Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 71 of 71

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    None of which has anything to do with whether it migrates in or out from tidal interaction with its planet.
    After getting out from the unique oven of the nature, the round moons and planets must drift in one direction.
    Please try to confirm it by real measurements.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,038
    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.
    That's a terrible analogy, given that spherical moons and planets have all been assembled from smaller parts in the first instance, rather than baked in a spherical mould.
    The spherical shape is a result of hydrostatic equilibrium.

    Grant Hutchison

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    After getting out from the unique oven of the nature, the round moons and planets must drift in one direction.
    Why?

    Grant Hutchison

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    The spherical shape is a result of hydrostatic equilibrium.

    Grant Hutchison
    Yes, that is perfectly correct!

    However, where most of new born stars activity is taking place in the galaxy?
    Try to find it and you get the answer.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Why?

    Grant Hutchison
    Based on real measurements.
    So far we have only verified two round objects in the whole Universe.
    Those two objects are drifting outwards.
    If I understand it correctly, all round planets in the solar system are drifting outwards.

    Please try to find just one round planet or moon which is drifting inwards.

    Do we know if the Sun is drifting outwards or inwards from the center of the galaxy?
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-06 at 05:48 AM.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,548
    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.]
    It seems pretty clear to me that he is trying to make some ATM claim, but Iím having trouble figuring out exactly what it is. Perhaps something about dark matter and galactic curves.
    As above, so below

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    So far we have only verified two round objects in the whole Universe.
    This depends, I suppose, on your definition of "round".

    I would have thought that pretty much all stars and planets were round, part from some slight oblateness due to rotation. And surface features on solid planets.

    What are the two things you believe are the "only two round objects in the whole Universe"?

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,609
    I think he means two round objects which have been observed to
    migrate away from their primary: the Moon and the Earth. I haven't
    read any linked references in this thread. As far as I know, the Moon
    is the only object where a change in the size of the orbit has actually
    been measured. For Earth and other moons, changes in the orbital
    periods have probably been measured.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Yes, that is perfectly correct!

    However, where most of new born stars activity is taking place in the galaxy?
    Try to find it and you get the answer.
    No, I'm not going to participate in your Socratic dialogue.
    State your idea clearly.

    Grant Hutchison

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,756
    Nonsense alert.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    7,775
    As a result of rigorous exercises in physics for centuries, we are convinced to a moral certainty that Neptune and Triton obey the same laws of gravitation as the Earth and the Moon. That is, the satellite will raise a pair of tidal bulges on the planet. The planet's rotation will drag the bulges away from a line through the centers of the bodies, in the direction of the planet's rotation. The displaced bulges will cause a small gravitational tug on the satellite in the direction of the planet's rotation. In this case, since Triton's orbital motion is in the opposite direction from that gravitational tug, Triton is expected to be slowed down and to spiral in gradually. Any idea that it should do otherwise is an uberextraordinary idea which requires uberextraordinary evidence. In the absence of precise enough observations to detect changes in the orbit, we are thoroughly justified in expecting Triton to spiral in.

Posting Permissions

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