Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: common_sense_seeker on 06/09/2008 11:55:17
-
The Standard Model reason of why the Moon is moving further away from us is supposedly due to the Earth's rotation inducing the Moon with angular momentum. But if this were the case, surely you would expect the Moon to be rotating slightly, due to it's irregular orbit, if nothing else.
AL [;D]
-
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=5856.msg58033#msg58033
-
What is the mechanism for your transfer of angular momentum? If it is by particles, then they would have to have a relatively high mass, would they not?
Do gravitons have mass?
-
neither Moon nor Earth are point masses so you can expect all sorts of funny interactions. The tide is the most obvious.
Furthermore the Moon does spin - once a month.
-
If the Wiki explanation were to be believed, the Moon gains it's angular momentum from the preceding bulge. Firstly, the only bulge to precede the Moon, is that of the ocean. It's mass is absolutely miniscule compared to that of the Moon, and so could never be so dominantly influential. The second point is that even if the preceding bulge was responsible for the Moon's 'added angular momentum', it is always applied from the same direction, and so would induce the Moon to spin about it's own axis in one direction.
The alternative explanation of why the Moon is moving further away from us is that it is the Earth's gravitational field which is simply declining naturally, according to the law of conservation of energy. [8)]
-
If the Wiki explanation were to be believed, the Moon gains it's angular momentum from the preceding bulge. Firstly, the only bulge to precede the Moon, is that of the ocean. It's mass is absolutely miniscule compared to that of the Moon, and so could never be so dominantly influential. The second point is that even if the preceding bulge was responsible for the Moon's 'added angular momentum', it is always applied from the same direction, and so would induce the Moon to spin about it's own axis in one direction.
The alternative explanation of why the Moon is moving further away from us is that it is the Earth's gravitational field which is simply declining naturally, according to the law of conservation of energy. [8)]
Wrong on all 3 counts
First, before you dismiss something as "too small" please show us the calculations you have made of the force involved and the acceleration that this would give. Also calculate the observed acceleration so you can compare them
(and I just bet you didn't bother with the maths because it's quite tricky whereas posting rubbish is easy)
Secondly The force act just slightly ahead of the moon's centre of gravity so it pulls it forwards Whether or not it spins is beside the point except insofar as your theory says it shouldn't but, in fact, it does.
Thirdly there is no reason for the force of gravity to diminish with time - certainly the conservation of energy doesn't dictate any chance in big G.
-
If the Wiki explanation were to be believed, the Moon gains it's angular momentum from the preceding bulge. Firstly, the only bulge to precede the Moon, is that of the ocean. It's mass is absolutely miniscule compared to that of the Moon, and so could never be so dominantly influential. The second point is that even if the preceding bulge was responsible for the Moon's 'added angular momentum', it is always applied from the same direction, and so would induce the Moon to spin about it's own axis in one direction.
The alternative explanation of why the Moon is moving further away from us is that it is the Earth's gravitational field which is simply declining naturally, according to the law of conservation of energy. [8)]
Wrong on all 3 counts
First, before you dismiss something as "too small" please show us the calculations you have made of the force involved and the acceleration that this would give. Also calculate the observed acceleration so you can compare them
(and I just bet you didn't bother with the maths because it's quite tricky whereas posting rubbish is easy)
Secondly The force act just slightly ahead of the moon's centre of gravity so it pulls it forwards Whether or not it spins is beside the point except insofar as your theory says it shouldn't but, in fact, it does.
Thirdly there is no reason for the force of gravity to diminish with time - certainly the conservation of energy doesn't dictate any chance in big G.
Not only. It is not even true that the only tidal effect is on the ocean. Also the solid mass of the Earth (and of the Moon) feels a tide, up to 20 cm if I remember correctly. The only reason you can't feel like for the sea is that it is spread over a very large area (thousands square km, versur 20 cm of height) and this means it is a really tiny effect. But the overall deformation of the earth, that perform as a sort of spring, and the friction induced, is not negligible at all and produce sensitive transfer of momentum.
-
I only said that the preceding bulge is that of the ocean. As to the Earth Tides, they're the initial reason for my new theory. See New Theories.
bored chemist, the reason I don't need to do the maths is because I'm a trained non-mathematical modeller. It's common sense when you're good enough.
-
the reason I don't need to do the maths is because I'm a trained non-mathematical modeller. It's common sense when you're good enough.
How does that work then?
-
You do a MSc course run by the only professor in the country who teaches Simulation Modelling. I didn't finish it incidentally.
-
OK, so you don't need to do the maths because you didn't do a course in not using maths.
That's the second best joke I have seen today.
-
I've got a good imagination, something I've found to be mutually exclusive to a mathematician. I've tripped up many a professional mathematician with simple logic. There's definitely a difference between a physicists mind and those of others who think in equational truths.
-
New mathematical discoveries can't be made without some degree of imagination to drive them, so I think your first point is far too general. I agree that logic can be a powerful tool, but there are many situations where logic is not sufficient to describe our existence and physical observations are not intuitive. Be wary of using logic alone without reference to observations, because that can very quickly lead to absurd conclusions.
-
Nice to hear someone talking sense for a change.
AL
-
You certainly have a good imagination. Children generally have too. That's not unrelated to the fact that they don't know enough about the real world to know what's possible and what's not.
In the meantime you have "imagined" and idea that's only likely to appeal (as far as I can tell) to "the only professor in the country who teaches Simulation Modelling".
Unless you can do the maths your idea is dead in the water.
-
I'm looking for someone to come into the project to help me with the maths. I used to be able to contract university professors to do that part of the work for me. How times change.
AL