Talk:Yarkovsky effect

Question

Is it really a lag between the absorption of radiation and the emission of radiation, or is it the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation, net absorption & net emission...?

--2A04:4540:701A:6C00:D1BA:BC2B:1B5D:AE49 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous

Don´t want to register myself, but the info in the text is wrong! Earth rotates prograde, so the hole physics change (momentum etc.). Even with right sources it is wrong! Shame!

Yarkovsky effect - Planetary bodies effected by sunlight

Regardless of the planetary body creating a different spin due to side of sun relative to the mass, as the object heats up from the sun, would there not be a burn off of any ice or gasses on the mass? Realistically, this would cause the mass to lose weight and thus gain speed. On top of that, atoms move faster at higher temperatures, would this not be relative to a larger object? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.110.140 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The nationality of Yarkovskky

Yarkovsky was born in Belorussia, near the town of Vitebsk. He studied in Saint Petersburg, spent all his life in Russia, had a successful career at the government service, and eventually became executive at a prominent factory in Saint Petersburg. He also was an active member of the Russian Scientific and Technical Society.

There may be a possibility that his roots were Polish, but I failed to find information on this on the internet.

When a Belorussian-born man spends his life in Russia and makes a career of a government official there, it is unwise to call him "Polish".

Confusion Apparent

In the section titled MECHANISM, subsection SEASONAL, this phrase occurs: “a non-rotating body orbiting the Sun, for which each "year" consists of exactly one "day". As it travels around its orbit, the "dusk" hemisphere which has been heated over a long preceding time period is invariably in the direction of orbital motion.” But, in this idealized case, it is stipulated that the object is non-rotating. Does that mean: (a) it in non-rotating relative to the sun, but rotating once a year, tide-locked to the sun and thus always having its warmer hemisphere constantly exactly facing the sun, or (b) non rotating relative to the stars, thus having its warmer hemisphere progressively moving into an orientation where it would be invariably AGAINST the direction of orbital motion, thus producing a braking force that would cause the object to spiral closer to the sun. Something in the description of this idealized case is not coherent. The topic then shifts abruptly to axial tilt, without connecting the idea of this idealized case to effects related to axial tilt, and without explaining why very few asteroids are in fact spiralling closer to the sun. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)