Secular Acceleration of the Moon

[OilIsMastery]

Topic: Does Secular Acceleration Provide Evidence for Earth Expansion?

In 1683, Sir Edmond Halley (discoverer of Halley's Comet) commenced a long series of lunar studies, discovering the Moon's secular acceleration in 1693. This was based upon Ptolemy's recordings of eclipses in Babylon in the 8th Century BC in the Almagest.

Direct measurements of the acceleration have been only been possible since 1969 using the Apollo retro-reflectors left on the Moon. The results from Lunar Laser Ranging show that the Moon's mean distance from Earth is increasing by 3.8 cm per year (Dickey, et al., 1994).

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time -- the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963). This was a mystery for decades that surprised mainstream planetary scientists. It is now explained away by assuming that tidal forces were not as great during the Mesozoic as they are today." (McCarthy, 2003)

However there is no reason to believe tidal forces have changed since the Mesozoic unless Earth expansion is taking place.

Slichter, L. B., Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 14, Jul 1963

Dickey, et al., Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program, Science, Volume 265, Number 5171, Pages 482-490, Jul 1994

 

[James R]

The secular acceleration of the Moon is the apparent gradual increase in the rate at which the moon is observed to cross the sky.

The cause of this acceleration is well understood. It is due to tidal interactions between Earth and the Moon that cause the Earth's rotation to gradually slow down over time, and the Moon to gradually move away from the Earth.

For more information, see here:

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html

The scientific explanation of secular acceleration does not require the (false) assumption that the Earth is expanding.

Moreover, I have shown in a recent debate with OilIsMastery that the Earth is not in fact expanding:

[thread]86898[/thread]

Why OIM continues to promote this spurious claim is a mystery.

 

[OilIsMastery]

The cause of this acceleration is well understood.

Then perhaps you can explain using observation, logic, and reason? Or perhaps you can provide a peer-reviewed scientific reference, citation, or link for your claim? So far you have failed to do so.

For more information, see here:

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html

OK. I went there (obviously, since I provided the reference for you) and this is what I read.

The secular acceleration of the Moon is very poorly known and may not be constant.

"Very poorly known" sounds just a little bit different than "well understood."

Why OIM continues to promote this spurious claim is a mystery.

Then allow me to clarify the mystery. As a philosopher and a scientist I have a moral duty to follow the truth wherever it may lead.

 

[Ophiolite]

Or perhaps you can provide a peer-reviewed scientific reference, citation, or link for your claim? So far you have failed to do so.

It seems you are unfamiliar with the interesting and useful concept of the hyperlink. This provides a connection between a text or graphic within a web page and another such page.

It looks rather like this http://OIM is an idiot.gov

You also seem unfamiliar withthe phrase For more information . This means that additional knowledge to what has already been imparted can be accessed by following the adjacent instructions.

If we put these two radical concepts together you find that James has provided a link that will lead to peer reviewed papers dealing with the issue.

I am so glad to have been of help in furthering your education. I am sure many of us are willing to contribute to this noble end. (It's certainly too large a job for one person. So much to teach, so few brain cells to teach it to.)

 

[OilIsMastery]

It seems you are unfamiliar with the interesting and useful concept of the hyperlink. This provides a connection between a text or graphic within a web page and another such page.

It looks rather like this http://OIM is an idiot.gov

You also seem unfamiliar withthe phrase For more information . This means that additional knowledge to what has already been imparted can be accessed by following the adjacent instructions.

If we put these two radical concepts together you find that James has provided a link that will lead to peer reviewed papers dealing with the issue.

I am so glad to have been of help in furthering your education. I am sure many of us are willing to contribute to this noble end. (It's certainly too large a job for one person. So much to teach, so few brain cells to teach it to.)

You provided no peer-reviewed reference, citation, or link in your emotional response. That's the typical methodology of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Then perhaps you can explain using observation, logic, and reason? Or perhaps you can provide a peer-reviewed scientific reference, citation, or link for your claim? So far you have failed to do so.

The dynamics of the Earth-Moon system are explained by Newtonian gravity (or you can use GR if you want to get really accurate) and there are no spurious extra accelerations or slow downs or motions. The fact that no one says "Science cannot explain why the Moon is moving away from the Earth!!" would seem to suggest that science can explain why the Moon is moving away from the Earth. Anyone who has studied orbital mechanics, which you most certainly have not, will know various motions of the Earth or Moon which are not commonly talked about but which are easily described and accounted for using our knowledge of gravitational systems. The precession of the Earth, the slow down of the Moon's orbit and the length of an Earth day, the tidal locking of the Earth. All simple to account for and describe when you learn even Newtonian physics.

You keep saying "Provide me with a link!!" as if it's our fault you don't know mainstream work. If you're going to try to disprove mainstream work it's pretty wise to actually be familiar with it. The fact you deny material you don't know, and it would seem the majority of your crank sources don't know, shows you aren't interested in scientific integrity, just whining as loud as you can.

Then allow me to clarify the mystery. As a philosopher and a scientist I have a moral duty to follow the truth wherever it may lead.

You are neither. If you were following the truth, wherever it may lead, you'd have spent time and effort learning the mainstream science views so that you are competant at the science and familiar with any of it's short comings. You would also be open to scientific argument as to the possibility you are incorrect in your claims. Despite being thumped by James in the debate thread, you continue oblivious and you deliberately misconstrue what people say to you. You are not a scientist and you are not interested in truth.

 

[OilIsMastery]

The dynamics of the Earth-Moon system are explained by Newtonian gravity (or you can use GR if you want to get really accurate) and there are no spurious extra accelerations or slow downs or motions.

What is causing the moon to accelerate away from the Earth if not an increase in the mass and circumference of the Earth? According to Newtonian gravity, if the Earth were a fixed radius/mass, the moon would have crashed into the Earth already or been torn apart by tidal forces 1.4 billion years ago (Slichter, 1963).

The fact that no one says "Science cannot explain why the Moon is moving away from the Earth!!" would seem to suggest that science can explain why the Moon is moving away from the Earth. Anyone who has studied orbital mechanics, which you most certainly have not, will know various motions of the Earth or Moon which are not commonly talked about but which are easily described and accounted for using our knowledge of gravitational systems. The precession of the Earth, the slow down of the Moon's orbit and the length of an Earth day, the tidal locking of the Earth. All simple to account for and describe when you learn even Newtonian physics.

You keep saying "Provide me with a link!!" as if it's our fault you don't know mainstream work. If you're going to try to disprove mainstream work it's pretty wise to actually be familiar with it. The fact you deny material you don't know, and it would seem the majority of your crank sources don't know, shows you aren't interested in scientific integrity, just whining as loud as you can.
You are neither. If you were following the truth, wherever it may lead, you'd have spent time and effort learning the mainstream science views so that you are competant at the science and familiar with any of it's short comings. You would also be open to scientific argument as to the possibility you are incorrect in your claims. Despite being thumped by James in the debate thread, you continue oblivious and you deliberately misconstrue what people say to you. You are not a scientist and you are not interested in truth.

I refer you to my comments posted above.

 

[Ophiolite]

You provided no peer-reviewed reference, citation, or link in your emotional response. That's the typical methodology of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.

The reference has been provided by JamesR. I have pointed that out to you. I have also pointed out that you have, with your typical dishonesty, pretended he did not respond.

 

[OilIsMastery]

The reference has been provided by JamesR. I have pointed that out to you. I have also pointed out that you have, with your typical dishonesty, pretended he did not respond.

I provided the reference and you obviously didn't read it...

Still waiting for a scientific reference to support your religious theology.

 

[Ophiolite]

I provided the reference and you obviously didn't read it...

Still waiting for a scientific reference to support your religious theology.

Now try to follow this. I realise your intellect is sub-standard.
You asked for a scientific reference.
James R, in the second post in this thread provided a link:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html

That link, offers a layperson's overview of the topic. It includes a reference to a peer reviewed research paper on the topic.

Therefore, your continued denial that a scientific reference has been provided means either a) you can't read b) you don't understand what you read c) you don't know how to follow a link d) you are dishonest troll.

Frankly, I think it's a little of all of them.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Now try to follow this. I realise your intellect is sub-standard.
You asked for a scientific reference.
James R, in the second post in this thread provided a link:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html

That link, offers a layperson's overview of the topic. It includes a reference to a peer reviewed research paper on the topic.

Therefore, your continued denial that a scientific reference has been provided means either a) you can't read b) you don't understand what you read c) you don't know how to follow a link d) you are dishonest troll.

Frankly, I think it's a little of all of them.

I provided that link to James R. in the opening post.

You obviously didn't read it.

It says and I quote:

The secular acceleration of the Moon is very poorly known and may not be constant.

Exactly what part of "very poorly known" don't you understand?

 

[Ophiolite]

The part where you take it out of context.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

According to Newtonian gravity, if the Earth were a fixed radius/mass, the moon would have crashed into the Earth already or been torn apart by tidal forces 1.4 billion years ago (Slichter, 1963).

Not true. Can you give me the specific reference or if it's a journal available online, the article itself. Why 1.4 billion years?

Newtonian gravity does not predict the Moon crashing into the Earth. Ever heard of a little thing called angular momentum? Planets don't spiral into stars and moons don't spiral into planets without a huge blow (ie collisions with one another) or a weaker, but sustained, force over very long period of time.

Newtonian gravity says that for a fixed radius and mass Moon and Earth they will just orbit their barycenter for ever, to a first approximation. Taking into account smaller effects you get things like tidal locking and the slow down of the Earth's rotation. Taking into account even smaller effects (including those of general relativity) you get orbital precession (like seen in Mercury and the Sun) and a minute quantity of energy and angular momentum lost via gravitational radiations. That latter effect equates to the Earth losing about a kJ of energy a second.

As for tidal forces, the Moon has always been outside it's Roche limit, with respect to the Earth, since it solidified. Therefore it's internal strength has been enough to keep it from being torn apart by tidal forces. The Jovian moon Io is only about 5% further from Jupiter than our moon is from us and despite Jupiter exerting enormous tidal effects on it, the planet is still together. It vents the energy imparted on it by Jupiter via volcanic activity.

You cite a 1960s paper/book/claim without actually quoting it and we've seen how disingenuous you are when you 'interpret' what people have said to you so you will have to provide the source in question to make your claims more justified.

I refer you to my comments posted above.

That didn't address what I said. When you are ignorant of a well known fact (often well known to even school children doing the sciences) you say "Got a source! Provide a peer reviewed paper!". We shouldn't be having to provide you with such things expected to be known to anyone who has gotten an education in a 1st world country. Further more, you should be actively reading about mainstream models, learning the techniques and methods and concepts used to say model the stellar dynamics between the Earth and the Moon. But you don't. You don't read mainstream work on things you denounce, you just denounce 'the gist of it' without knowing how much evidence the things you denounce have.

You 'debate' like Kaneda. You don't make an effort to learn something but you don't like (and more often than not, don't understand) a section of science and you take the view that if you don't understand it it's wrong. Then you (and he) put words in people's mouths, endless repeat the same debunked claims, lie, ignore corrections and not once who you have a working understanding of the things you denounce.

Here's a simple question on Newtonian gravity which was asked to the 1st year class I help teach and mark last week :

An object is projected vertically upwards at 4km/s. Neglecting air resistance, what is the maximum height it reaches?

Let's see if you know the first thing about Newtonian gravity by you answering that.

 

[pjdude1219]

Then allow me to clarify the mystery. As a philosopher and a scientist I have a moral duty to follow the truth wherever it may lead.

than why don't you?

 

[OilIsMastery]

Can you give me the specific reference or if it's a journal available online, the article itself.

I did give the specific reference and provided the online link to the article, however you deliberately ignored it.

Slichter, L. B., Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 14, Jul 1963

Why 1.4 billion years?

Mathematical extrapolation. The thing you always do wrong. 3.8 cm per year, ask someone else to do the math for you.

Newtonian gravity does not predict the Moon crashing into the Earth.

Yes it does. See above.

Ever heard of a little thing called angular momentum? Planets don't spiral into stars and moons don't spiral into planets without a huge blow (ie collisions with one another) or a weaker, but sustained, force over very long period of time.

Newtonian gravity says that for a fixed radius and mass Moon and Earth they will just orbit their barycenter for ever, to a first approximation. Taking into account smaller effects you get things like tidal locking and the slow down of the Earth's rotation. Taking into account even smaller effects (including those of general relativity) you get orbital precession (like seen in Mercury and the Sun) and a minute quantity of energy and angular momentum lost via gravitational radiations. That latter effect equates to the Earth losing about a kJ of energy a second.

As for tidal forces, the Moon has always been outside it's Roche limit, with respect to the Earth, since it solidified. Therefore it's internal strength has been enough to keep it from being torn apart by tidal forces. The Jovian moon Io is only about 5% further from Jupiter than our moon is from us and despite Jupiter exerting enormous tidal effects on it, the planet is still together. It vents the energy imparted on it by Jupiter via volcanic activity.

You cite a 1960s paper/book/claim without actually quoting it and we've seen how disingenuous you are when you 'interpret' what people have said to you so you will have to provide the source in question to make your claims more justified.
That didn't address what I said. When you are ignorant of a well known fact (often well known to even school children doing the sciences) you say "Got a source! Provide a peer reviewed paper!". We shouldn't be having to provide you with such things expected to be known to anyone who has gotten an education in a 1st world country. Further more, you should be actively reading about mainstream models, learning the techniques and methods and concepts used to say model the stellar dynamics between the Earth and the Moon. But you don't. You don't read mainstream work on things you denounce, you just denounce 'the gist of it' without knowing how much evidence the things you denounce have.

You 'debate' like Kaneda. You don't make an effort to learn something but you don't like (and more often than not, don't understand) a section of science and you take the view that if you don't understand it it's wrong. Then you (and he) put words in people's mouths, endless repeat the same debunked claims, lie, ignore corrections and not once who you have a working understanding of the things you denounce.

Here's a simple question on Newtonian gravity which was asked to the 1st year class I help teach and mark last week :

An object is projected vertically upwards at 4km/s. Neglecting air resistance, what is the maximum height it reaches?

Let's see if you know the first thing about Newtonian gravity by you answering that.

All of that is very wrong. A typical emotional response with no scientific support or reference.

 

[Vkothii]

This like watching a roadrunner cartoon. OIM hasn't looked down yet.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Mathematical extrapolation. The thing you always do wrong. 3.8 cm per year, ask someone else to do the math for you.

Proof you not only didn't get the figure from a paper but also that you don't understand the gravitational dynamics of the Earth-Moon system (or any other similar system). The rate the Moon-Earth distance is changing is dependent upon it's distance, it was slower long ago. If you'd bothered to learn any physics or read up on that particular phenomena you'd know that but instead you demonstrate your ignorance.

And your attempt to take a pot shot at my maths ability is laughable, given you completely ignored the simple mathematical physics question relating to gravity I asked you. Got something to hide? Unwilling to demonstrate a working grasp of the physics which relates to this and so many of your other posts? Give it a go, show your attempt and I'll point out any mistakes and walk you through it. So while I might get my maths wrong now and again, at least I can do it. At least I try to learn it. At least I am learning. What is your excuse for your ignorance?

All of that is very wrong. A typical emotional response with no scientific support or reference.

Nice avoidance of addressing anything I said or the question I asked you. Scared?

I wasn't trying to make a formal scientific argument. James has done that in the debate forum and crushed you. I was commenting on your inability to hold a rational discussion. But rather than defend yourself in response to my criticism, you run away. Away from an opportunity to demonstrate you can do the kind of physics expected of students their very first term of university. And just like always, you show you're a hypocrite for trying to insult my maths skills.

So, going to put your physics where your mouth is and demonstrate you know the first thing about the quantitative side of the physics this thread is all about?

 

[OilIsMastery]

Proof you not only didn't get the figure from a paper but also that you don't understand the gravitational dynamics of the Earth-Moon system (or any other similar system).

The results from Lunar Laser Ranging show that the Moon's mean distance from Earth is increasing by 3.8 cm per year (Dickey, et al., 1994).

The rate the Moon-Earth distance is changing is dependent upon it's distance, it was slower long ago.

How do you know that? Because your religion tells you that? What infallible Scripture did you consult? The Holy Wikipedia?

If you'd bothered to learn any physics or read up on that particular phenomena you'd know that but instead you demonstrate your ignorance.

And your attempt to take a pot shot at my maths ability is laughable, given you completely ignored the simple mathematical physics question relating to gravity I asked you. Got something to hide? Unwilling to demonstrate a working grasp of the physics which relates to this and so many of your other posts? Give it a go, show your attempt and I'll point out any mistakes and walk you through it. So while I might get my maths wrong now and again, at least I can do it. At least I try to learn it. At least I am learning. What is your excuse for your ignorance?
Nice avoidance of addressing anything I said or the question I asked you. Scared?

I wasn't trying to make a formal scientific argument. James has done that in the debate forum and crushed you. I was commenting on your inability to hold a rational discussion. But rather than defend yourself in response to my criticism, you run away. Away from an opportunity to demonstrate you can do the kind of physics expected of students their very first term of university. And just like always, you show you're a hypocrite for trying to insult my maths skills.

So, going to put your physics where your mouth is and demonstrate you know the first thing about the quantitative side of the physics this thread is all about?

Yet another emotional response with no scientific reference.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I did give the specific reference and provided the online link to the article, however you deliberately ignored it.

Slichter, L. B., Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 14, Jul 1963

Look what I found. More recent, more citations and an abstract which categorically states the opposite to what you do. Plus, when you search the journal website for the paper you linked to (ie the author and year of publication) it doesn't give it in the results.

That enough of a peer reviewed scientific response for ya? :roflmao: I am sure you have come across plenty of similar papers but just decided to ignore them because you didn't like what they had to say. Hence why you've latched onto an infrequently signed paper from a year when satellite technology, Moon laser ranging and even things like high precision atomic clocks either didn't exist or weren't anywhere near as good as they are now.

I'm sure you're going to give some laughable excuse why you ignore it. Just like whatever pathetic excuse you give not to do that physics question I asked you (takes about 3 minutes to do).

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The results from Lunar Laser Ranging show that the Moon's mean distance from Earth is increasing by 3.8 cm per year (Dickey, et al., 1994).

I didn't say it wasn't 3.8cm/year. I said it hasn't always been that fast. Didn't you read what I said?

How do you know that? Because your religion tells you that? What infallible Scripture did you consult? The Holy Wikipedia?

You're the one who mentioned Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity has the rate of separation slowing down as you go backwards in time, as my above post's linked paper shows.

Nice hypocrisy though. You're allowed to say things like "According to Newtonian gravity, " to try to support your argument but now I'm not because it disagrees with you? So much for you being scientific.

Yet another emotional response with no scientific reference.

Yet another cop out because you cannot do the question I asked and you cannot retort my statements of fact about you being a liar. Do you think people don't notice? :shrug: You and Kaneda are like peas in a pod. Someone says something you cannot retort, you just roll out your default "I'm ignoring this because I cannot bring myself to admit you're right" phrase. His is "You're a parrot. Take your medication". Yours is "No scientific reference" in a post which wasn't discussing science but your attitude and methodology towards science.