into the orbital plane and that again produces a torque to
increase its rotation in the same direction. Since the Earth is a
massive object, we cannot expect it to respond significantly to
each small influence, but receiving such a tiny “kick” year after
year, over many millennia the Earth would eventually develop a
precession of its axis of rotation.
Thought Question: Play with an apple as if it is the Earth with the stem as one of its spin axes. Have it tilted
while spinning. Then create a slight precession. Is there any way that the precession can cancel out the tilt of
the Earth for a long period time so that, for many millennia later, the Earth will have NO angle of tilt relative to
the orbital plane, so that life becomes fried at the Equator and everything above and below the Tropic latitudes
is frozen? Or can’t that happen because the two rotations are independent of each other?
 10

Once you learn that the precession of the Earth’s

axis takes about 25,771 years to make one complete
circle you may decide the preceding Thought Ques-
tion was irrelevant. That means it changes by
.01397 degrees or 50.28 seconds of arc per year.
The projected axis of the Earth is currently near and
approaching Polaris, which gives us a convenient
pole star for navigation. 6,000 years ago the Greeks
had their pole star Thuban, the alpha star in Dra-
co―that’s how far the axis has moved in that time.
In another 6,000 years people will probably be us-
ing a pole star in Cepheus.

Demonstration: The following is easier to see with a personal demonstration than trying to read it from a dia-
gram. Assuming you are willing to sacrifice the apple you used in the Thought Question above, shove a long
pencil through the apple from its “equator,” through the center and through its equator on the other side. A desk
lamp, or other object, could serve as the Sun. Hold the apple in front of you so that it and you are facing the
Sun. Tilt the stem axis of your “Earth” toward the Sun so that the Sun is shining on the Tropic of Cancer. Your
Earth is at the Summer Solstice, or in celestial terms, the Sun is at the Summer Solstice. The constellation that
is behind the Sun marks the spot for the Summer Solstice on the Celestial Sphere.
Allow your Earth to continue ¼ around its orbit while ignoring diurnal rotations of the planet. The constellation
behind the Sun marks the Autumnal Equinox. Memorize the Winter Solstice and Vernal Equinox positions rel-
ative to the desk lamp. Make several orbits holding the rotation axes fixed in space as if there is no such thing
as precession until you have memorized where everything is located.
Bring the apple back to your side of the Sun, or its original position. It is now 13,000 years later so tilt the axis
of your planet away from the Sun so that the Sun is now shining on the Tropic of Capricorn. It is now winter so
that the same constellation behind the Sun that marked the Summer Solstice is now marking the Winter Sols-
tice. Try to picture what things would look like after 26, 000 years and it should be clear that gradually over
time these four important points moved completely around the Celestial Sphere. What is not clear is which di-
rection they moved. Was that with increasing or decreasing right ascension? It entirely depends upon which of
two directions your planet is precessing.
Demonstration: Keep your Sun and your orbits the same as a mental picture. Rest your left elbow and arm on
the arm of your chair, extend your left arm vertical with your index finger pointing straight up and close your
eyes. Imagine Polaris is at your Zenith. Have your finger make the circle around Polaris as shown in the pre-
vious diagram, which, from the view from your elbow, your finger is making a counter-clockwise circle. Keep
the motion going until it is so natural you could reproduce it at any time.
Stop your precessing with your finger pointing straight up. Imagine your arm is at the extreme left of the solar
orbit you used before. Your arm straight up with the Sun off to the right means the Sun is shining equally on
your arm, or on your planet’s equator, and so it is spring time. Without doing any orbiting, lean your left arm
towards the Sun off to your right and imagine this is 6,000 years later and you have completed1/4 of the Polaris
circle you practiced. The Sun is now shining directly on your hand, or on your Tropic of Cancer, and so it is
now summer at the exact same orbital position. Where did the spring point go?
Without changing the angle of your arm, move back and forth along the solar orbit you used before until the
Sun is again shining on your equator and you should find that you had to go backward along your solar orbit to
 11

hit the spring point. That makes sense in that you would have to go through the spring point before the summer
point when orbiting naturally. The conclusion is the equinoxes precess by going through decreasing right
ascension.
Memory Device: Retrace your Polaris circles as you did before. This time allow your whole arm to rotate in
these circles, not just your finger, with the middle of your arm being the center of rotation, or fixed. While your
finger is tracing Earth’s precession on the Celestial Sphere, the tip of your elbow is tracing the Precession of the
Equinoxes on the Celestial Sphere. Now you can see why so many writer’s and texts will simply reference both
precessions as if they are the same thing.
As you allow your planet to assume a variety of tilts to represent years in between, it should be clear the Earth’s
equator changes its angle relative to the orbital plane as the years go by and so the Celestial Equator changes its
position relative to the background of fixed stars as well. That means the Precession of the Equinoxes is not
simply a circle through the Celestial Sphere but more of an s-shaped curve.
Respect for History: It is amazing that the ancients were able to track motions in the heavens when they had
very little of what we would recognize as sensitive instruments. Their ability to do this is a testament to the im-
portance of the concept of the background of fixed stars and the Celestial Sphere. In most cases, the back-
ground of fixed stars was a kind of grid paper for them on which they could plot things and then determine nu-
merically where things were located, or had changed location.
Eratosthenes, over 2,000 years ago, had access to star maps that were already 150 years old. He noticed what
he determined for the location of the Vernal Equinox was different then what they had recorded 150 years earli-
er. So he quickly became aware that the Equinoxes move, or are not fixed, and so was already aware of what
we call the Precession of the Equinoxes. While the ancients tracked them, there is no evidence they understood
what caused them until Isaac Newton explained what produces them in 1687 using his laws of motion.
We now know there are many factors that start, and then maintain, Earth’s precession. Our showing the Sun
and Earth so close, in the diagram above, to talk about torques on the Earth when it is orbiting, may have
sounded like a small, possible effect since the distance from Sun to Earth is around 93 million miles. It is now
understood that Earth interacts with the Moon for additional contributions to the Earth’s precession. The Earth
“bulging at the middle” alone can account for almost any force on the Earth producing a “twist” that affects the
rotational axis.
It makes one start to wonder that maybe it is the bulge that contributed to the Earth having its axis titled in the
first place and life and civilizations on Earth would not have come out the same with no axis tilt. Then what
produced the bulge in the first place? Could gravity have done that as well?
Thought Question: It is clear that without the Earth’s inclination of its spin axis relative to the orbital plane we
would not have seasons so (a) can the Precession of the Axes have any long term affect on the seasons? (b) For
that matter, if the tilt of the Earth’s axis had even a 100 change, would the affect on the seasons be good or bad
for us?
47. The warming of the earth. Some aspects of the warmth we experience on Earth are so obvious that the
ancients must have understood them even by using their terms and concepts. Obviously we would not be warm
without the Sun but what do we have when we have “warmth.” It will take another century beyond Newton to
even begin to understand “energy” and its various forms and whether light is a form of energy?
Everyone knows that it is colder in winter than in summer but what produces that effect? Earlier we suggested
that most people will say it is caused by the length of daylight.
Experiment: If it is winter, do this on a bright sunny day near a window, otherwise do it outside on a sunny
day. Hold a sensitive part of your body (stomach, underarms, etc.) so that its surface makes an extreme, even
 12

1800, angle with the Sun so that it is lighted completely by the Sun but at an extreme angle relative to the sur-
face. You should not notice any discomfort or significant warming.
Now repeat the experiment with the Sun’s rays make a 900 angle with that same body surface. You should start
feeling very uncomfortable in a short time. That demonstrates that the amount of warming (that is, heat) any
surface receives is a function, not only of the atmosphere being clear so that Sun is bright, but also the angle
that the Sun’s rays make with the surface.

If Em is the maximum energy per square inch that the Sun can deliver to any
surface at this season of the year and with today’s weather, the energy per
square inch E that the Sun delivers to that area when it is incident to that area
by an angle Θ can be shown to be E = Em Cosine(Θ). The Cosine of an angle is
to 1 at 00 and is equal to zero at 900. That means the Sun delivers the maximum
energy it can when it shines directly down on a service and virtually no energy when
it shines at a grazing angle to that surface.

Exercise: Here is your chance to review the relationship between earthly coordinates and celestial coordinates
discussed in Unit 2. Show that the following equation is valid for viewers in the Northern Hemisphere at 12
noon where the Sun reaches its maximum altitude. If δ is the declination of the Sun or a star as measured on
the Celestial Sphere and φ is the northern latitude of the observer and α is the altitude determined by that ob-
serve, then these variables satisfy the following equation in the Northern Hemisphere.

α = 90 − φ+ δ
Imagine that the Sun is directly overhead the Tropic of Capricorn so that the declination of the Sun is -23.50 and
you make observations at the Tropic of Cancer whose latitude is +23.50. This is winter for you and summer for
the folks down there. By the above equation, you would observe the Sun at 12 noon to have an altitude of 350.
That means that the Sun’s rays make an angle of 55 degrees relative to the vertical at your location. The Cosine
of 55 degrees is 0.5736 so that means your location would be receiving about 50% of the maximum possible
energy you could receive from the Sun at that season. Even if we could magically stretch your typical 12 hour
winter day into an 18 hour winter day, as in summer, that wouldn’t help much as the Sun has an even much
lower altitude angles during its rise and set times. So, most of the Sun’s energy unavailable during winter
comes mostly from the low altitude of the Sun and less because of the length of daylight.
I received an intuitive reminder of this affect when a friend had an experience that I would have loved to have.
This person accepted a job on the Alaska Pipeline above the Arctic Circle and experienced The Land of the
Midnight Sun. Even with the Sun above the horizon for 24 hours, day after day, the weather was still extremely
cold as the Sun merely went around in a circle barely above the horizon.
48. The Sun and Climate. It should be clear by now that the Sun has a profound effect on what we typically
call “climate.” If you are used to living in the Northern Hemisphere, you typically think that spring and sum-
mer are those seasons when the Sun finally comes back again and shines directly overhead. Since the Sun
passes over the equator twice a year, does that mean there are two summers there a year? If you like gardening
you know that the plants you select have to be carefully chosen for your climate. What would a perennial plant
do in a region with two summers? Even our plants evolved specifically to live in a well established climate. So
what would happen if any of those astronomical rhythms we are used to would gradually change?
If the obliquity of the ecliptic were made 10° greater, what would be the effect upon the seasons in the tempe-
rate zones? What if it became 10° less? That would occur if the angle between the Earth’s rotation angle and
the plane of the orbit changed.
 13

Does the precession of the equinoxes have any effect upon the seasons or upon the climate of different parts of
the earth? In order to decide, you have to stop and think what astronomical observables actually produce the
seasons.
If the axis of the earth pointed toward Arcturus instead of Polaris, would the seasons be any different from what
they are now? That could happen in the next 6,000 years.
49. The atmosphere. While astronomers seem to spend most of their time studying the nighttime sky, it is not
surprising how many of the most beautiful things we can encounter in the sky occur during the daytime and
have astronomical explanations. This tradition probably stems from the ancients being somewhat mystified
about the nighttime sky while the daytime sky was for agrarian and common folks to ponder. It was for them to
know when, where and what happened in the daytime sky so they could make plans with their crops and ani-
mals and most of the daytime rhythms became commonly expected.
One cannot even begin to explain what is happening, or what one sees, in the daytime sky without understand-
ing what the atmosphere really is. It wasn’t until nearly 200 years after Isaac Newton that we began to under-
stand that the atmosphere is made up of tiny things called molecules and atoms, and that light was a form of
energy and begin to understand how these molecules and atoms interact with energy.
One of the simplest things that Isaac Newton discovered began immediately to make some sense of what we see
in the daytime sky, and a couple centuries later, that discovery proved to be extremely helpful in further under-
standing what stars are made of and how they produce the light and energy that they do.
In 1672, Isaac Newton published the result of experiments he
had been doing with glass prisms. He showed that a prism
would separate a beam of light into individual colors. He was
demonstrating in way, that these colors were component parts
of the nature of white light as he could also put the colors
back together producing the light as white again. In addition,
he showed that the degree of “bending” of the light was
greater for blue and violet light compared to red light.
Newton demonstrated that one can proceed scientifically even you do not fully understand the nature of what
you are working with. His experiments with different materials demonstrated that this effect was a property of
the transparent materials themselves by showing that the amount of bending was different for different mate-
rials. What he was working with would later be defined numerically as the index of refraction and is typically
designated with the letter “n.” The index of refraction is now defined so that materials that do not bend, or re-
fract, light have n = 1. Air has an index barely over 1, and on this scale, diamond has an index of refraction
greater than 2, one of the highest for any material. Part of the reason diamond is so valuable is because, as a
gem, it reflects, refracts and scatters colors more than any other gem and is immediately noticed by envious ob-
servers.
Newton clearly showed that how much light is refracted or bent depends upon the color of the light. If light
somehow has a color number “c,” we could say that Newton demonstrated that n=n(c), or that the index of re-
fraction was function of, or depended upon, the color of the light. Two hundred years later, when we unders-
tood that light is associated with a wave phenomenon and, like any wave, has a specific wave length λ, we can
then write n=n(λ), and use this as our color number.
This property of refraction became one of the most powerful astronomical tools when we finally learned that
different materials, such as hydrogen and helium, emit uniquely different colors of light and can actually use
Newton’s discoveries to determine what stars are made from and how they produce the light they do.
 14

Newton’s further publications on the subject made optics a specialty for many scientists who came after New-
ton. Without showing Newton really being wrong, they showed that how light is actually bent or refracted de-
pends not merely on the material but light is always passing from one medium to another and depends upon
both such medium as well as the initial angle that light makes with the boundaries.
In its simplest and most direct form, refraction follows a principle known as
Snell’s Law. Light typically passes from one medium to another and makes
an incident angle Θ1 with the normal in the first medium and makes an angle
Θ2 with the normal in the second medium. The relationship between the in-
dices of refraction of the two media satisfies:
n1 / n2 = Sin(Θ1) / Sin(Θ2)
When the first medium is a vacuum, or air, we can assume n1 = 1 and have a
way of determining the second medium’s index specifically as:

n2 = Sin(Θ2) / Sin(Θ1)

So, in a sense Newton was correct. The index of refraction does depend upon the medium but it is not a simple
as that. When the same medium is on both sides of the boundary, the light beam does not refract at all as the
first equation shows, so its behavior is determined by more than just the medium itself. So we would have to
say that the amount of bending, or refraction, that occurs is a function of the medium, the incident angle and the
wavelength of the light.
Without Newton’s work on optics we would never understand a
beautiful sunset. Even when the Sun is still visible, it is redder
than at the zenith. The atmosphere is an optical medium and re-
fracts the blue light downward at a steeper angle than the red and
is aimed for regions of the planet below the horizon. Hence most
of the light that reaches is the remaining red light. At times the
Sun can be seen on the horizon for a few minutes after it has offi-
cially set. In that case, a complete image of the Sun has been re-
fracted over the horizon to be viewed by us who are well above the
horizon line.

One sighting in a daytime sky occurs so seldom at my local latitude that when it does occur I have to stop what-
ever I am doing, even stop the automobile I am driving, and “take it in” because it may be a long time before I
 15

see it again. It occurs more often in desert climates so I call in an Arizona Sky. There are no clouds, no Sun or
Moon to obliterate the perfect color of blue. It is perfectly clear near the zenith and slightly darker at the hori-
zon.
While Newton’s work in optics is used to explain what we are seeing, that could not be done until nearly 200
years after Newton when we recognize that light is a form of energy, red light is a lower energy form than blue
light and the atoms in the atmosphere can more easily absorb lower energy forms than higher ones. That leads
to an understanding some of the red light is absorbed by the atoms while the blue light bounces off, or is scat-
tered, by these atoms.
Near the zenith, as much blue light is scattered away from us as light scattered towards us so the blue at the ze-
nith is extremely uniform. At the horizon we see only the light that is scattered toward us. We do not see the
light scattered away from us so the horizon is slightly darker.
Then there is the question of why should we see any light at all as there is no moon or sun above the horizon.
Clearly the atmosphere has its own index of refraction and can bend the light around the curvature of the Earth
and then scatter it for us to see.
Refraction plays a role even when we are viewing the night time sky. The images of distant stars are so distant
that the light beams that arrive at our atmosphere are very narrow and constricted in area and so minute fluctua-
tions in conditions of the atmosphere make those images flutter, or twinkle, and even change color. So there is
a simple rule to quickly determine a bright star from one of the larger planets. The stars twinkle and the planets
do not. I have lost track of the times that a walking companion mistook the star Arcturus for the planet Venus
as they can both be low in the sky at sunset, especially in late fall. Venus does not twinkle! Arcturus does.
Just when you think that every phenomenon in the daytime sky can be explained with astronomy, one very
common observation defied any astronomical explanation for centuries―that the Moon seems to be bigger
when it is on the horizon.

For additional Moon Images go to: http://science.nasa.gov/

 16

Attempts to explain the phenomenon using astronomy typically involved treating the optical properties of the
horizon atmosphere as some sort of magnifying glass. All such explanations were always later showed to be
false or contradictory until, after many papers on the subject, it gradually became understood as a perceptual, or
psychological, effect.
An artist would say “Highlights advance and shadows recede” as a principle they learned in drawing and paint-
ing. (The horizon typically is darker.) A biologist would say “As humans evolved, their survival depended on
their ability to judge distances on the horizontal plane (presumably to the nearest tree). Unlike the birds, our
survival did not depend on our abilities to judge heights above the plane and so we do not judge all three dimen-
sions the same.”
Nothing had been done to establish oral ideas into scientific observation, with quantification, until 1962 when
two psychologists, Rock and Kaufman set up an experiment, of all places, on the top of a New York skyscraper.
The built a special optical device that allowed their test subjects to dial down an aperture until it just touched the
outside edges of the Moon. A scale on the device showed that, within a statistical range, all subjects perfectly
agreed on the exact size of the Moon no matter how, or in which direction, they were viewing it.
Their optical instrument then allowed each subject to view a horizon moon projected near the zenith and a ze-
nith moon projected onto the horizon and combinations in between. In all cases their subjects reported that the
horizon moon looked bigger as long as they thought it was on the horizon―even when it was not. Their sum-
mary is so simple most people have to read it twice to even understand how it can be that simple. Because we
perceive the horizon as farther away while the Moon is the same size on our retinas, the only way an ob-
ject can be seen as the same size while farther away is the object must be bigger. Did you get it the first
time?
We are taking the time to discuss “colors of light beams,” because working with light and its colors can almost
be a full time job with any astronomer today doing research on stars and the universe. It is important to know
precisely why we see what we do if what we are seeing will tell us anything about the universe at all.
If you asked anyone who may have covered this topic in elemen-
tary school, “What makes a rainbow?” they typically will answer
that the water vapor in the air acts as a prism, dividing the white
light into colors that we see. That raises more questions than it
answers. (a) Why does your eye just happen to line up with the
colors, yet if you stoop down, move to the left or the right you
still see that rainbow? That many colored light beams in that
many different directions is known as white light. (b) Why are
some rainbows upside down with blue on the top and red on the
bottom? Photograph the next upside down rainbow you see as
they are the least common.
My region of the world produces a typical scenario for producing a rainbow. We are hammered by a summer
thunder storm all afternoon. Just at the sun is about to set near evening, the storm breaks by moving off to the
east, leaving a very dark wall of clouds in the east with the sun shining on that wall from the west and a rainbow
appears. Even people who are not so mystical to believe that a rainbow was created to signify the end of Noah’s
flood, or the end of the black plague in Europe, will say “That is a sign that the storm is ending.” What about
the follow up storm just below the western horizon? They are at least partially correct in that you need that dark
wall to even see a rainbow as a rainbow consists of a very dim beam of light. As a result you miss more possible
rainbows than you might see, making it seem as a rare occurrence and something special.
 17

The dark wall to the east contains water droplets that are not quite big enough to
fall as rain but there are many droplets about the same size and the sun shines on
them from the west. To the west of the wall the droplets are smaller and hence do
not represent potential rain, or the storm has cleared. White light from the sun re-
flects off the back side of the droplets and is refracted into the familiar band of col-
ors when it exits your side of the droplet. Note that the most natural primary rain-
bow you should encounter has blue on the top. Allow the colored lines inside the
droplet to reflect off the inside surface then reflect off the rear surface again, and
finally refracting out the front side. That rainbow would have red on the top as a
secondary rainbow. So if you have never noticed a primary rainbow, with blue on
the top, it is because you were not in the required position but it was there.

The angle of refraction the colored beam of light makes between you and the Sun is typically 420. If you sweep
your finger across the sky, as if you are pointing to all those droplets that can satisfy that condition, you will see
that you are “painting” the arch of the rainbow you saw. So it is your position that forms, or determines, the
bow. That means the person standing next to you who claims to have seen the same rainbow is incorrect. That
person is using a different collection of water droplets. So now, if you want to get mystical, you are the only
human being on the earth seeing that exact rainbow formed from those beams of light, and if someone is dis-
placed a considerable distance from you they would report there was no rainbow at all as they were located well
beyond any possible 420 angle. So one person says “there is a rainbow” and another person says “there is no
rainbow” and they both are correct. I wonder how many other things in life are that way.
Summary: In this unit we took the time to show how Newton’s Laws can be used to tell us a few things about
this planet we live on and its relationship to other objects in the solar system. That is important so that we un-
derstand that our planet belongs to a family of objects that interact with each other. If you decided above that
the precession of the Earth’s equinoxes has no permanent impact on the tilt of the Earth’s spin axis, then you
suggested that the Earth is a “tough old bird” that can get banged around by other objects in the universe and
continue to do the same old thing necessary for our survival.
We also started this unit mentioning that the Earth is a beautiful place to live. That observation alone would
justify discussing the atmosphere as that is part of the day to day beauty we encounter. Some of the beauty of
the Earth lies in its uniqueness. Imagine having the 65 moons of Jupiter rising and setting each night. How ro-
mantic would that be? Would we have a poem and a song for each one of them?
We also spent a considerable amount of time on the earth’s atmosphere as it certainly will explain a lot about
what we are seeing when we “look up,” whether at night time or day time, and if planets and stars have atmos-
pheres we need to understand atmospheres as well. Finally, we are living in a time where many people are sug-
gesting the seemingly smallest things we do, like what fluids we use in our air conditioners, can have serious
and long term effects upon our atmosphere and we cannot make a serious judgment on such things without first
understanding them.

If you do a search on the Internet specifying videos and include in your search both the name of the video and
the channel that produced the video, if the video is more than two years old you can often watch it on YouTube,
or elsewhere, as a complete, 45 minute video without commercials.

Planets―The Sun – Science and Discovery Channels

Birth of the Earth―National Geographic
The Planets― How the Earth Was Made―History Channel