This spring I am assigned to work with the Peregrine School 3-4
graders on astronomy, and last Friday was my first day, so I started
with basics like how we know the Earth spins. We tend to feel
superior to people in the past who believed that the Sun went around
the Earth but, really, how can you use basic observations to show that
it doesn't? I suspect that most people on the street would be stumped
by this if I didn't allow "satellites" or "NASA" as an answer.
If we only had the observation that the Sun rises and sets every 24
hours, we wouldn't be able to conclude anything. Each star also rises
and sets in roughly (later we'll see why I say roughly) 24 hours, so
based on pure majority rule, it might be easy to attribute the
apparent motion of the Sun and stars to Earth spinning. This model
invokes only one thing (Earth) moving, vs the other model invokes a
grand conspiracy of everything else in the universe circling us at an
agreed-upon rate of once every 24 hours. Sounds like a no-brainer,
but why don't we feel Earth moving?
The kids had lots of ideas in response to this question. It moves so
slowly we can't feel it? No, its circumference is about 24,000 miles
so if it spins in 24 hours its equator must move 1,000 mph. It moves
so quickly we can't feel it? Gravity? Centrifugal force? It's so big
we don't feel it move? There were so many ideas about this that I
decided to explore Galilean relativity: if you are in a laboratory
moving at constant velocity, there is no experiment you can do to
prove you are not actually stationary. Think about a smooth flight in
an airplane. If you drop something does it fly backward, indicating
that you are actually traveling at 500 mph? No, it falls straight
down. Unless you look out the window, you can't tell that you're
moving---there is NO experiment which will tell you this. If you do
look out the window, all you can conclude is that you are moving
relative to Earth...there is no experiment you can do that says Earth
is stationary and you are the one who is moving.
This was a pretty new and shocking idea for the kids, so we spent a
long time discussing it. I remembered a great video I had seen
demonstrating one aspect of this, so I sketched it out and asked them
to predict what would happen. Say you have a pitching machine which
shoots baseballs at 100 mph, but you mount this machine in the back of
a pickup truck which goes 100 mph the other way. What will the ball's
speed be, relative to people on the ground? 200 mph? 100 mph? Zero?
We analyzed this until break time, then after break I showed them the
video. Mythbusters also did a similar thing, which you can see much more clearly.
The bottom line is that velocities are relative. So if everything in
your vicinity is moving together at the same speed, it can all be
considered stationary. This applies to your vicinity on Earth:
although Earth's rotation causes different parts of Earth to move in
different directions and speeds, the part that you experience at any
one time is so small that to high precision it's all moving at the
same speed in the same direction. (When winds move air over hundreds
of miles, that air does eventually feel the effect of Earth's
rotation, the Coriolis effect.)
So not feeling Earth's spin is not a valid argument that it must be
still. But how do we prove it spins? The Coriolis effect is one way,
but I considered that too advanced for this audience. Instead, I
explained the Foucault pendulum, which many of them had seen but
probably didn't realize the significance at the time.
Next, we tackled Earth's motion through space. Spinning is not enough
to explain all our observations, because the stars rise and set every
day slightly faster than the Sun, which means that over time the Sun
loses more and more ground to the stars, and over the course of a year
we see the Sun make one complete circle around the sky relative to the
stars. What could explain this? Well, maybe the Sun does go around
Earth, in addition to Earth spinning. But maybe the Earth goes around
the Sun. How could we tell the difference? I'll get to the bottom of
that next time I visit the school, but for the time being I wanted to
focus on other changes throughout the year and tie them all together
into a coherent model. I'll post that part of our discussion soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment