Moonless earth

[anigma46]

What if the moon had never been ripped from the earths surface long ago. With no moon,what would life be like ,the earth being more massive with very little tidal action. Life I'm sure would adapt, but with the larger mass would gravety have make us much different?

 

[thalion]

Neil F. Comins's <i>What if the Moon Didn't Exist</i> addresses this very possibility in an article. His consensus--he's a physicist, by the way--is that the Earth would rotate much more rapidly, and hence probably be a windier and stormier place.<br /><br />I highly recommend the book, by the way.<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060925566/qid=1103683177/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/103-2196711-9535003?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[pizzaguy]

Does the moon do ANYTHING for us? I have some questions too.<br /><br />1) Seasons - Does the moon keep stabilize the tilt of the Earth's axis? I have read that it does. If the tilt got to, like, 50 degrees, think of how severe the seasons would be! <br /> <br />2) Tides - the moon contributes to our tides. Without a moon, the tides are much less of an event. So, the nutrient "shuffle" between the land and sea becomes less. Problem or not?<br /><br />3) Climate - ocean currents keep the temperatures of the higher latitudes from swinging more wildly - with less effect from the tides, would the ocean currents be less - would there be a problem? What would the climate change be? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1"><em>Note to Dr. Henry:  The testosterone shots are working!</em></font> </div>

 

[anigma46]

The rotation we have now depends on the direction of the impact of a large object,without that knowledge, it could mean the earths rotation was increased or decreased.

 

[meteo]

Yes it does the Earth has an obliquity cycle of with a range of 22-25 degrees over 40kyrs. This results in a difference of 17 watt/m^2, 4 times a doubling of CO2, at high lattitudes. Thats if CO2 raised the temperature. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Obliquity since it operates at high lattitudes is probably the main forcing for ice ages. <br /><br />Mars with no moon has an obliquity cycle between 15 and 35 degrees over 124kyrs. There is some evidence that over time scales of millions of years Mars may tilt at between 0 and 60 degrees. It's at 25 right now. Imagine the effect that that would have on climate!

 

[thor_001]

I had asked this question on these boards in the past and have also read up on the subject. If there was no moon, life may either had evolved in a completely different manner or there might have not been life at all. Either way, without the moon, the earth would be much different.

 

[nexium]

I can't back up my opinion, but the lack of moon would make a moderate difference. Assuming the moon was created by a large impactor, a signifcant percentage of the debris would be lost in space, so the pre-impact mass of Earth, might be little different than the present mass, and the surface gravity might have increased slightly as much of the low density material was blown off Earth's surface. Neil

 

[newtonian]

anigma46 - Yes, it would take a precisely fine tuned impact to produce our just right rotation. Has anyone attempted a computer simulation that would bring about our exact results?<br /><br />You all -<br /><br />Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the degree of fine tuning evident in the interaction of moon and earth, not to mention many other factors involving planet earth, is a result of a chance impact with earth to form the moon.<br /><br />See this link:<br /><br />http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/10/8/article_03.htm<br /><br />Here is an excerpt from that link respecting the change in gravity for a slightly more or less massive earth:<br /><br />"If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere. But what if the earth were slightly bigger and heavier than it is?<br /><br />Then the earth's gravitation would be stronger, and light gases, such as hydrogen and helium, would take longer to escape from the atmosphere. "More importantly," explains the science textbook Environment of Life, "the delicate balance between the gases of the atmosphere would be upset."<br /><br />Or consider just oxygen, which fuels combustion. If its level were to increase by 1 percent, forest fires would break out more frequently. On the other hand, if the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide kept increasing, we would suffer the consequences of an overheated earth."<br /><br />And, yes, the moon does stabilize earth's axis tilt:<br /><br />"According to three French scientists, the moon's gravity is now believed to be what keeps the earth's axis inclined 23 degrees, thus ensuring a regular change of seasons. (Nature, February 18, 1993).

 

[wisefool]

The main significance of the Moon is its stabilizing influence on the Earth's axis, as previously noted in this string of comments. Most significantly, with a more wobbly axis there would be extreme climate changes in a short period of time, not over millions of years. Such changes would disrupt entire ecosystems, and by implication human civilizations. Life would have evolved anyway, but without the Moon the emergence of highly intelligent, organized life in so-called "cradles of civilization" would have been problematic.

 

[newtonian]

wisefool - First, I do not believe in chemical evolution, or abiogenesis. So I would naturally question on what basis you conclude that life would have evolved anyway.<br /><br />I do agree about the axis tilt being precisely right, or fine-tuned. <br /><br />However, how do you propose we ended up with just the right rotation speed?<br /><br />Did you realize that our moon is receeding almost imperceptibly because of tidal interactions which also slightly effect rotation speed?<br /><br />What I am trying to point out is that the rotation speed of earth is connected to the earth's interaction with the moon, both past, present and future.<br /><br />And do you realize what would happen to earth's climate if we had a much slower rotation speed?<br /><br />Can you try to imagine (or model) what earth would be like with a month long day (and a month long night)?<br /><br />Consider, for example, dropping one degree per hour at night, as many areas on earth do today, more or less.<br />And then extrapolate the results......<br />

 

[bowlofpetunias]

"Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the degree of fine tuning evident in the interaction of moon and earth, not to mention many other factors involving planet earth, is a result of a chance impact with earth to form the moon"<br /><br />Why not, it's all science and chance. There's no need to invoke a creator. We're here because of universal laws, evolution and (from our perspective) a whole bunch of lucky breaks, the moon being a founding member of that cadre. If things had been different, if one of the bottlenecks had pinched shut or evolution favoured a different outcome then in the ages of earth some other intellect may have developed (may still do) with it's own beliefs. In which event yours would have never existed. <br />Considering the number of worlds there must be in the universe, it's hardly surprising that some will have the right conditions for the likes of us. Witless ideas like creators are not required..<br /><br />You seem to be fixated on how everything seems right or fine tuned like the axial tilt being just so, or the rotation speed right. Where's the sense. It isn't fine tuned, it isn't "just right", it's just what it is and the earth has developed in accordance with that, us along with it. If any of those factors were different then earths development would echo that, with or without humans. No tuning required or available. <br />The Universe has no requirement for gods, just people and that's their problem.

 

[tropicalzone]

it just proves theres an intelligent creator. do you think all this preciseness happened by accident ?

 

[doubletruncation]

<font color="yellow">do you think all this preciseness happened by accident ?</font><br /><br />yes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

Similarly, the sperm that turned into you, from its perspective, would have to say that it was real lucky to be the sperm that made it. You might say, it's unbelievably lucky that you, with your particular genetic code, came to be. So lucky that you might believe that the precision that guided that particular sperm to its goal rather than any of the millions of other unsuccessful sperm bespeaks an intelligent guiding hand. Alas, given enough sperm there is a good chance that one of them will make it - and every one of us came only from whichever sperm was the lucky one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chesh]

"do you think all this preciseness happened by accident ?"<br /><br />"yes."<br /><br />The real problem for theology is that no God or any higher power appears in the equations of physics or chemistry or astrophysics. Not in quantum mechanics and statistics, nor in Minkowsky-Einstein space time mathematics. Those two are the most complete mathematical and precise and utterly true statements we have about our universe.<br /><br />It's just not there. and it doesn't appear in Newton's equations, nor in that grand synthesis of electromagnetism, Maxwell's equations.<br /><br />There is certainly no sign of anything but pure random chance in biological evolution and in genetics. The microevolution of species and bacterial forms confirms this fact. It was well known by Burbank, the most successful plant breeder in history.<br /><br />This should be an exceedingly intractable problem and highly troubling for those who believe in God, but somehow it is not. That is very strange. It probably says more about us than it does about our universe.<br /><br />

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />There is certainly no sign of anything but pure random chance in biological evolution and in genetics. </font><br /><br />Since you're so sure of yourself, I have a question. Using your scientific method, did man evolve from an ape, or a more primitive form of man? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[tropicalzone]

then why are we so smart and they haven't evolved at all in the same time?

 

[MeteorWayne]

It's stochastic, my boy <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Besides, whoever gets the head start has more chance to advance. By the luck of the draw, Homo Sapiens got that jump, or apes would be writing the history <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />See "Planet of the Apes" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />or apes would be writing the history <br /><br />See "Planet of the Apes" </font><br /><br />If you're saying that Darwin's Evolution is science fiction like "Planet of the Apes", then I whole heartedly agree with you 100% MeteorWayne. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Not at all, evolution is survival of the fittest, meaning the fittest at any point in time. H Sapiens got ahead of the pack, and amazing things happened.<br /><br />It could have been th chimp line, or Neanderthal.<br /><br />For us, the dice came up good <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Edit::::<br /><br />This is a bit far off topic, isn't it?<br />Maybe I'm wrong... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

The "fittest" do not always survive. Natural selection is a better term. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

You are correct, bad choice of teminology on my part.<br /><br />That has to do with the "stochastic" part of my comment<br /><br />Thanx.<br /><br />MW <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I've been corrected using that term myself. <br /><br />In a nutshell... Genetic mutations could careless if you are the "fittest". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[kelvin_zero]

I think that if I was an I.D proponent, I would conclude the moon was a gift. Our world and our future would be much more dull without it.

 

[alokmohan]

We coud realize that stars rotate arund the sky as moon was there.Moon shwed the way.Astronomy was born thus.