If the Earth didn't rotate, then the camera would stay where you pointed it, and a three hour exposure would look just like a 1/60 second exposure except that everything would be a lot brighter.The fact that the Earth does rotate is a problem in astrophotography. To get long exposures, it's necessary to mount the telescope on a motorized base turning in the opposite direction to counteract the rotation of the Earth and keep the camera pointed at the same star for the entire length of the exposure ... if you don't, you get "trails" as the stars move across the camera's field of view. (Though really it's the camera that's doing most of the moving ... the stars are moving, but they're so far away that it takes a lot more than three hours for them to move noticeably.)
The simple answer would be that the stars would all be in the same place, because the Earth wasn't rotating.
A more thorough answer would be "EVERYTHING is rotating, so if you say "not rotating", you're saying 'not rotating as compared to some other object'".
And, if the Earth wasn't rotating, all the atmosphere would freeze and condense on the night side of the planet. We'd all die.
200,000 rpms
It is too high in the sky, given it's position near the North Celestial Pole (the North Star), It appears to rotate around the North Star, and in midwestern American latitudes it never dips below the horizon.
I take it that the NCP is sending payments to the agency and the CP is returning those payments to the NCP. This doesn't appear to violate any law.
No, because then you could manipulate its unique way of distributing robots.
They can be classified according to whether they rotate or not; their electrical charge; but especially their mass.
The stars would be brighter points of light. Without the Earth's rotation, the Earth would not be moving enough to create the lines of light that ordinarily appear in an uncorrected stationary time exposure. Depending on the clarity of the sky, the entire image could be grayed by scattered light (light pollution).
The stars would be brighter points of light. Without the Earth's rotation, the Earth would not be moving enough to create the lines of light that ordinarily appear in an uncorrected stationary time exposure. Depending on the clarity of the sky, the entire image could be grayed by scattered light (light pollution).
it would still appear to rotate
it would still appear to rotate
The photograph would record far more stars, nebulae, and galaxies than the naked eye could see. There are many thousands of such photographs to be seen on the web. Any camera capable of long exposures with an equatorial mount and a clock drive could create such a photograph. A clock drive, which turns the right ascension axis of the mount at the speed of a hour hand (hence the name), counteracts the rotation of the Earth.
sbd sqhjkqwhuih
On its side.
polaris...
In the Northern Hemisphere, when facing North, towards the Pole Star (Polaris) Ursa Major and surrounding constellations, rotate counter-clockwise (right to left).Turn round to face south (with Polaris behind you) the stars rotate clockwise (left to right).
Not just the big dipper but all of the stars appear to rotate around the North Star because Earth is rotating. The North Star does not appear to move because it is in line with Earth's axis of rotation.
It's an illusion caused by the actual rotation of the earth.
Well, if you think about it, one is a consequence of the other. If you lie down on the ground and rotate (roll) west to east, everything around you that isn't moving will appear to you to rotate east to west (left to right if your head is pointing north).