Calculating Height of Catastophic tides

3228 · Oct 10, 2007

How can I calculate the height of the gravitational ocean tide that would be raised by the moon as it got closer to the earth i.e. under catastrophic conditions say at 38km and 19 Km

MeteorWayne · Oct 10, 2007

Are you saying the moon would pass by 38 km above the earth's surface? That's lower than all orbiting satellites. 19 KM is about at the height of the tallest thunderstorms. I haven't calculated it, but if the moon passed by at 19 km, the seas would touch the moon's surface, I would imagine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

3488 · Oct 10, 2007

Not only that, I wonder if the Earth would disprupt the Moon. I think a pass at either 38KM ot 19KM would be impossible. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 10, 2007

Yes in addition to the water tides, the land tides on both bodies could lead to disruption of one or both bodies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

thalion · Oct 10, 2007

A very simple method for estimating hypothetical tides is to keep in mind the rule that tidal force is proportional to the cube of the distance--if the Moon were half as far, tidal force would be eight times greater. If the Moon were only a quarter as far, the tidal force would be 64 times greater, and so forth.

MeteorWayne · Oct 10, 2007

So he's proposing the moon being 100,000 times closer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

3488 · Oct 10, 2007

Using the Proportional to the cube theory, 100,000 X 100,000 X 100,000 = 1,000,000,000,000,000 times current tidal forces or One Thousand TRILLION. Er is that even possible?!?!?!?!?! <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 10, 2007

I find myself wondering if he was asking how close the moon would have to be, to make a catastrophic tide, where the bulge of water was either 38km or 19km higher than average sea-level? Or maybe not.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

3488 · Oct 10, 2007

Could be speedfreek, but the wording of the original question did suggest the lunar surface being only 38KM or 19KM above sea level. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

dragon04 · Oct 10, 2007

Using the Proportional to the cube theory, 100,000 X 100,000 X 100,000 = 1,000,000,000,000,000 times current tidal forces or One Thousand TRILLION. Er is that even possible?!?!?!?!?! ".........all the King's horses and all the King's men......" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

3228 · Oct 11, 2007

Thanks for all those who replied Apoligies for my error. The catastrophic distances of the Moon from the earth should be 38000 miles and 19000 miles. I want the maths of how to calculate the height of these catostrophic tides .I want to work out how many miles high the Ocean tide will be. The uplift of mountains ie rock is quite a lot less than that of water. eg Veliskovsky A celestial body the size of Venus uplifted the Andes Mountains over 12000 ft in less than an hour in a fly by.proof There is a town now ruined of course split in half one half is at sea level the other half is 12000 ft straight up. I want the actual calculatin to show how much higher the ocean will be uplifyed.

lukman · Oct 11, 2007

In the early time, earth collided with a smaller size planet, debris every where, earth intact with damages. The debris gave birth to our moon, at the time moon orbit was very close to earth, around 60000km if not wrong, even at that distance, earth experience 1000s x more gravity than today moon. But then according to BBC, without moon at the distance, earth will not be the same, there will be no life at all maybe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

3488 · Oct 11, 2007

Impact theory for the formation of our moon is not proven & therefore not laid down as fact. It is far more likely the Moon formed in a Lagrangian Solar orbit, but after a while, drifted close enough to Earth to enable capture. This would explain similar, but not identical chemistry. The big problem with the impact theory, is why was the Mars sized impactor in a retrograde solar orbit to deliver the big enough impact to form the Moon? The explanation of the formation of a Mars sized planet in a retrograde solar orbit needs to be explained, if the Moon was indeed impact created. That will take some explaining to do. It looks good on computer screens, on scientists CVs & on glossy magazine covers, but the reality is likely to be far different. The only way we will know for sure, is when we return to the Moon, visit many locations & drill very, very deep core samples & analyze. Only then we will know for sure. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 11, 2007

Finally, another thing we disagree about. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> IMO, the impact theory for the creation of the moon is as close to proven as it can be at this time. And IIRC, the impactor need not have been retrograde, but I'll have to check on that. Do you have something that suggests that was required? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

3488 · Oct 11, 2007

Veliskovsky's theories are not science. He even believed the planet Venus was a comet in the geologically recent past. Unfortunately we see such nonsense even today with the likes of Hoagland (face, blue skies & pyramids on Mars, Saturn moon Iapetus being a space station, etc). Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

3488 · Oct 11, 2007

Hi MeteorWayne, Very rare that we disagree on something, as we do agree on 99.99% of things. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> But then freinds do not always agree. You have asked me to defend my position & I will attempt to give you a very intelligent answer. I had found this animation, which clearly shows the impactor coming from the retrograde direction, a glancing blow, but head on. This appears to be the only way to make up for the 75% deficit in energy required otherwise to explain the impact theory. Another problem appears to be the lack of siderophile elements on the Moon, in which high density transition metals bond with metallic Iron in the solid or molten state. This alone is enough to kill the impact theory off once & for all. If the Moon indeed was impact born, the moon should be very rich in siderophiles, but to date they are absent. Siderophile elements are: Gold, Cobalt, Iron (obviously), Iridium, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Osmium, Palladium, Platinum, Rhenium, Rhodium & Ruthenium. Obviously the latter ones are extremely rare, but they should all be found in greater quantities on the Moon bound to iron, exactly as what would be expected if the moon was indeed impact formed. What we have instead is iron, not bound to the above elements & in fact the other elements are so rare on the moon, it does not fit in at all with the impact theory, but does suit rather well, that the moon formed in the same solar orbit as Earth, in a Lagrangian point & closed in enough over time to allow for capture. Unless the siderophiles are trapped in the moon's mantle???????? That would not make sense, as they would have been expsoed by later imp <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 11, 2007

Andrew, actually, the link you provided supports my posistion. It explains the lack of siderophiles, since the moon consistsof the outer layers of the impactor and impactee. That is in agreement of my recollection of the last SCIENCE or NATURE article that addressed the issue (which I am still looking for <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> ) And nowhere does it suggest that it was necessary for the object to be retrograde, as the impact was shown from a geocentric point of view, so earth's motion is not shown. I'll have to wait for further support on my end until I find the article though.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Search

Calculating Height of Catastophic tides

3228

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

3488

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

thalion

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

3488

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

3488

Guest

dragon04

Guest

3228

Guest

lukman

Guest

3488

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

3488

Guest

3488

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page