Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Lunar Rotation

Moon The Twin
The MOON

Twin to our planet Earth, it cannot be separated, similar in Age, hence the word TWIN!
Revolves around the Earth and around the Sun with the Earth, and the whole lot around the center of milky way etc. etc...
Whilst revolving around the planet Earth once every month, it does an exact one apparent rotation on its axis.
An apparent rotation not a real one, to keep the same face pointing towards the Earth it has to rotate on its axis.
So how is this possible?

My first theory explains that the Moon is locked in sync with the Earth due to the strong gravitational force between the two bodies. This gravity bond acts almost like a string attached to a end of a stone, where the true axial rotation is translated to the other end of the string. This means that the moon's axial rotation is translated in the Earths center. This explains why the Moon always has one exact apparent rotation on it's axis for every one revolution around the earth which tends to vary a little.

My second theory is that the Earths dense central solid nickel-iron core has to be the true rotational pivot for the Moon. The Earths solid core is surrounded by semi-molten region enabling the core to rotate in sync or slip sync with the Moon. This means that the Earths central solid core is rotating as different speed than the rest of the shell, this causes lots of friction between the two layers generating large amounts of thermal energy, which helps to keep our Earth warm without any nuclear fusion like in the Sun.

My final theory explains how the Earths magnetic field is derived. Electrons flowing in a conductor creates magnetic field around it. From the above explanation the thermal energy generated from the friction is conducted away from the Earths center towards the cold pole regions by the convection currents, this heat flow in a electrically conductive material would generate large electrical currents which would cause magnetic fields. This magnetic fields would pass through the central nickel-iron core making it to be magnetized, which would also enhance the overall magnetic effect. This enhanced magnetic field provides the Earth with its magnetic poles. Any vertical disturbance to the Earths center core due the Moons rotation would make the Earths magnetic poles drift a little occasional. In fact a large disturbance to the Earth's core due to various combined effects would cause the core to flip suddenly, thus reversing the Earths magnetic poles, this pole reversing proof is there in the Ocean.

All this wonderful effects Moon has on our Earth, without which our Earth would be cold with no magnetic field to shield us from the Suns high energy particles, no Ocean tides and not to forget we would miss the Moon Phases with it's Smiley Full face.

Valji

the earths core spins faster than the earth spins there is no sync between the earth's and the moon's cores.

the reason the moon always faces the earth with the same side is because of its core.

its core closer to its surface that is closest to the earth.

this occured as the moon was spewed out of the earth and cooled rapidly , it was the gravitational attraction that caused the moons core to get locked into its present location.

when the moon finaly does leave the earths orbit it will wabble like crazy and possibly break up due to its wabbling when it passes close enought to a large gravitation field.

thats what I am saying the core of the earth is rotating at different speed than outer surface, maybe by one full rev extra per month.

its a real rotation , it does not matter where you look at the rotation from , it rotates.

if you were always looking down at your feet , you would think that the earth never rotates because you could not see it move.



I answered your question.

it is the ONLY possible explanation.

the moons core or what would have been its core is not at the center of the moon !!!

it is closer to its surface !!!

it is the attraction of the moons heavier material to the earth , that keeps the same side of the moon pointing at the earth.

things to think about...

how much force is required to rotate the moon 1 full rotation every month?

where does this force come from?

has the stored energy used to rotate the moon depleted?

I don't understand why the moon would need stored energy to rotatate. it has kinetic energy and this, along with the earth's gravitational pull, keeps it in a state of equilibrium. If it's rotation around the earth were to slow down, it would come crashing into us.

Paul you need to see the wider picture, and not base your brain washed thinking on what you have learnt.

it is every pixel that makes up a picture.

if you change a pixel you have changed the picture.

the things you claim to have as theories are old news here on SAGG , maybe you read a few previous post and adopted them as your own theories.

but good luck in your ventures.



twins at birth?
twins due to appearance?
what type of twins are you reffering to?

the earth and the moon are separating , every year the moon slips further out in its orbit.

brainwashed?

now fancy that.

Only very slightly. Gravity has caused the rotational period (about
its polar axis), and the orbital period (about the earth's orbital
axis) to be synchronous so that except for a little wobble, the
part of the moon that faces the earth is always the same. This is
difficult to describe verbally, but if you do a 'Google' search on
term(s) like "moon synchronous orbit" or similar you will find many
sites with pictures and diagrams explaining synchronous orbits.

[quote=Mike Kremer]

I must admit I find all the above replies regarding as to why the Moon keeps the same face towards out Earth very interesting
Pauls suggestion that the Moons center of Gravity might be offset towards the Earth's side is very interesting.

I would like to add my own contributions to this discussion.
I believe that.."That the Moon was pulled out 'toffee-fashion' from the Earth, thru centrifugal force, and when the Earth was hotter"

I dont think my idea is accepted, or has ever found favour in the past.
But interestingly it does seem to account for all of the rotational reasonings?.

Remember that the Moon is made up of the exact same rocks as our Earth!

Does that preclude a glancing blow from an outer Space mini-planet, Since if the Moon was the result of a large body slamming into the Earth in the far distant past. What about the Non-Magnetic Field on the Moon? (Therefore unlikely that all the mini-Moons iron core would be transfered to the Earth).
To empty the center of the Moons core into Earth...wouldnt you need to break up the Moon completely?
Also...after such a hard slam, must probably produced Moonlets, or small bodies, ..still around? (Well they are not in orbit around either the Moon or Earth?)

I prefer to believe that the early Earth had two large bulges on the equator, one was Pangea or Gwondanaland, a single large land mass from whence ALL the present Continents separated and formed, (still going on today)
While the other even larger mass opposite Pangea, was gradually thrown into the position the Moon occupies now, by the centrifugal force, of the faster spinning Earth, of that time.
That could well account for the fact that the Moon keeps the same face to us at all times.
Plus we kept our iron core, with the Moon getting little or none!

Besides that, our present continents have drifted (roughly speaking) to fill up the area where our Moon might have centrifuged out (toffee like) out from early Earth. That is -the huge Pacific deep basin, where indeed the crust is a lot thinner than elsewhere. And indeed the Pacific ocean with its thin floor IS getting smaller as our Continents slowly float in to balance the land loss?

I have another important point to make ...That out Earth is spinning in the same direction as all the other Planets around our Sun (except for one)
With the Earth being given such a hearty wack.....now that would either slow its
rotation down or even tend to speed it up, but we must not forget the transfer time for the hot, or was it the (cold metal), core of the Moon to move out and INTO dear old Earth. (If there ever was a core?)
I find it beyond comprehension that the wack the Earth got, did not upset the spin of the earth...AND the Moon. If the Moon HIT (touched) the Earth...It has taken all these millions of years to bounce AWAY from us, and slow down to a virtual stop?

Remember again the rocks on the Moon have been found to be the SAME composition as those here on Earth.
Not so those on Mars, they can hunt for Martian rocks here in the Antartic ...precisely because they ARE different.

Well I like to believe the Moon came from our Earth....an even larger land mass opposite Pangea in the past...that pulled out from the Pacific area.

Going back in time, scientists show the large land mass of Pangea, or Gwondanaland
together as one huge land mass. ON ONE side of our Earth. (That makes our molten Earth really out of balance...!!)
No one ever mentions this hyperthetical huge land mass balancing and opposite Pangea. Because its not there any more ..Its become our Moon.
Only later are we shown the break up of Pangea and its slow creep towards the Pacific Rim.
Yes.....its just my theory but I happen to believe in it.

This theory is perfect and I am glad someone now agrees with me, see this link..
http://www.grantchronicles.com/astro29.htm

Not quite,.... here is the FULL story;

When Worlds Collided.

Heaven and PreEarth were planets, a binary system orbiting the Sun. This happy arrangement continued for countless years, until, some unfortunate circumstance caused Heaven to collide with PreEarth, forming the Earth.

We investigate the evidence that the Earth is the child of such a collision. We show that the planets Heaven and PreEarth were of similar size and mass. We show that many of the Earth's topographical features, such as mountain chains and ocean basins, were created during the collision. We show that certain hard to explain features of the Earth, such as its magnetic field, can now be more easily understood. And, in establishing all this, we uncover a new theory on the origin of the Moon.

Much of PreEarth's crust survived the impact and is today the continental crust of the Earth. Although broken and contorted, giant pieces of the ancient crust acted as ships floating on a newly molten interior, insulating, and protecting, life from the fires below. Heaven itself, together with its crust, if it had one, disappeared into the interior of the PreEarth, never to be seen again. If we put the broken pieces of PreEarth's crust back together, we obtain the following map.



This map is a flat representation of part of a globe. Hence, some distortion is inevitable.....

Read the rest here: http://preearth.net/

The whole idea of the theory is summarized by this animatation:



The impact area was that within the circle.

Pangaea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) was outside the circle.

Heaven was completely submerged into PreEarth (causing massive expansion).

When Pangaea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) is mapped from the sphere of PreEarth to a flat map, you get exactly the map of the first graphic up above. In fact, that is how this map was first produced.

Here is a standard map of Pangaea



The expansion in size of PreEarth after swallowing Heaven, caused Pangaea to spilt apart and break up into what we now call continents.

The circular region where Heaven entered is now called the Pacific Ocean (not all the Pacific, but most of it).

Here is an animation showing how the Atlantic Ocean opened up.



and another showing the opening around Antarctica.



and another showing the opening of the Indian Ocean.



Cool animations, eh?

The author, Kevin Mansfield, is a mathematician (PhD from UNSW) from New Zealand.

From: http://preearth.net/

I have started up a bulletin board at:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts

See if there are any topics that interest you?

But it can be separated; all you need is the close passage of a large mass. Happens all the time with smaller orbital masses - read up on asteroid syncronicity with jupiters orbit for examples.


Sorry, the above is just wrong. The moon rotates - for real - with a period of 27.3 earth days. It's orbit is also 27.3 earth days long, so the moon appears to not rotate compared to the earths surface.

But, if you were to stand a long ways off, looking down at the moons north pole, you would see the moon rotate once (relative to a distant star, or the center of the milky way, etc) once every 27.3 days.

If the moon were not rotating we'd see something quite different - the whole of the moons surface would be observable from earth, with an apparent rotation taking one moon-orbit (i.e. 27.3 days).


Since your hypothesis is wrong, no explanation is necessary.


Sorry, that is wrong. Anytime you have two large masses orbiting each other with a close enough separation, you will eventually get Synchronous rotation - as in how the moon orbits the earth (with one side always facing the earth).

When the moon and earth first formed, the moon was much closer to the earth. This distorted both the moon and earth, such that there was a bulge raise along the line connecting their centers of mass. Because the moon and earth were both rotating, these bulges were pulled slightly forward of the line connecting the moon and earths center of mass. As a result, the bulges exert a forward gravitational "tug" on the opposing object (i.e. the earths tides tug on the moon), accelerating the moon/earth, pushing them farther apart in their orbit. This orbital "burst" comes as a cost of the rotation of the earth/moon - i.e. they both start spinning more slowly (i.e. have longer days).

Over time this process pushes the two bodies apart, and slows their rotation. This process ends at one of two points:
1) Tidal locking: The orbit and rotation of the smaller object becomes equal, leading to a situation like the one on our moon - where one side always faces the larger mass, or
2) Orbital escape: If the two bodies are spinning fast enough, tidal effects can actually eject the bodies into separate orbits, such that they are no longer gravitationally bound to each other.


Once again, the facts argue against your hypothesis. The earths core has a rotational period which is ~0.66s shorter than the earths day.

The earths "true" (siderial) day is 23hr, 56min and 4.1 sec in length (i.e. 86164.1 seconds). Thus, the cores siderial rotation is 86163.44 seconds. The moons orbit is 27 days 7 hours and 43.1 sec (235,8043.1 seconds) long.

This gives us a ratio between the rotation of the earths core verses the moon of 4.155394678.

That is not a synchronous rotation. A synchronous rotation would either be a whole integer, or a fixed ratio (i.e. 4/3). 4.155394678 cannot be expressed as either an integer, nor as a non-additive ratio, and therefore is not synchronous.


Once again, the facts speak against your hypothesis, notably:
1) The sun provides the vast majority of the heat on the surface of the earth. Heat from within the earth provides ~0.1W/m2, while the sun provides 120W/m2. Without the sun the earths temperature would be just a few tens of kelvin above absolute zero.
2) Most of the heat coming from within the earth comes from radioactive decay and the residual heat of the earths formation.
3) The relative rotation of the core to the earth is quite slow - less than 1s difference per day (i.e. 0.00076598% difference), ergo the amount of friction-generated energy will be negligible.



Sorry, but:
1) Without the moon the earths temp would be close to the same as it is today, as the earths temp is determined almost entirely by solar incidence and the greenhouse effect.
2) Without the moon we would still have tides - just smaller ones. The sun raises tides on the earth, these won't magically disappear if the moon were gone. If anything, the presence of the moon mutes these tides (with the exception of spring tides, when the two are combined)
3) The moon is not needed for the magnetic field. This is generated by convection of molten metal in the outer core - aka the dynamo effect.

Bryan

So, have you come up with an explanation for the distribution of radionucleotides along the floor of the Atlantic ocean, or should we just add point that to the very, very long list of disproofs of your hypothesis that you are ignoring?

Bryan

Which part of Paul's observations didn't you understand, Bryan?

1) your inability to understand the least of his concepts,....

2) I've toyed with the concept that you think backwards bryan,... which can be compared to your understanding of newtons laws.

Basically, Paul's observations of your ability in the subject are correct, however, I don't think you are a moron,... I think you are a propagandist who is paid to push a certain view, no matter what. You would make a great religious person.

Your talk of the distribution of radionucleotides is of a similar nature. If you can't understand what has been written about this, is it my fault. No.

Nearly every comment you make makes it is clear that you have made absolutely no attempt to understand the basic theory that has been put forward. Yet, at the same time, you insist your perverted version of things is correct. Or, perhaps you really don't have the ability to understand it? I can't figure out which.

The opening around India.



Notice that India is pushed under the rest of Asia, forming the Himalayas.

Cool animations, eh?

From: http://preearth.net/

Hiding behind pauls' skirts, are we?

Why am I not surprised, one science denialist hiding behind the excuses of another science denialist. And, if you look back, you'll see even paul think's your full of crap.


Paul is promoting not one, but two perpetual motion machines. I know these are a physical impossibility. Paul's re-written newtons laws, and ignores the law of conservation of motion, to create his "machines".

I understand very well pauls arguments. I also understand that they are wrong.


Then backwards = correct.

Reactionless propulsion is a physical impossibility, calling me names and mis-interpreting high school physics doesn't magically change that.

As for pre-earths claim, I (and others) have pointed out numerous problems with your models. Its not my fault you're unwilling to address them.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Paid, to post of Science a GoGo? I wish.

But that's the typical anti-science claim - if you're not willing to buy into their claims, you must be part of a conspiracy to hide "the truth".

Now, please excuse me, I have to go talk to my alien overlords


Actually, you quite clearly demonstrated you do not understand what is written about it. Remember the paper I provided, about the anomalous zircons, and how continental drift was the source of those anomalies? Remember how you thought those anomalies disproved the paper - even laughed at the presence of those zircons? Even though the entirety of the paper was all about those zircons and where they came from?

I do, and so does the internet.



Actually, I understand your model just fine. But I am a scientist by profession, and basically make my living by finding the flaws and holes in other peoples work and filling in those holes. In your work I see many flaws, notably:

1) As your planets merge there is a tremendous change in gravitational potential energy - enough to make another moon, and liquefy the surface. Since energy is neither created or destroyed, that energy must be accounted for. Your model fails to do so.

2) You're assuming both planets were solid upon merger, and yet:
a) provide no physical model to explain how you could form solid planets of 0.5 earth masses within the known age of the solar system.
b) provide no physical model to explain how said solid planets could merge without fracturing the entirety of both planets.

3) Even if I give you the benefit of liquid-core planets (i.e. reality), you ignore how liquid objects merge, and the impact that would have on the planetary surface (i.e. it would force your continents together, or suck them under, not drive them apart).

4) Your own energy calculations, based on binding energy, show that your collision should create more than enough heat to liquefy the entirety of the earth - 2000K average temp if I recall correctly. And yet you claim the surface would be untouched - even though there is no physical mechanism which could produce such a state, given the impact is on the surface, and hence the heat is created largely on the surface.

5) Your model cannot explain the temperature gradient known to exist in the earths mantle.

6) You model cannot explain the distribution of radionucleotides on the Atlantic sea floor. You claim the distribution of one - argon - is due to your collision, but fail to explain the half-dozen other radionucleotides which show the same distribution, but are non-gaseous and therefore cannot be explained with your model.

That, preearth, is how real science works - you present you ideas and others criticize them. If you cannot take criticism, stay out of science. Its not for the thin-skinned.

Real scientists, such as myself, take those criticisms and address them - for example, by showing they are incorrect, or by changing our hypothesis to account for criticisms which are legitimate.

You take the route of anti-science. You ignore data in scientific studies which undermine your hypothesis. You ignore well-established physical phenomena which invalidate your calculations. And rather than dealing with the criticisms you receive, you instead insult and belittle those smart enough to see the problems with your hypothesis.

But at the end of the day, you're just a typical science-denier. No different than the flat-earthers, perpetual-motioners, vaccine-deniers, creationists, homeopaths, and various other scientific illiterati who pollute the internet.

But you can prove me wrong - man up, and address my concerns. I.E. be a scientist.

Bryan

Once again, preearth demonstrates his anti-science stance.

Did he address the criticisms of his theory? No.
Did he attempt to show those criticisms to be invalid? No.
Did he do anything vaugly scientific in nature? No.

Instead he took the typical, cowardly, anti-science route - name calling and insults.

Here we go again, address them if you have the courage to do so:

1) As your planets merge there is a tremendous change in gravitational potential energy - enough to make another moon, and liquefy the surface. Since energy is neither created or destroyed, that energy must be accounted for. Your model fails to do so.

2) You're assuming both planets were solid upon merger, and yet:
a) provide no physical model to explain how you could form solid planets of 0.5 earth masses within the known age of the solar system.
b) provide no physical model to explain how said solid planets could merge without fracturing the entirety of both planets.

3) Even if I give you the benefit of liquid-core planets (i.e. reality), you ignore how liquid objects merge, and the impact that would have on the planetary surface (i.e. it would force your continents together, or suck them under, not drive them apart).

4) Your own energy calculations, based on binding energy, show that your collision should create more than enough heat to liquefy the entirety of the earth - 2000K average temp if I recall correctly. And yet you claim the surface would be untouched - even though there is no physical mechanism which could produce such a state, given the impact is on the surface, and hence the heat is created largely on the surface.

5) Your model cannot explain the temperature gradient known to exist in the earths mantle.

6) You model cannot explain the distribution of radionucleotides on the Atlantic sea floor. You claim the distribution of one - argon - is due to your collision, but fail to explain the half-dozen other radionucleotides which show the same distribution, but are non-gaseous and therefore cannot be explained with your model.

Bryan

Is ImagingGeek a moronic LIAR. YES.

Here is a whole thread where his "criticism" is addressed.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=34462&page=all

Four whole pages devoted to trying to spoon feed a fool.

At least you could tell the truth,... why do you choose to LIE?

Anyone can look at the four pages and immediately tell that all of your "No" statements are just plain LIES.

Why do you choose to LIE?

Like I said above, it is overwhelming clear from what you write that you are a

propagandist (i.e., a paid LIAR).

Hey there, Turbo. Chill. If you can't keep yourself on an even keel I'll edit you off the thread. Keep a civil tongue in your head or face the consequences.

Amaranth

Actually, you never addressed any of the points I brought up in that thread either. Which is why I had to chase you over to this thread, to try and get a reply out of you.

So once again:
1) As your planets merge there is a tremendous change in gravitational potential energy - enough to make another moon, and liquefy the surface. Since energy is neither created or destroyed, that energy must be accounted for. Your model fails to do so.

2) You're assuming both planets were solid upon merger, and yet:
a) provide no physical model to explain how you could form solid planets of 0.5 earth masses within the known age of the solar system.
b) provide no physical model to explain how said solid planets could merge without fracturing the entirety of both planets.

3) Even if I give you the benefit of liquid-core planets (i.e. reality), you ignore how liquid objects merge, and the impact that would have on the planetary surface (i.e. it would force your continents together, or suck them under, not drive them apart).

4) Your own energy calculations, based on binding energy, show that your collision should create more than enough heat to liquefy the entirety of the earth - 2000K average temp if I recall correctly. And yet you claim the surface would be untouched - even though there is no physical mechanism which could produce such a state, given the impact is on the surface, and hence the heat is created largely on the surface.

5) Your model cannot explain the temperature gradient known to exist in the earths mantle.

6) You model cannot explain the distribution of radionucleotides on the Atlantic sea floor. You claim the distribution of one - argon - is due to your collision, but fail to explain the half-dozen other radionucleotides which show the same distribution, but are non-gaseous and therefore cannot be explained with your model.

Answer them if you dare...

Bryan