Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?

[Ophiolite]

There's plenty of reasons why the Earth's spin is slowing down.

No, there are not plenty of reasons. you are speaking from ignorance and a peculiar desire to ignore centuries of research and observation by persons much smarter and inventive than yourself.

It doesn't mean that this causes the Moon to move further away in orbit!

The primary cause of the Earth's slowing down does indeed cause the moon to move further from the Earth. If this is not the case, why is the moon moving away from the Earth. Will you answer that or ignore it as you do almost every other direct question.

Holy Moly. .

Holy Moly indeed.

My latest reckoning is that .........

Of course it is.....

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Of course not. I believe angular momentum is conserved. I.e. Earth is losing and moon is gaining to keep total of this dynamic system constant.

But this is dependent on the "fabric" of Einstein presumably being correct, which LIGO has yet to verify..

Only by going to a higher orbit can the moon gain angular momentum.

Okay - but I'm considering possibilities should the "fabric" imagery prove to become unpopular.

If this is not the case, why is the moon moving away from the Earth.

That's simply poor science thinking. At least Billy T admits to his mistakes. You're simply not that good imo

 

[Ophiolite]

That's simply poor science thinking. At least Billy T admits to his mistakes. You're simply not that good imo

So why is the moon moving away from the Earth? That has nothing to do with whether or not I am good at science thinking. It is a simple question, relevant to this discussion. Will you answer it? Why is the moon moving away from the Earth?

 

[Billy T]

But this is dependent on the "fabric" of Einstein presumably being correct,...

How dumb can you be? Conservation of angular momentum was well known long before Einstein was born.

Newton not only knew it but proved it for system like the Earth moon.
Only by going to higher orbit can the moon gain the angular momentum the Earth is losing as its spin slows down.

I may have missed some of your post but all I have seen here would contaminate the cesspool - i.e. lower the average level of understanding displayed there.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

How dumb can you be? Conservation of angular momentum was well known long before Einstein was born.

Newton not only knew it but proved it for system like the Earth moon.
Only by going to higher orbit can the moon gain the angular momentum the Earth is losing as its spin slows down.

You are unbelievable. The moon could lose it's rate of spin and therefore gain a higher orbit, via conservation of momentum. There's no way Newton thought that the earth's slowing of spin caused the moon to move further away!!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

But this is dependent on the "fabric" of Einstein presumably being correct, which LIGO has yet to verify..

Conservation of angular momentum is not confined to relativity. If you had bothered to pay attnetion during your degree you'd know Newtonian mechanics has it too, its useful for working out the orbits of comets. And if you have that 'detective' and inquisitive mind you keep claiming you do you'd know that by Noether's theorem any symmetry of a system relates to a conserved quantity. Conserved linear momentum is related to linear translations in space. Conserved energy is related to time invariance. Angular momentum is related to rotational invariance. If you've got an inquisitive mind I suggest you learn some Lagrangian mechanics, it applies to Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity so its a useful thing to know. Not that you'll bother.

That's simply poor science thinking. At least Billy T admits to his mistakes. You're simply not that good imo

You're not that good either. You claim to have an astronomy degree yet here you are whining about how conservation of angular momentum might not be worth considering if relativity is wrong. I didn't do physics or astronomy as a degree but the use of conservation of energy and angular momentum in computing the orbits of comets, planets etc was something even I covered in my 1st year.

You don't bother to do any research, you have no knowledge of current models, you are incapable of logical arguments and you don't remember your own degree. Clearly you are not someone whose intuition is worth listening to.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Let me hear what Billy T has to say in response to my last post before I reply.

 

[Billy T]

Let me hear what Billy T has to say in response to my last post before I reply.

I have said about all that needed to be said, but will note the as the moon receeds from the slower spining Earth to conserve angular momentum, its orbit period grows longer. Because moon is not spherical and has its spin period locked to equal to its orbit period, the spin rate of the moon is slowly decreasing also.

 

[D H]

There's plenty of reasons why the Earth's spin is slowing down. It doesn't mean that this causes the Moon to move further away in orbit! Holy Moly. My latest reckoning is that the Moon's orbit is getting either more or less inclined, which changes the gravitational interaction between the non-baryonic innermost cores.

Can one be banned for persistent inventive ignorance?

Temporarily, yes.

 

[D H]

Mod hat:

There have been several posts of a scientific nature in this thread. Unfortunately, none of them were by the original poster. Thread moved to pseudoscience.

 

[Ophiolite]

So why is the moon moving away from the Earth? That has nothing to do with whether or not I am good at science thinking. It is a simple question, relevant to this discussion. Will you answer it? Why is the moon moving away from the Earth?

Still waiting for an answer.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Still waiting for an answer.

He should already know it if he did an astronomy degree, since such phenomena as tidal locking and tidal stresses are pretty important things given one applies to the Moon and the other is powering the volcanoes on Io.

 

[Ophiolite]

What astounds me is that as an armchair amateur astronomer I know the answer and despite my considerable arrogance I would never challenge an accepted explanation without detailed justification and supporting evidence.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

What astounds me is that as an armchair amateur astronomer I know the answer

Exactly. He seems to think that none of us have ever read pop science books ourselves. I used to really like chemistry, at age 15 I wanted to do chemistry at uni, but then I started reading pop science books and after reading the entirity of the pop science book section in WHSmiths (that's a stationary/book store here in the UK) I decided physics was more my thing. People who do research into these things have either read or could write a lot of pop science books as well as having read numerous textbooks, papers and worked through huge amounts of homework.

Reading pop science books doesn't make someone even close to the level of knowledge actual researchers have, most people doing research into a given area of science read a lot of layman material before going to university.

despite my considerable arrogance I would never challenge an accepted explanation without detailed justification and supporting evidence.

Precisely. I (and others) get called arrogant for questioning the unsupported claims of the ill informed yet said ill informed don't see any arrogance in denying something they know nothing about. :shrug:

 

[common_sense_seeker]

I have said about all that needed to be said, but will note the as the moon receeds from the slower spining Earth to conserve angular momentum, its orbit period grows longer. Because moon is not spherical and has its spin period locked to equal to its orbit period, the spin rate of the moon is slowly decreasing also.

So, it's the moon's asymmetry that is needed for tidal friction to slow it's spin? (This would be the perfect explanation from a 'New-Newtonian Tidal Theory' perspective: the acceleration increase of the non-baryonic innermost core would supply the non-uniform bulge and be the reason for the moon's annual 3cm increase of orbit).

 

[Billy T]

So, it's the moon's asymmetry that is needed for tidal friction to slow it's spin? ...

No. The a-symetrical shape is required to make the moon lock its orbit and spin periods in a 1 to 1 ratio. (Some planets are locked at 2 to 3 etc so 1 to 1 is not the only possible resonance lock.)

Even if the moon were a perfect sphere, there would still be two high tides each day on Earth and Earth would still be slowing its spin rate and moon receding from Earth (to conserve angular momentum of the Earth/ moon system).

 

[common_sense_seeker]

No. The a-symetrical shape is required to make the moon lock its orbit and spin periods in a 1 to 1 ratio. (Some planets are locked at 2 to 3 etc so 1 to 1 is not the only possible resonance lock.)

Even if the moon were a perfect sphere, there would still be two high tides each day on Earth and Earth would still be slowing its spin rate and moon receding from Earth (to conserve angular momentum of the Earth/ moon system).

If both the earth and moon were totally solid, would the earth still be slowing it's spin, or is it definitely due to the fluid motion of the mantle?

 

[Billy T]

If both the earth and moon were totally solid, would the earth still be slowing it's spin, or is it definitely due to the fluid motion of the mantle?

Earth spin slowing is mainly due to the tides. Rotational energy is converted into heat. However, even the "solid earth" has tides. Typically about 1cm range between peak and bottom, as I recall.

It is not so much a question of being "solid" or not, but of the existance of energy disipation. If Earth were "perfectly elastic" then it would not be slowing down in spin. (Energy must be conserved and if no heat can be produced, then rotational energy is not lost.)

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Earth spin slowing is mainly due to the tides. Rotational energy is converted into heat. However, even the "solid earth" has tides. Typically about 1cm range between peak and bottom, as I recall.

It is not so much a question of being "solid" or not, but of the existance of energy disipation. If Earth were "perfectly elastic" then it would not be slowing down in spin. (Energy must be conserved and if no heat can be produced, then rotational energy is not lost.)

This is my point. Although perhaps unprovable, imo it is possible that the moon's inner core is creating tides of the 'solid moon rock' and therefore internal friction, which is slowing it's spin. Do you concur that this is a possiblility, albeit very remote?

 

[Billy T]

This is my point. Although perhaps unprovable, imo it is possible that the moon's inner core is creating tides of the 'solid moon rock' and therefore internal friction, which is slowing it's spin. Do you concur that this is a possiblility, albeit very remote?

No.

First there is no point in focusing on the "moon's inner core" as the tidal flexing is ever less as you approach the center of the moon. I.e. most of the tidal dispation (if it existed, which it essentially does not) on the moon would be at the surface.

Secondly if the moon's orbit were circular (almost is) and it is locked with orbit and spin periods equal (as it is) then there is zero disipation due to Earth's tidal forces (gradient of the Earth's gravity field). This is because every cubic centimeter of "moon rock" has a CONSTANT gravitational stress on it.

Imagine your thumb and finger are compressing a solid rubber ball. So long as the force you are applying is CONSTANT, the ball just has a steady deformation and is not getting warmer as there is zero internal disapation. That is exactly the condition of moon in circular orbit. NO Tide - just a static defromation - why the moon is not a sphere.

Because the real oribit is not quite circular "nutation" exists and there may be an extremely small AC component with ~28 day period, due to the Earth's gravitational force on the moon.* I doubt if this AC flexing of moon rocks even exceeds thier elastic limit. - if that is true then even with it there is no tidal disipation in the real moon orbit due to Earth's gravity field.*

--------------------
* You probably do not realize it but the sun's gravity acting on the moon is stronger than the Earth's is. And during the year the moon's distance from the sun changes from max to min about 13 times. That varying stress on the moon is more important than the tiny nutation made modulation of stress on moon rocks.

PS while I like to teach and do not think you are trolling, I am disinclined to teach you more, until you exhibit some efforts at self learning. You have much too little knowledge of the facts and too a strong tendency to invent facts, some of which are clearly nonsense.