then how does a planet capture a moon?
It requires energy loss. Either by crashing into each other (already on a collision course), or deformation by tidal forces, etc. Otherwise they can't be captured regardless of their mass. That's classic physics anyway.
and that the one following the captured one
just tuggs at the earth a little bit as it passes.
You're just guessing from common sense. Sounds a lot like those ancient people who guessed a heavier object would fall faster than a light one, all else being equal.
It's actually almost the same idea. More mass means stronger force of gravity, but it also means more momentum, so more force is required to change it's course. Turns out it needs just the same amount of extra force that the stronger gravity provides.
every year our moons orbital velocity slows because of the
...
so the mass of an orbiting body is extremely important
That make no sense at all. You didn't even claim that the moon is losing mass. Why should mass be "extremely important"? You can see that it is extremely unimportant by the fact that moon's period and distance are changing while the mass isn't.
do you think that our moon could remain in orbit if
its mass were slowly reduced to 1.3477 x 10^22 kg?
because that is what you and bill are trying to say.
you seem to think that the mass of a orbiting body has nothing to do with its orbital distance.
Exactly. You can look it up. However this may only apply for small orbiting bodies, or those at large distances. I havn't checked what happpens when two earths are orbiting each other at close range.
and do you think that the earth would orbit the sun if it were in jupiters orbit , or saturns , or neptunes if the earths orbital velocity that it currently has was not changed?
Now you're confusing yourself. My answer is the same as yours, "no". I already told you that was my idea when I posted the graph.
