If the Moon rotated on an axis.

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chris_mb

Guest
If the Moon rotated on an axis. What affect would this have on the Moon and Earth?<br />
 
R

rhodan

Guest
The Moon <i>does</i> rotate around its axis. It does so roughly once every month, the same time it takes the Moon to revolve around the Earth, i.e. it does one revolution per orbit. As a consequence we only get to see one side of our Moon. This is caused by a process called tidal locking; read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
 
V

vogon13

Guest
And at one time, right after formation, the moon did rotate on its axis relative to earth.<br /><br />Due to tidal effects from earth itself, this motion was 'damped' out and the moon wound up with one face always turned towards us.<br /><br />Due to various irregularities, nutation, libration, etc. we do get to see ~59% of the moon's surface without resorting to spacecraft.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
M

maxtheknife

Guest
Vogon: <font color="yellow">And at one time, right after formation, the moon did rotate on its axis relative to earth. <br /><br />Due to tidal effects from earth itself, this motion was 'damped' out and the moon wound up with one face always turned towards us. </font><br /><br />Sure about that, are you?<br /><br />Is that more 'fact' from 'Nebular Theory'?
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
It's the logical conclusion based on the observed evidence. It doesn't matter how the Moon was formed; if it formed more than a few million years ago, there has to have been a time when it was not synchronously rotating, and when it was closer to the Earth.<br /><br />I guess if you're a Creationist you might have a reason to contest that; after all, the Creationists believe the entire universe is 7,000 years old (give or take). But I'm not aware of any scientific theories which put the Earth and Moon as being anywhere near that young. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
R

rodrunner79

Guest
I also read that it was between 6000 - 7000 years old, but I do not think they were talking bout years equivalent to Earth years.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
No, the Creationists are talking in terms of Earth years when they put those date estimates together. Seriously. However, they say that the seven days in which the world was made in Genesis Ch 1 are not meant to be taken as seven Earth days. They base this on Scripture that says that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
M

maxtheknife

Guest
Hi Calli,<br /><br />To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what to believe anymore <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I'll expand on that.... Later <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
assuming both Newtonian "accretion" and electric discharge theories have merit, the moon, as any other body, probably began it's early life spinning about a point. and gravitational forces eventually locked it tidally to the earth.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
What does Newton have to do with planetary accretion theory? Newton didn't postulate any of that, as far as I know. Just because something is part of the mainstream doesn't mean it's Newtonian or has anything to do with Newton. You seem to be using "Newtonian" as a keyword for mainstream science, and that's not accurate.<br /><br />Newtonian physics is relevant to this discussion, however, since that physics is used in most celestial mechanics equations, which in turn are what indicate that the Moon had to have once rotated asynchronously, the Earth and Moon had to have been closer together, and the Earth had to have rotated faster. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
"Newtonian physics is relevant to this discussion, however, since that physics is used in most celestial mechanics equations, which in turn are what indicate that the Moon had to have once rotated asynchronously, the Earth and Moon had to have been closer together, and the Earth had to have rotated faster."<br /><br />is accretion not celestial mechanics? did Newton not lay the foundation for subsequent systems of calculation? like for angular momentum and collisions of objects, etc? <br /><br />i know that Newton, the man, the person in the flesh, had no clue about planetary accretion theory. <br />
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Newtonian physics can be applied to circumstances Newton did not anticipate.<br /><br />Penicillin is used on diseases unknown when it was developed.<br /><br />I can write and execute software on a Dell PC (well, I can't actually, but you get the point) that was unanticipated by the design team.<br /><br />Old bug spray works on new bugs discovered in the rain forest every day.<br />(that one is just to annoy PETA)<br /><br /><br />And my personal favorite:<br /><br />A 35 year old TV set can be connected to a brand new DVD/VCR combo unit and work just fine.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
what i will do, as to not rile up semantic battles, is refer to a specific system or model by the most specific moniker for it as possible. for example, i will not refer to theorectical explanations for planet formation by "Newtonian models." i will call it the "accretion" model. <br /><br />i will refrain from calling star formation by the "Newtonian model." i will call it "accretion from the solar nebula that begot fusion, based upon Newtonian mechanics with its subsequent constraint systems described by angular momentum, collisions, and other impulsive forces model."<br /><br />
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Some years ago I read an interesting book called something like "What if the Moon Didn't Exist" which was a fascinating look at what would happen to conditions on Earth if things like the title, and the tilt of the Earth's axis were to be different.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Thanks, bonzelite. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It does make it a lot easier to communicate if words are applied correctly, or at least consistently.<br /><br />You are correct that Newtonian physics is an element of the accretion model. It's the backbone of all ballistics and most celestial mechanics. It isn't ballistics or celestial mechanics, but it provides the mathematical basis upon which those disciplines can build. And it is from those disciplines (combined with planetary science) that the accretion model comes.<br /><br />What's nice about not calling the accretion model "the Newtonian model" is that it avoids confusing the accretion model for the whole of Newtonian physics. It would be possible to invalidate the accretion model without invalidating Newtonian physics, for instance, so if we find out that planets did not accrete but formed in some other way, it doesn't mean we suddenly have to reinvent ballistics. And if you use this more precise terminology, you can object to the accretion model without people thinking you don't believe that F=MA. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I hope that helps. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
F = ma breaks down in quantum, and it will break down in space too, so F = ma is a localized event, and is fragmented or incomplete.
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
yes, you are absolutely correct, CalliArcale. accretion of matter, in a planetary forming context, can be disproved, if it ever finally is, whilst KEEPING Newton's feet firmly on the ground, as it were. <br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"F = ma breaks down in quantum, and it will break down in space too"<br /><br />Do you have any data to back up that assertion?<br /><br />Hard data, not just something you heard somewhere?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Yes, proof in the form that every thruster stabilized satellite ever launched (even Directv!!!) failed because the thrusters didn't work because F=ma breaks down in space.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
I said F=ma works locally; however, it would be a big mistake to leave our star to far behind, because F=ma is fragmented.
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Your proposed failure of Newtonian Mechanics (F = ma in this case) in space.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
Newton's laws of motion and laws of gravity are the base of the motion or objects, etc. However, Newton’s laws break down at high speeds and/or in quantum, so you have to use relativity and quantum theory, which are theories by the way. We know that gravity breaks down at quantum to, so not you have to look at string theory, which is more philosophical than theory. Finally, unless I am forgetting something, I think there is a super string theory too. Now, motions that approach speeds where Newtonian laws break down, general relativity must be used, but that is based off of gravity, in which gravity breaks down in quantum mechanics.<br /><br />So now we have in quantum mechanics, smaller particles traveling at various velocities, in which both general relativity and Newton’s laws break, so we use quantum theory. It is unfortunate that gravity is not understood, because it is a major roadblock, with respect to our forward momentum. Once we figure out what gravity, anything will be possible. We will be able to solve our energy issues, make alternative propulsion systems, and go zipping around the solar system like really, really, fast. Do I have evidence? Well, yes, I imagine I do. Can I prove it, if I had access to a lab? Yes, I most definitely can. Can I do the math? Yes, eventually, but it is really time consuming, because it takes time from my thinking time. It is very frustrating...<br /><br />The voyager craft should be getting pretty far out there; I bet they are no where near where they are supposed to be. Eventually, something as simple as a candle flame will move voyager.
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>The voyager craft should be getting pretty far out there; I bet they are no where near where they are supposed to be. </i><p>Actually, they are very, very near where they are supposed to be, the anomaly in their positions is a fraction of a percent.</p>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts