If there is no such thing as perpetual motion, how do you explain Brownian motion?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

There is such a thing as perpetual motion, but not in our 'ordinary' observable surroundings. Brownian motion is simply any matter suspended in a fluid being 'shoved around' by the vibrating energy of the molecules in the fluid. That molecular motion is, in fact, perpetual motion but it only occurs at the molecular level. That's my understanding anyway.

moving molecules...also known as heat. which will eventually slow down according to the law of entropy

(not that this has anything to do with KBGS!)

"how do you explain Brownian motion"?

Brown's mother gave him a pogo stick for Christmas??

Chris, you are correct. This has nothing to do with KBGS, and I did consider that before I posted. However , it is difficult to think of anything new re. KBGS, and I took into account the fact that a very large percentage of the postings also have nothing to do with KBGS. I thought I could take that liberty. I appreciate that it was a very gentle chastisement and I am not upset in any way. I thought that that the forum could (and did) allow postings on any subject, provided the contributor was a KBGS "old boy".
Having said that, both my "think about" postings were made partly facetiously, but partly in the hope of stimulating some interesting replies. The Brownian motion post wasn't well thought out in retrospect. I am still hoping for reactions from "old boy" sailors (and surely there must be many)on my "sailboat" post. A similar post on the "West Wight Potter" site provided many months of amusing arguments and misconceptions.
Some of the posts made are mildly interesting, but, frankly, in my opinion, some are mind numbingly boring. All are painfully politically correct. I have been hoping that since, presumably, most "old boys" were considered to be "more inteligent kids" (to be selected for KBGS in the first place), there might be some free thinkers out there. If there are, it would seem that they are intimidated by the Simon Whitwams of the site. Explosive questions, or explosive thoughts, on such subjects as religion, abortion, gun control, war, capital punishment, must be avoided at all costs.
I fully expect to be berated for this post, to be told that, if I don't like the site, to "bugger off". Sadly, I may have to follow that advise.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

Correction....."advice".

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

Bernard, I kept out of posting a reply for two reasons: Firstly, I thought you were seeking help with your homework (why would I think that?); secondly, I had no ideas for an answer; thirdly; I'm innumerate.

I'm interested in Chris's comment ("not that this has anything to do with KBGS!") as webmaster and de iure arbiter.
Well, Chris, I am sure that was made in light mood and was taken as so. We don't have a constitution or a book of rules and if anything posted by an Old Keighlian interests/informs/amuses me (sounds like the BBC Charter!) I'll read it.Bernard goes a bit OTT when he claims the site requires postings to be PC - nevertheless I wouldn't wish the site to become a vehicle for some of the issues he lists or for him to stop posting his provocations. I must comment that new "substance" for the Forum is often in sparse supply and I agree it is occasionally outre (or at least eccentric)- but I like to read it. It comes from a source of once common interest. I think a principal cause of the shortage of new postings is an unwillingness by the majority of "silent readers" to post their own recollections and views. It is clear that such "institutions" as this site and the biennial reunion will one day cease "faut de combattants". (There were a few deaths of Old Keighlians recorded at the last reunion. Would you like your prime anecdote to go to the grave with you - untold?)I believe there is no such thing as an irrelevant recollection or posting - and that we should all encourage all the Old Keighlians we know and meet to visit and contribute to this excellent site.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

my throwaway comment had no serious, tangential or hidden meaning, so need no need to worry about off-topic topics. especially now that the forum service provider no longer has any limit on the number of posts.

so in conclusion -- there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine

just to add...

considering it's 40-60 years since most of the old boys went to KBGS, it's amazing how much material does get posted/contributed!

and a reunion still happens on a regular basis.

not many other schools could boast such loyalty and enduring interest among he alumni (certainly not my own school)

The entropy (order, disorder) in an isolated system increases until it reaches a state of equilibrium. And the universe is an isolated system.

Talking about equilibrium Trevor, what is your opinion on a Penfolds Shiraz St Henri '02?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

Theoretically, the universe is moving toward maximum disorder. When (if) it reaches this state, and if the universe is an isolated system, all objects will have the same temperature.

At that point I guess Brownian motion ceases: molecules have so little energy, if indeed molecules can still exist in maximum disorder.

One could argue that quantum jitters are perpetual motion of some kind.

The Penfold's St Henri Shiraz (any year) would go down very nicely right now, but doubt I'd get one for less that $50Aus. It'd have to be a special occasion.

And yes, when the universe reaches the state of equilibrium there would be a state of 'silent nothing'. However, we shouldn't forget gravity which will likely pull all matter together into one (or several for that matter, pardon the pun) huge black hole (or would it be tiny?). See you all there no doubt.

Brownian Motion is a fascinating concept. The molecular activity in a liquid derives from heat and the more heat is applied the more vigorous the excitation hence boiling water, of course. Since it relies on an input of heat, whether that is applied to the liquid or it acquires it incidentally from the surrounding atmosphere, is irrelevant the activity /motion relies on an input of energy therefore it does not qualify as perpetual motion.
I am a little unsure of this following but I always understood that molecular excitation due to heat is present also in solids, although perhaps not as obvious as it is in liquids, and that such activity only ceases when Absolute Zero is achieved. In fact this is probably a definition of Absolute Zero.
Those of you who care to remember your Physics will remember Boyles Law and the equation P1 V1 over T1 = P2 V2 over T2 and using this equation required turning degrees Centigrade into degrees Absolute by adding 270, mind you examiners were dead cunning sometimes and gave you the temperature in degrees Fahrenheit which involved changing that to Centigrade and thence to Absolute.
It is a quirk of probability that since with molecular excitation all the molecules in an object are shooting around in different directions and colliding with each other the object remains static but there is a probability of something like a googol to one that the molecules would all move in the SAME direction at a given moment in which case the said object would appear to rise of its own volition if that movement were upwards. Now this does not mean that it will happen today or tomorrow or in a million years but it is possible and probable, indeed it may well be occurring all the time which would explain the apparently mysterious movement of objects and how did that cup fall off the table I’m sure I left it safe type situations.

Well, kind of............The generally accepted view is that the universe itself has an average teperature of approximately 2.7K. This would imply that Brownian motion would exist no matter where in the universe you happened to be. (i.e. there would be at least some temperature, and therefore, Brownian motion). So, Brownian motion would only cease if you actively interfered to reduce the temperature to zero. Therefore it will exist as long as the universe has any temperature at all. There are many theories on the nature of the universe. Quote "in an expanding universe, the value of maximum entropy increases faster than the universe gains entropy, causing the universe to move progressively farther away from heat death". In this case there will always be some temperature, consequently there will always be Brownian motion.
Regarding motion in solids, yes there is.
Your mention of a googol Arthur is interesting. The term was coined by Isaac Asimov when he was thinking of ways to describe very large numbers. His story is that his baby son was making baby sounds, one of which sounded like "googol", so he thought that was as good a name as any. For those who haven't looked it up yet, googol is 10 to the power 100. To go further, googolplex is googol to the power googol (more than Lipton has tea leaves!).
Asimov has a gift for explaining very difficult subjects to the layman. His explanation of what a transistor is is a masterpiece. Try to find his short essay "Happy birthday transistor".

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

There is translational motion and vibrational motion in molecules & atoms. The translational motion is what we seem to be discussing here and which changes with temperature changes. The vibrational motion of molecules & atoms never ceases - not even at Absolute Zero. Perpetual motion!!
I take issue too with the statement that all molecules moving in one direction at the same time is:
.."possible and probable". Yes, it's possible but the word probable is a worry.
I quote here from 'The Ascent of Science' by Brian L. Silver.
'The number of molecules in a modestly sized room is about 10,000 trillion trillion trillion. It follows that the chances of all the molecules being on your side of the room is about 1/2 multiplied by itself 10,000 trillion trillion trillion times.'
I'd say that makes it highly highly highly IMprobable.

Now there's a coincidence - the CODE I have to enter to send this message is - HEAT! Spooky!!

Hi Trevor. Interesting semantics: probable/improbable.
For me if a thing is possible and the liklihood of it happening can be quantified, however roughly, then it has mathematical probability and is hence 'probable'. I suppose if the mathematical probability is very low it can be defined as improbable but then that requires that the point at which an event which can happen stops being defined as probable and become improbable. A line has to be drawn somewhere and rather than do that I accept that mathematically if a thing is possible then the liklihood of it happening is probable and then go on to define , however roughly, the degree of probability. But I am probably wrong. .
When I defined the degree of probability of it happening as a about a googol to one I was declaring a very low probability and the googol was used to express the lowness of that probability rather than it being an exact calculation. I think by the way that it was the young nephew of Kasner who came up with the word during a visit by his uncle to his class in New York during a snow storm and the children were asked how many snow flakes were falling on New York at that moment.But then it could have been Asimov.

This is a good article indirectly about the subject.

It would seem no Brownian motion once (if) we reach the Photon Age.

Current location (optional) Singapore

It seems that my original, somewhat facetious, post, has developed into a fairly interesting thread. Even though the Brownian motion part seems to pretty much had all the juice sucked out, I don't see a clear and convincing argument against perpetual motion. I for one, am prepared to concede the possibility.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

Bernard you have to guard against misunderstanding the notion of perpetual motion. The argument usually centres around the possibility or not of a perpetual motion machine which can be used to do work. This means that we get more out than we put in. This would mean a serious fracture of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Now where it is possible that the two laws are in fact incorrect all our logic and experience and the uses to which they have been put indicate that they are very probably correct. If they prove to be incorrect then this would involve the whole of our understanding of physics to be rethought.
However that molecules continue to vibrate even at Absolute Zero may well be true but since we have never achieved that low a temperature we cannot really know or again in a completely empty Newtonian universe, a single particle could travel forever at constant velocity with no violation of the laws of physics so we might be able to say, in both cases that they are perpetually in motion. However this is a different aspect of perpetual motion, they are in fact, theoretic and impractical and useless.

"This means that we get more out than we put in."
Being a Yorkshireman, that would be wonderful. But, I have to reluctantly agree it isn't possible. I fully understood the "machine" part and agree that we will never achieve such a machine. My original post was tongue in cheek, and was just meant to stimulate discussion, which it has done!
I am fascinated however with the notion of "free" energy (I love a bargain!). I love the idea of harnessing wave energy, hydrogen, and of course sunlight. (I think that sunlight can generate in the order of 1hp per square yard...). Wind and geothermal energy is not quite as romantic to me. Let's forget oil, coal, biofuel, as inefficient and (in the case of biofuel), impractical.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

My definition (and I stress MY definition) of probable is that something is MORE likely to happen than not. Improbable then means something is LESS likely to happen than happen. But I'm sure this definition will not be adopted by any of the authoratative dictionaries.

'..theoretic and impractical and useless...'

Mmm, Luigi Galvani's contemporaries said that when he made frog's legs twitch. I've also heard it said - 'what practical use is a new born baby'

Trevor . On reflection your definition seems a good working one. Let us say that where the probability is more than 0.5 it is probable and where it is less than 0.5 it is improbable. Which only leaves us with the case where the probability is exactly 0.5.

Fair enough - that's probably improbable - er, no it isn't it's er.....?? Dunno!

With all this talent about, perhaps someone can answer the conundrum which I heard at school and have never heard since----Why is a mouse when it is spinning ?
The answer was ---Because the higher the fewer---
For the life of me I can see no logic in this,but was led to believe there is. Anyone know or remember this ?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 41/46

Current location (optional) Isle of Man

Peter, I doubt very much that you will receive a reasoned response to your question/answer conundrum. There used to be several 'nonsense' questions/puzzles around during our school years, the only one of which, I remember is -"How many beans make five? The answer to this was given as-" a bean and a half, a bean and a half, half a bean and a bean and a half". Rivetting stuff!!

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 45-50

Current location (optional) Keighley

My dad used to ask "how long is a piece of string?".
He wor fair capped when I gave him a good answer. Anybody got an answer?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

Speaking of nonsense, this non sequitur is mind boggling............
"Monsieur, (a+bn)/n=x, donc Dieu existe: repondez!"
Euler to Diderot.
Diderot didn't reply, no doubt struck dumb at the irrelevance, and fled. Maybe he thought Euler was mad.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

No,David, it is two beans ,a bean, a bean and a half, and half a bean. It rolls off th.e tongue better

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 41/46

Current location (optional) Isle of Man

Thankyou Peter. Variations on a theme, I think. To Bernard I say "twice the length of half of it". Or can there be yet another 'variation'?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 45-50

Current location (optional) Keighley

One I like to ask folk, and they really have to think about it before they realise it's nonsense is:

What would you rather be or a wasp?

The answer was that it is not altogether nonsense - properly it should go: How is a mouse when it spins? - The higher, the fewer. And the meaning had to do with the centrifugal governor on an old steam engine – the weight was called the mouse, and as the engine rpm increased the mouse would rise due to centrifugal force. But as the mouse rose, the arm would force the steam valve in the more closed direction, thus reducing the rpm, that is, the higher (the mouse), the fewer (rpms). So for a given setting of the mouse on the arm, the engine would run at a constant speed.

You're so right Arthur! My memory must be going! I visited a National Trust property in Cheshire earlier this year called Quarry Bank Mill & Stayal Estate. The mill was originally run by a huge metal Water Wheel, one of the largest in the country at that time. Then the mill finally converted to steam power; and when we as a group, eventually visited the Steam Engine Room there was an NT man there to explain the workings of the engine. He rambled on a bit and as usual, I wandered off a little, trying to find a good angle for a photograph. I gave it up as a bad job and as I drifted back to listen to him I heard him talking about 'the mouse' which controlled the level of steam build up etc; and I can recall him using the term 'The higher the fewer'. I wish now I had listened to him more intently! So Peter, it wasn't 'rubbish' after all, was it?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 45-50

Current location (optional) Keighley

Origin brass monkey balls.............
If ever we say it is cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey, it is pretty damn cold!
At sea, cannon balls were piled on deck beside the cannon pyramid fashion and retained in a brass ring called a monkey. If it became very cold, some of the cannon balls would topple over. It has been suggested that this occurs due to the different thermal coefficients of linear expansion of brass and iron - as the brass shrinks more quickly than the iron, the stack of balls become unstable. However the difference between the coefficients of brass and iron is very small and it is more probable that the cause is not due to the brass contracting more quickly than iron, it's the sea water pooling in the monkey, along with any water between the balls freezing and pushing the balls out of the monkey.
Thought this was interesting........

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-57

Current location (optional) USA

I think that makes you the governor, Arthur. Incidentally you can buy a steam engine mouse mat on the web - the coming together of two great technologies. Any views on which is the greater?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 52-60

Current location (optional) Lincoln

Talking about perpetual motion and steam engines brings back memories of walking past the windows of the engine room at Merralls Mill down the Syke at Haworth.The big challenge as kids was to spot the EXACT second the huge pistons stopped going one way and started on the way back. Of course we never did. Cheers.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 47-51

Current location (optional) Auckland,NZ

Thank you ,Arthur; after all those years a rational explanation. You are obviously a scientist/engineer,but how is your Latin ?

Isa bile ers ago
Fortibus es in aro
Themis nobus es
Themis trux
Vat is in em
Pes an dux

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 41/46

Current location (optional) Isle of Man

A quick translation completly without style you understand.
I saw Billy years ago forty buses in a row . They're not buses they are trucks . What is in them? Peas and Ducks.
Hows that? Try this:
abcd goldfish
mno goldfish
sar goldfish
ral goldfish

Another statement akin to the last one of Arthurs

abcd camels
mno camels
sdr
rdl
olidr

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 1950-55

Current location (optional) KEIGHLEY

Catching up on all these old threads. I must bring this one back up to the top. But is there some way to keep similar topics together without having to search the whole forum?
Amazing what you can find.I've been trying to remember "What would you rather be or a wasp?" for ages.

Love the folk maths! My dad always said that it was "A bean, a bean and half a bean, two beans and half a bean" that made five. And he was an expert on string theory too: he knew how long a piece of string was - as long as another piece the same size.

As for the famous lemon problem, the solution to this - that you are exactly twice as likely to win by changing - is so easy to prove that it is hard to believe that American university professors actually argued about it.

But to link with the last posting (Hi, Derek, didn't we play rugby together for a spell? And what happened to your younger brother, who I certainly played with? - please get in touch garethwhittaker99@hotmail.com)) many folk maths puzzles involve camels. I first heard this one from a friend at KGBS: A man leaves his camel herd to his three sons to be divided 1/2, 1/3, 1/9. There turns out to be 17 in the herd when he dies. A lone traveller on a camel comes across them in the desert, their heads hurting over how to split the camels. He gives them his camel to add to the herd. They then divide the eighteen between them according to the will: 9, 6 and 2, leaving one camel over, which he rides away on. Magic.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 54-59

Current location (optional) Denholme

You have two standard six-faced dice with the faces coloured red and black. One die has 5 red faces and 1 black face. How many red and black faces should the other die have if you want the probability of rolling both dice the same colour to be a half?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

havent checked it but i reckon it's 3 red 3 black

A camel has to cross a 1000 mile desert. It starts with 3000 bananas, can only carry a maximum of 1000 bananas and has to eat 1 banana to fuel each mile it walks. How many can it get across the desert uneaten?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 54-59

Current location (optional) Denholme

That's fine Gareth as long as there are lots of lone travellers wandering the desert, what would the solution be if the chap hadn't turned up?

Is the camel planning on coming back? If it was I would suggest that it should eat 2000 bananas and carry the remaining 1000, although what this would do to its digestive system I don't know. If it wasn't coming back, I would suggest that it eat 1000, sell 1000 to another camel, have a bloody good time wi't brass and then carry the remainder, providing the price wasn't better on this side of the desert.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-61

Current location (optional) Blue Mountains, Australia via Haworth

You learn something new on this site every day. I never knew camels were so fond of bananas.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

Walk a thousand miles for a banana will a camel!

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 55-60

Current location (optional) Harrogate

How many degrees are in a sphere?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-61

Current location (optional) Haworth now Blue Mountains in Australia

360x360x360 - I dunno!!!

...oh - that one's easy: 4pi steradians, and 129,600/pi = 41,252.961... square degrees
(great thing, Google....)!

oh

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-61

Current location (optional) Haworth now Blue Mountains in Australia

What are 4 pist eradians Allan?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

Don't you watch Dr Who? Remember the scene where the Eradians break into the off licence?

Would that have been Fred's up Fell Lane?

If it had been illegal to sell to Eradians they wouldn't have needed to break in.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

What are you thinking,Bernard? Something along the lines of "it started off as an intelligent debate between adults and has degenerated into the cheap schoolboy humour of the lower fourth", I'll bet.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 55-60

Current location (optional) Harrogate

Bananas - 500, providing they don't go off.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

To return to the intelligent debate:
Twelve people (labelled a,b,c,....,j,k,l) sit round a circular table. They simultaeously shake hands in pairs (e.g. a/b, c/d, e/f, g/h, i/j, k/l). How many different ways are there of doing this without one pair crossing over the arms of another pair in order to shake hands? (e.g. a/b, c/d, e/g, h/i, j/k, f/l is not allowed).
By the way, Chris was correct about the dice.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

Whoops! My mistake. The best outcome is 533 bananas. (2466 eaten and one left in the desert to rot.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

Thanks Shaun. I was beginning to think no one was taking the poor camel seriously. I remember 533 and a bit being the best solution I could come up with too. Apart, of course, from John's earlier bending of the rules to get a thousand across. I am not sure whether it is possible to prove that that is the best or just have to settle for best so far.

I also agree with Chris' answer to the earlier dice question.

I will try your hand shaking problem now but I am much better at setting problems than solving them.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 54-59

Current location (optional) Denholme

Any maths buffs out there remember much about maths lessons at KBGS pre-1960? (My most lasting memories are of (Basher)Braithwaite drawing almost perfect circles on the blackboard and making us remember by heart geometrical proofs (presumably from Euclid.) I was talking to someone the other day about the differences between the old ordinary level GCE and the current GCSE exams, especially maths. The biggest differences I could remember were the absence of proofs now and the absence of statistics then. The inevitable question arose of which was easier. I don't suppose anyone has an old exam paper from those days so that the debate could be based on evidence rather than anecdote.
On the same subject, can anyone remember how to find the square root of a number by hand (i.e.without a calculator)? Or at least remember whether they were ever taught it a KBGS?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 54-59

Current location (optional) Denholme

Yes we were taught how to do it, I cant remember exactly now, but I remember taking two digits at a time in the number I have just tried to do 56644
You split it thus, working in two digits at a time from the right

5'66'44.

You then consider the 5 on the left (sometimes this would be two digits if a 6 digit number)
Square root (without going over) of 5 is 2 and a bit . This is the first digit of our answer, which by inspection will be three digits.
So answer is 2xx. Then I'm stuck - I know you have to bring next two digits into play.
Come on, I sure someone will remember this ?? Probably my wife will but she's not in at the momnet.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-64

Current location (optional) Wirral

Check out:
http://math.arizona.edu/~kerl/doc/square-root.html

Thanks Google (again).

Any takers for the handshake problem (24th June) amongst those able mathematicians out there?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

At first I was unsure about the rules. Can they shake hands with two people each? Can they reach around the outside of the table? But if they can only shake with one hand and only across the table then it's about cutting a circle into six non-intersecting chords and it's quite a lot. Six people around the table could do it 5 ways (2+n/2); eight people could do it 14 ways (2+n+n/2); ten people in 42 ways (2+n+n+n+n/2+n/2). But I can't see the pattern to predict for twelve and drawing my diagrams gets tricky at this stage.

So I gave in and looked it up (Google is wonderful isn't it?). The answer is more than 100 and less than 200. (I don't want to spoil anyone's fun!)

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 54-59

Current location (optional) Denholme

Why does everything spin?
I'm not talking about things said by politicians or captains of industry nor, indeed, about the surroundings after a convivial night at the pub.
I mean the Earth, the stars, planets around the stars, electrons round a nucleus. I fact everything in the universe. Why?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

Why not?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 55-60

Current location (optional) Harrogate

True. But I had been hoping for a reply from a physicist rather than enter a philosophical debate.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

Shaun
Everything isn't spinning. You've just been neglecting your new year's resolution about alcohol-free days...
A

I'll give it a shot, Shaun, as you seem to be serious!

Are you pondering about so-called "intrinsic" spin (eg. earth's daily rotation about it's own axis) or orbital motion (such as the yearly period of earth about the sun)? The second of these is fairly readily explained (thanks to Newton) in terms of gravitation providing the centripetal force. As for the first, don't tidal forces (gravity again) play a role?

Bohr's early 20th century (at the time very successful) theory of the atom replaces gravity by electrostatic attraction to provide the centripetal force on an electron (which also possesses intrinsic "spin" by the way!). However, Quantum Electrodynamics tells us electrons can't travel in circular orbits without continuously radiating energy and therefore spiralling into the nucleus within an unimaginably short time. The "orbiting electron" theory is now seen as a convenient model linking reality (whatever that is!) to everyday experience.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Good Lord, Brian, even Sam Riley couldn't have managed that !

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-64

Current location (optional) Wirral

Yes Brian, that's the kind of explanation I've seen advanced before. It appears to be consistent for both orbital spin and the spin of a body on its' axis however I can't work out if this is all predicated on the "clouds of matter" that "condensed" to form stars and their satellites already having spin before they begin to form larger bodies. Plus, you've really thrown the cat amongst the pigeons by telling me that electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus.
P.S. I'm glad you realised that I was being serious - when am I ever not?

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds

P.S. I've just re-read my posting of 7th August. I inadvertantly mentioned the "captains of industry". I should have said "business leaders" since there has been very little industry left to lead since the 1980s.

Years at KBGS e.g. 1958-1964 (optional) 58-65

Current location (optional) leeds