Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 73

Thread: what is causing the Moon to move away from Earth?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,139
    Is outwards travel of Deimos also observed?

    Unlike Earth, Mars is a desert planet with no shallow oceans to dissipate tides, and only thin air. How much is Mars able to accelerate Phobos or Deimos, compared to Earth?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
    Is outwards travel of Deimos also observed?

    Unlike Earth, Mars is a desert planet with no shallow oceans to dissipate tides, and only thin air. How much is Mars able to accelerate Phobos or Deimos, compared to Earth?
    I expect it to be less than it would be with continents and oceans like those on Earth.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    It's an observed effect, and it can be shown mathematically, with calculations matching observation.
    If the tidal bulge raised by a moon is always ahead of it in its orbit (as it is when the parent planet rotates faster than than the moon orbits), then the tidal evolution is outwards.
    If the tidal bulge raised by a moon is always behind it in its orbit (as it is when the moon orbits faster than the planet rotates, or in the opposite direction to planet rotation), then the tidal evolution is inwards.

    All the bodies in my list are moving around their parent planets faster than the planet rotates, so all wil evolve inwards tidally.

    Grant Hutchison
    Thanks

    However, if I understand it correctly -
    Currently we have ONLY measured the drifting direction of the moon from Earth and Earth from the Sun.
    In both cases we have found the orbital moon/planet is drifting outwards.
    Did we set any real measurements for other orbital moon or planet?
    If no, then technically we can say that 100% of the orbital moon or planet which have measured are drifting outwards!
    Therefore, why can't we just assume that all orbital moon/planet are drifting outwards regardsless of the planet rotation?

    With regards to the following cases:
    "when the moon orbits faster than the planet rotates, or in the opposite direction to planet rotation"
    Why can't we say that it is just a hypothesis idea as we don't have a real mesurement prove for that?

    What is the chance that Triton is also drifting outwards?
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-04 at 02:53 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    <snip>
    If no, then technically we can say that 100% of the orbital moon or planet which have measured are drifting outwards!
    Therefore, why can't we just assume that all orbital moon/planet are drifting outwards regardsless of the planet rotation?
    Because we have a mechanism that explains the changes we observe and your assumption would violate that physics. You would need data showing the physical explanation we have is wrong and new mechanism to explain this.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    I expect it to be less than it would be with continents and oceans like those on Earth.
    Yes, but have we actually measured how much less?

    Also: is Nyx drifting due to tides? If yes, in which direction?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Thanks

    However, if I understand it correctly -
    Currently we have ONLY measured the drifting direction of the moon from Earth and Earth from the Sun.
    In both cases we have found the orbital moon/planet is drifting outwards.
    Did we set any real measurements for other orbital moon or planet?
    Yes, we have measured the inward migration of Phobos, as I have already mentioned. Observation matches theory, and observation doesn't match whatever idea it is you have.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,667
    Quote Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
    Unlike Earth, Mars is a desert planet with no shallow oceans to dissipate tides, and only thin air. How much is Mars able to accelerate Phobos or Deimos, compared to Earth?
    The time constant of migration is inversely proportional to the tidal dissipation factor, Q. Murray & Dermott give values of Q for Earth = 12 and Mars = 86, and suggest that 100 is a good general working figure for rocky or icy bodies. Of course, other things like mass ratios and orbital radii are important, too. You could look up the relevant equations if you want to know more.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    The time constant of migration is inversely proportional to the tidal dissipation factor, Q. Murray & Dermott give values of Q for Earth = 12 and Mars = 86, and suggest that 100 is a good general working figure for rocky or icy bodies. Of course, other things like mass ratios and orbital radii are important, too. You could look up the relevant equations if you want to know more.
    Or derive them. They are fairly simple, except for the precise definition of Q.
    The tidal bulges raised in Mars by Phobos and Deimos travel in opposite directions through each other.
    Do observed inward migration of Phobos and outward migration of Deimos give equal Q value for Mars, being inherent property of Mars irrespective of the amplitude and frequency of the tides?
    Which bodies, if any, besides Earth and Mars possess directly observed Q?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,667
    Quote Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
    Which bodies, if any, besides Earth and Mars possess directly observed Q?
    Quantification of tidal parameters from solar system data (2016).
    Note that Q is used to designate the "tidal quality factor" in this paper.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes, we have measured the inward migration of Phobos, as I have already mentioned. Observation matches theory, and observation doesn't match whatever idea it is you have.

    Grant Hutchison
    Phobos -
    We call it moon, but it is irregularly shaped object with a mean radius of only 11 km:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)
    "Phobos is a small, irregularly shaped object with a mean radius of 11 km (7 mi)"

    Did we try to measure at least one moon with sphere shaped and some minimal size (as our moon) from the following list:

    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post

    JUPITER
    Metis
    Adrastea

    URANUS
    Juliet
    Portia
    Rosalind
    Cupid
    Belinda
    Perdita

    NEPTUNE
    Naiad
    Thalassa
    Despina
    Galatea
    Larissa
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-04 at 06:29 PM.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Did we try to measure at least one moon with sphere shaped and some minimal size (as our moon) from the following list:
    The Moon is the 14th largest object in the solar system. It is larger than all of those satellites listed. Ergo your question is not possible to answer as none of the listed objects meet your arbitrary criteria.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Phobos -
    We call it moon, but it is irregularly shaped object with a mean radius of only 11 km:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)
    "Phobos is a small, irregularly shaped object with a mean radius of 11 km (7 mi)"
    Yes. It's also dark brown in colour. Both facts are irrelevant.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,354
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Same issue with phobos, which looks like a big rock.
    Aren't all moons just big rocks?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Did we try to measure at least one moon with sphere shaped and some minimal size (as our moon) from the following list:
    They (the list) all are likely measured and can be found on Wiki. Moons that are more than about 450km in radius will likely be considered round, as would serve to meet the "dwarf planet" status for non-satellites. Ceres may be the smallest dwarf planet at ~ 473km, but it does have some irregularity in dimensions, but so does Earth, well, and me too for that matter.

    Here is a graphical list of planets and moons that will reveal the round ones. Look for Ceres (red bar) as a marker near the boundary of "roundness".
    Last edited by George; 2018-Jan-04 at 10:49 PM.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,001
    And incidentally, Pluto and Charon are mutually tidally locked, so they remain at the same distance, correct?
    As above, so below

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Ceres may be the smallest dwarf planet at ~ 473km, but it does have some irregularity in dimensions, but so does Earth, well, and me too for that matter.

    Here is a graphical list of planets and moons that will reveal the round ones. Look for Ceres (red bar) as a marker near the boundary of "roundness".
    Thanks

    Let's focus only on round moons as stated in the following list:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...bjects_by_size

    The size is less important. However, let's look on moons with minimal radius of 200 Km.

    For example - Miranda, which is the moon of Uranus. (However, we can't use it for our case)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    And incidentally, Pluto and Charon are mutually tidally locked, so they remain at the same distance, correct?
    This is very interesting issue. It is a good study case.
    Both objects are considered as round shaped.
    We must get real measurements and compare it to our hypothesis
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-05 at 06:30 AM.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,354
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Let's focus only on round moons as stated in the following list:
    What is the significance of them being round or not?

    We must get real measurements and compare it to our hypothesis
    What hypothesis?

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    And incidentally, Pluto and Charon are mutually tidally locked, so they remain at the same distance, correct?
    well binary neutron stars spiral inwards because of gravitational waves, but I don't know.
    Formerly Frog march.

    Newscaster: ... But I've just had a report that a representative of Disaster Area met with the environmentalists this morning and had them all shot, so now nothing stands in the way of the concert going ahead this afternoon on this beautiful sunny day.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What is the significance of them being round or not?
    It is very, very important!
    There is only one way to create round star, planet or moon.
    However, I would prefer to avoid the discussion on this issue at this tread.
    So please, let's just focus on round moons.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    The size is less important. However, let's look on moons with minimal radius of 200 Km.
    Many that small are surprisingly spherical. Enceladus and Mimas are just two examples, though surface structures can be very dramatic.

    For example - Miranda, which is the moon of Uranus. (However, we can't use it for our case)
    Also known as "Frankenstein" due to surface features.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    10,128
    Quote Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack View Post
    Is outwards travel of Deimos also observed?

    Unlike Earth, Mars is a desert planet with no shallow oceans to dissipate tides, and only thin air. How much is Mars able to accelerate Phobos or Deimos, compared to Earth?
    There is also internal damping of the materials constituting the interior of the planet. You can demonstrate this sort of dissipation mechanism by repeatedly and rapidly flexing a small paperclip and touching it to your upper lip; you will note that the paper clip is warm. You can also get this same effect if you rapidly bend a piece of wire.

    Because of Mars' internal structure, which I believe has no molten core, it may have lower internal damping than Earth. I don't know, offhand, the relative contribution of the oceans and other surface water to dissipating tidal energy vs the planetary interior.

    Information about American English usage here and here. Floating point issues? Please read this before posting.

    How do things fly? This explains it all.

    Actually they can't: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.



  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,354
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    It is very, very important!
    There is only one way to create round star, planet or moon.
    What is that? And how is it different from how non-round moons are created?

    However, I would prefer to avoid the discussion on this issue at this tread.
    So please, let's just focus on round moons.
    I think that if it is so important, you should explain why.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I think that if it is so important, you should explain why.
    Yet not if it will diminish the impact he wants to have with his ideas for some future SF publication, which I think is the reason. [I think he did mention this somewhere but I can't seem to find it off-hand.]
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,667
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    Yet not if it will diminish the impact he wants to have with his ideas for some future SF publication, which I think is the reason. [I think he did mention this somewhere but I can't seem to find it off-hand.]
    Trying to rewrite the theory of tidal evolution to fit a science fiction plot device seems a little extreme though, doesn't it?
    I'm with Strange - trying to answer questions satisfactorily when the questioner has an undisclosed agenda is frustrating for all concerned.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,363
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Trying to rewrite the theory of tidal evolution to fit a science fiction plot device seems a little extreme though, doesn't it?
    I'm with Strange - trying to answer questions satisfactorily when the questioner has an undisclosed agenda is frustrating for all concerned.
    I think he just wants to keep secret his plot that seems to require a round moon. I recall one prominent author excited about a book idea and then shared the idea with friends, but the impetus was gone and the book never got writ.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What is that? And how is it different from how non-round moons are created?
    I think that if it is so important, you should explain why.
    Let me just say that none round moons are broken moons, or left over from a collision.
    Therefore, those broken moons might migrate inwards.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Let me just say that none round moons are broken moons, or left over from a collision.
    Not necessarily. Look at comet 67P and there is significant evidence that they joined together at an early date. These objects can get captured by planets or smaller objects.

    Therefore, those broken moons might migrate inwards.
    The tidal stress would be greater depending on orientation and they would break easier.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,667
    There's no reason a round moon couldn't previously have been broken into pieces by a collision, and then reassembled. For a time, that's we thought had happened to Uranus's moon Miranda.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    There's no reason a round moon couldn't previously have been broken into pieces by a collision, and then reassembled. For a time, that's we thought had happened to Uranus's moon Miranda.

    Grant Hutchison
    Let me use the following question:

    How do you set a round bread.

    Normally it is expected to set it in the oven.
    However, after you have it, cut it to many many pieces.
    Now, can you reassemble those pieces into the same nice round bread?

    In the same token.
    If you wish to have a round moon - you have to use a very unique oven of the nature.
    If later on, you cut it to pieces and reassemble it - it will look like a reassemble round bread...
    You will get a broken moon.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Let me use the following question:

    How do you set a round bread.

    Normally it is expected to set it in the oven.
    However, after you have it, cut it to many many pieces.
    Now, can you reassemble those pieces into the same nice round bread?

    In the same token.
    If you wish to have a round moon - you have to use a very unique oven of the nature.
    If later on, you cut it to pieces and reassemble it - it will look like a reassemble round bread...
    You will get a broken moon.
    None of which has anything to do with whether it migrates in or out from tidal interaction with its planet.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •