hehe, I was trying to be nice. But I guess that's not normally what I do, so I probably should just stick to being obnoxious, as usual.
This results in the moon moving to a higher orbit, where of necessity it must slow down to balance the reduced gravitational pull.
This part is incomplete. The moon loses kinetic energy due to the pull associated with the near tides, which although the far tides do accelerate, the near tides have more gravitational influence, simply because they're nearer. It thus results in a loss in kinetic energy.
Interrelated, but your statement was lacking a cookie. Granted, all of ours are lacking details, but meh... playing to the audience, not academia.
The idea that the moon moves faster is valid, but probably not for whatever idea conjured up the notion.
Agreed, as you didn't indicate your relative base for this statement, it is valid to claim the moon is moving faster.
The moon is indeed accelerating, and because of this is moving away.
Incorrect. It is decelerating. It is also not the reason why it is moving away.
The reason is often misunderstood. It is not moving faster because it is moving further away.
Agreed, it is moving faster based on some other relation you didn't present. Perhaps the center of the universe? Don't know... but if we are to assume you are referring to the moon moving faster around Earth than before, this would be incorrect.
It’s well known that the moon is responsible for the tides on earth. But that effect is not one-way: in return, the moon is being tugged along behind the earth’s rotation much like a stubborn dog on a leash. This process accelerates the moon slightly, and as it accelerates its orbit must increase.
Partially correct. There are actually two tides. One is the far tide, the other is the near tide
(that's why you have two high tides every 25 or so hour. Useful info for you fishermen). The far tide pulls at the Moon as the Earth rotates, with the far tide heading away from the Moon
(and likewise the moon has a near and far tide, but let's not confuse this further) encouraging it to accelerate. Unfortunately, there's also the near tide coming around, which approaches the moon from behind
(sort of, but whatever, for practical purposes, the near tide is like a ninja). As it gets closer to the moon, the decelerating influence increases. The accelerating influence is not so pronounced because at its most influential point, the far tide is further away
(thus less influence). The result of adding/subtracting is a very slight deceleration.
At some point in the distant future, a total solar eclipse will not be possible because the moon will have moved too far away.
Even with posing the influence of other planets or the Sun, this would be correct.
The idea that people and animals “taking” birth and trees growing out of the ground adds to the earth’s mass is ludicrous.
Well, it's ludicrous only if you know why. Anything created on this earth is actually changed from one matter to another matter, or matter to energy
(or in less common cases on Earth, energy to matter). To the mass of the Earth doesn't change due to population grown or vegetation increase
(even if it did, it would be an incredibly miniscule amount of mass change, effectively a pin in an ocean, thus no discernible ripple, but it doesn't... so forget the pin).
So, anyway, when you eat and crap, you're just converting matter to matter & energy
(or, if you eat light bulbs, energy to matter & energy). But it's all still on Earth.
And yes, the Sun does loss mass, because some energy escapes
(that's that thing we call radiation).
Oh, I didn't bother explaining matter & energy being products of each other
(mass-energy equivalence), but bite me... going way out there for most of you who still hate to see me type. *smirk*
(( I take no responsibility for what I just typed. Been up for 50+ hours, I'm sick, and not bothering to proofread. Just resorting back to obnoxiousness, hehe ))