This question reveals one of the more complex and difficult conceptual problems with this, or any, scientific field: combining facts with human interpretations. Consider which of the elements of this question are facts regardless of the way we describe them - Earth goes around the sun, and also rotates around its own internal axis, and exists in a four-dimensional reality that includes time. However, getting more precise than this requires a system of measurement, which is completely arbitrary. We could choose to describe the Earth's orbit in banana-lengths if we wanted to, and it would still be valid.
The problem identified here is one of the cases where an arbitrary human choice seems to conflict with the data that we can't easily observe from our position on the surface of Earth. It's easier if we imagine ourselves in space, looking at Earth from "above."
The problem is that what we consider to be "a day" is not the time it takes Earth to rotate once on its own axis. If this was the way we defined a day, then it's true that you'd experience different times of day at different points of the year, such as noon being nighttime in the winter.
Earth rotates around its axis in the same direction that it orbits the sun. This means that every time Earth completes one rotation (called a sidereal day), it must rotate slightly more in order to face the sun again. This time period (one rotation plus a little extra) is what we commonly call a day (or more formally, a solar day). Thus, if we were being purely scientific, the confusing thing is not the way in which Earth rotates, but the way in which humans choose to acknowledge and record it.
No comments:
Post a Comment