Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?

[common_sense_seeker]

Hold the front page. I've just sussed the answer which directly relates to the galaxy rotation curve anomaly

The quick answer is that the moon is migrating towards the equatorial plane of the Earth due to their combined spin. The gravity field of the Earth is stronger on the equatorial plane due to it's more orderly innermost core which exaggerates the non-spherical nature of graviton emission from matter. The inner core of the moon has a similar configuration and so experiences a greater gravitational interaction with the graviton flux pattern of the Earth. It's a long story but a good place to start would be here Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey

 

[common_sense_seeker]

The new galaxy rotation explanation is perhaps better suited to explain Io rather than the moon. The moon is receding from the Earth which suggests a nudge away from the Earth's equatorial plane.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

The new galaxy rotation explanation is perhaps better suited to explain Io rather than the moon. The moon is receding from the Earth which suggests a nudge away from the Earth's equatorial plane.

I got this wrong I think. The analogy is a pirroetting dancer who spins on their tip top but then brings in their arms to spin even faster. The Moon will have a tendency to drift towards the equatorial plane, but will speed up as a result. This extra energy will 'nudge' the Moon further from the Earth, as seen in the laser experiments.

For a full physics explanation, see this Physics and the Integers by David Tong followed by this Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey

 

[Ophiolite]

I got this wrong I think.

Let's analyse this in two parts:

I got this wrong Correct
I think Incorrect

 

[common_sense_seeker]

It's almost solved entirely now

The diagram attached will help explain what I mean. This extra gravitational kick will have a signature curve. It will accelerate slowly at first and then build only to be snapped back after passing the line of equatorial plane alignment. It would similarly decelerate when the elastic gravity stream bonds pull back before eventually breaking. The gravitational kick on the Pioneer satellite might only occur when it happens to pass through this plane of planetary equatorial alignment of two large solar system bodies. The overall kinetic energy of the probe might just be a slight increase which fits with the Pioneer data. This shape of the acceleration and deceleration is the same as for the curve for the 100,000 glacial cycle of the Earth, which fits with it's passing through the Sun's equatorial plane. It's all starting to fall into place perfectly now.

P.S Here's a recent paper which shows the 100,000yr problem is a major topic of research and debate Glacial Cycles: the 100000-Year Problem. Richard McGehee, April 2011. I've just sent him an explanatory email btw.

 

[James R]

Hold the front page. I've just sussed the answer which directly relates to the galaxy rotation curve anomaly....

The quick answer is that the moon is migrating towards the equatorial plane of the Earth due to their combined spin.

The Moon's orbit around the Earth has nothing whatsoever to do with the galaxy rotation curve.

Please don't post nonsensical rubbish on sciforums in future.

 

[wellwisher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/science/25cnd-core.html The earth's core spins faster than its surface.

What that suggested to me is the core of the earth is dragging the surface through visco-plastic interactions. One logical guess for the moon, is the moon does not spin anymore, because the moon no longer has a strong enough spinning core to drag it into rotation. It now depends on the earth to drag it.

 

[James R]

The Moon rotates once ever 27 days or so.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/science/25cnd-core.html The earth's core spins faster than its surface.

What that suggested to me is the core of the earth is dragging the surface through visco-plastic interactions. One logical guess for the moon, is the moon does not spin anymore, because the moon no longer has a strong enough spinning core to drag it into rotation. It now depends on the earth to drag it.

Interesting article, thanks for that. I've started to think about liquid metallic hydrogen in the 360 mile wide innerinnermost core of the Earth, this could be the reason for the spin differential. Jupiter is thought to have a metallic hydrogen core 27,000 miles thick in order to explain it's erratic magnetic field. There could even be 'gravity streams' connecting these interiors but only when they exactly align via their equatorial planes. This could explain the galaxy rotation curve as well as the Pioneer fly-by anomaly for example.

 

[Billy T]

both moon and earth have gravitational field that act on the other and part of that is the gravitational gradient, which can and does supply a torque. The torque on the Earth is slowing it's spin rate down. - Making the days longer so ever few years a "leap second" is inserted in our clocks.

The gravitational torque is more effective on larger diameter body than on a smaller one and has essentially zero torque on an imaginary one meter diameter sphere of Earth at the center of the Earth. Thus, the slowing down of the rotation of the central core or the Earth is slower. And it's greater rotational speed helps, by viscous drag, reduce the slowing down of the outer layers, which of course, in reaction, increase the rate of spin of the core, but not enough to fully compensate for the moon's torque. I.e. all the earth is slowing down, but the core is lagging.

PS to James: You are dreaming if you think CCC is able to post anything but the non-sense he has invented which conflicts with well know and understood physics.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Yes, I've mixed up more ideas than just that. Give me one more chance to explain it all. I think I've made a leap forward:

(i) Liquid Metallic Hydrogen (LMH) exists in the cores of the gas giants only i.e. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

(ii) This rotating LMH core produces extra gravitational output on the equatorial plane compared to it's spin axis.

(iii) Mercury's precession is due to loss of gravitational kick when it passes out of the equatorial plane of Jupiter which happens a lot more often than the other rocky planets due to it's high inclination (up and down orbit) to the invariable plane, which is the plane of angular momentum of the solar system. This is almost identical to Jupiter's orbital plane. This means that it will move out and then back within Jupiter's equatorial LMH field, compared to the other planets which generally all tend to stay within this zone.

Mercury: 6.34 degrees (inclination to invariable plane)
Venus: 2.19 degrees
Earth: 1.58 degrees
Mars: 1.67 degrees
Jupiter: 0.32 degrees
Saturn: 0.93 degrees
Uranus: 1.02 degrees
Neptune: 0.72 degrees

(iii) Pioneer's anomaly is due to it's trajectory coming in very close proximity to Saturn and it's LMH field, crossing the ring plane twice.

(iv) 100,000yr problem due to Earth's inclination cycle which has been calculated to coincide with the invariable plane with this same period (Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not  eccentricity). Periodic loss of LMH gravity field produces less tidal effects on Earth. Less heat is transported to the poles via ocean currents and induces ice albedo effect, creating a glacial age. It only occurred as the dominant forcing factor in the last 1 million years due to South America closing the channel between itself and North America, creating the Gulf Stream and drastically changing the heat transport mechanisms to the Poles in general.

(v) Saturn's ring structure is due to LMH kick on it's small moon's, which creates the sheperding effect.

(vi) Jupiter's moon Io has increased volcanism due to LHM tidal effects.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Can you prove any of your conclusions follow from your assumptions/claims quantitatively? It's easy to say "Oh look, 6.34 degrees is more than any of the others!!" but you have to show that it necessarily follows that this explains what you claim it does.

The whole reason there is a Pioneer anomaly is because physicists work out the precise values for the dynamical properties of the solar system and the satellite and then find they don't agree to within experimental accuracy. If no one bothered to crunch the numbers no one would know there is something to be addressed. If no one crunched the numbers around 1900 no one would have known Newtonian mechanics doesn't explain the precession of Mercury's orbit. After all it gets it wrong by 0.7%, a very small amount. The details are everything and you don't have any details.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

You're right about the details being required, which is why I've emailed NASA JPL's Slava Turyshev with the hypothesis. He can check it against the Pioneer data and form an opinion for starters.

The notion of anisotropic LMH is looking good:

Liquid metallic hydrogen provides a compelling material for constructing a condensed matter model of the Sun and the photosphere. Like diamond, metallic hydrogen might
have the potential to be a metastable substance requiring high pressures for formation. Once created, it would remain stable even at lower pressuresThe metallic form of hydrogen was initially conceived in 1935 by Eugene Wigner and Hillard B. Huntington who indirectly anticipated its elevated critical temperature for liquefaction (Wigner E. and Huntington H. B. On the possibility of a metallic modification of hydrogen. J. Chem. Phys., 1935, v.3, 764–770). At that time, solid metallic hydrogen was hypothesized to exist as a body centered cubic, although a more energetically accessible layered graphite-like lattice was also envisioned. Relative to solar emission, this structural resemblance between graphite and layered metallic hydrogen should not be easily dismissed. In the laboratory, metallic hydrogen remains an elusive material. However, given the extensive observational evidence for a condensed Sun composed primarily of hydrogen, it is appropriate to consider metallic hydrogen as a solar building block. It is anticipated that solar liquid metallic hydrogen should possess at least some layered order. Since layered liquid metallic hydrogen would be essentially incompressible, its invocation as a solar constituent brings into question much of current stellar physics. The central proof of a liquid state remains the thermal spectrum of the Sun itself. Its proper understanding brings together all the great forces which shaped modern physics. Although other proofs exist for a liquid photosphere, our focus remains solidly on the generation of this light.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

LMH meteorites found on Earth would have properties of both supergravity and antigravity. If a round LMH meteorite was fixed inside a wooden box, then this would seem incredible heavy and if dropped, would slam into the floor with alarming speed. In counter amazement, if the box were tipped on it's side, then it would levitate of it's own accord and be easily transported merely by pushing it.

Tunguska is a prime candidate. Did it lodge within the crust or did it pass right through onward to the Earth's core? I predict a new global LMH location and mining industry in the very near future.

The Moon is thought to have collided with the Earth and delivered a payload of material towards it's core. If the Moon happened to have a cargo of LMH, then this would account for an unusually large amount for a terrestrial planet like Earth and likely explain the longevity of life forming conditions, making us seem so special.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Eureka!!

The eccentricity of the Moon is increasing. Fact. The Puzzle of the Flyby Anomaly. The distance of the AU is also increasing.

It is tempting to consider the flyby anomaly in conjunction with other spacecraft navigation anomalies, including the Pioneer anomaly (Anderson et al. 2002), and the anomalous increases in the Astronomical Unit (AU) and the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit (Anderson and Nieto 2009).

This fits with the idea of Earth moving away from Jupiter during it's ice age cycle of the 100,000 year glacial cycle, with the approx 10,000 year interglacial giving a supermagnetism effect and therefore more tidal heat transfer to the polar regions which facilitates the end of the ice age! It ALL fits!! The details still need clarifying, but the bare bones of a theory are clear to see.

 

[AlexG]

Lordy, 26 pages of stupid.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Modern physics can't even account for the flyby anomaly, which must be the biggest and most experimentally obvious contradiction to the standard model there is! How can spacecraft gain energy from a flyby of the Earth I hear you ask. Well, here's my explanation:

The NEAR spacecraft must have a higher percentage of ferrous metals compared to the others to give the greatest increase in energy w.r.t. distance above the surface of the flyby. A supermagnetic effect must be emitted from the Earth which is affecting the craft as they traverse the plane of rotation imo. The explanation for this is from solid metastable metallic hydrogen deposited by comets. More comets were deposited over time along the equatorial regions due to the effect of the Moon. Metallic hydrogen is a state of hydrogen which results when it is sufficiently compressed and undergoes a phase transition; it is an example of degenerate matter. Solid metallic hydrogen is predicted to consist of a crystal lattice of hydrogen nuclei (namely, protons), with a spacing which is significantly smaller than the Bohr radius.

 

[James R]

Modern physics can't even account for the flyby anomaly, which must be the biggest and most experimentally obvious contradiction to the standard model there is!

Nonsense.

From one of your own linked articles' conclusions:

The work outlined above [i.e. reanalysis of data from the spacecraft] is important but rather tedious. Yet it must be done before any discussion of new physics as an explanation for the flyby anomaly can seriously take place.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

You make a good point James R but one must read between the lines a little for a complete understanding. Obviously the point he makes is a sensible one but considering all the evidence together combined with JPL's own admission that something is looking 'wrong' with their assumptions, the implications are indeed monumental.

 

[AlexG]

but one must read between the lines a little for a complete understanding.

In other words, he makes stuff up to support his position.