DeletedUser
You are 100% wrong.
DeletedUser
Oh dear, you're arguing with someone who studied physics at university? Ok, go ahead and dig yourself a deeper hole. The speed of any orbiting object decreases as the radius of its orbit increases. This was proved by Isaac Newton in the 17th century as a consequence of his Theory of Gravity. So as the moon orbits further from the earth it MUST slow down.
I hope you like the taste of humble pie.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser15057
DeletedUser
You are wrong in so many different ways. Matters not, child. Facts are. And your's are not.
Flame all you want, it won't change reality.
DeletedUser
Eli is correct, so is Wizdoom. The confusion comes about as to "why" it falls up instead of down when slowing down (well, other parts pose confusion as well, hehe).
The moon is losing kinetic energy, but gaining potential energy. The standard assumption would be that of the moon falling to earth just fast enough to fall over the circle of the earth and forever continuing, with only the friction posed by near tidal pools and the additional pull of far tidal pools to accelerate, reducing the moon's kinetic energy.
The answer is as Eli indicated, conservation of angular momentum. A loss of kinetic energy essentially means the moon slows down. However, near tidal pulls pose a greater friction upon the Earth, effectively slowing down the Earth's rotation. This results in a transfer of angular momentum from the Earth to the moon, which increases the moon's orbital potential energy (so Wizdoom is now right). It poses a wider arc (a bigger orbit if you will) as a result of the greater angular momentum.
Meh, good enough... i'll stop messing with the explanation.
The moon is losing kinetic energy, but gaining potential energy. The standard assumption would be that of the moon falling to earth just fast enough to fall over the circle of the earth and forever continuing, with only the friction posed by near tidal pools and the additional pull of far tidal pools to accelerate, reducing the moon's kinetic energy.
The answer is as Eli indicated, conservation of angular momentum. A loss of kinetic energy essentially means the moon slows down. However, near tidal pulls pose a greater friction upon the Earth, effectively slowing down the Earth's rotation. This results in a transfer of angular momentum from the Earth to the moon, which increases the moon's orbital potential energy (so Wizdoom is now right). It poses a wider arc (a bigger orbit if you will) as a result of the greater angular momentum.
Meh, good enough... i'll stop messing with the explanation.
DeletedUser
My dear sir, I merely pointed out a single factual error in your original post, to which you discourteously and erroneously retorted that I was the one who was in error.
Your error was in asserting that the moon was moving faster as it moved away from the earth. This is a simple mistake based on an ignorance of Newtonian mechanics. The result of accelerating an orbiting entity is that it both ascends into a higher orbit AND SLOWS DOWN.
Going into denial over this will not advance your case. What you ludicrously call "my" facts are universally accepted classical mechanics supported by empirical data.
Here's a link for you : http://www.freemars.org/jeff/speed/index.htm
In physics, as in maths, you are either right or wrong - you cannot fudge or flame your way out of that -
Edit: pace Hellstromm - my only point was about the speed of the moon, not about anything else. We cannot both be right about that - it either speeds up (Wizdoom), slows down (me and the scientific community) or stays the same (no one yet!).
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
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. 
Interrelated, but your statement was lacking a cookie. Granted, all of ours are lacking details, but meh... playing to the audience, not academia.
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 ))
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.
Agreed, as you didn't indicate your relative base for this statement, it is valid to claim the moon is moving faster.
Incorrect. It is decelerating. It is also not the reason why it is moving 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.
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.
Even with posing the influence of other planets or the Sun, this would be correct.
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 ))
DeletedUser31931
I agree with Hellstromm. I agree with everyone. Who wants cookies?
Seriously though Hellstromm's calculations appear to be in order. The part about energy to matter etc. is all relevant and, surprisingly, true. I'm with Hellstromm on this one.
Seriously though Hellstromm's calculations appear to be in order. The part about energy to matter etc. is all relevant and, surprisingly, true. I'm with Hellstromm on this one.
DeletedUser1121
Why can't someone claim the moon? The land you live on is claimed by someone a long time ago. Just because nobody is living there yet doesn't mean you can't put a claim on it.
DeletedUser
I claim Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Pluto, Uranus (particularly Uranus), and the entire Andromeda galaxy. Please contact my office regarding leasing office space.
DeletedUser
Nope. And nope.
I suggest that now you have caught up on your sleep, you research the inconsistencies of your answers. Maybe a casual Google search? Stay away from the Flat Earth site. :laugh:
If for some reason the moon were decelerating, it would fall inward [bye bye Earth]. That's just basic physics and old-time sci-fi. Not to mention rocket science.
DeletedUser
lol, Wizdoom, perhaps you would like to provide evidence to support your erroneous notion. At least provide us something to debunk besides, "you're wrong, I'm right, nyaa nyaa."
DeletedUser
Wow! If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is. Care to share the source of your empirical knowledge?
Is NASA a good enough source? http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html
Is NASA a good enough source? http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html
There are other sources if you care to spend a moment and look.
DeletedUser
Hehe, you are misunderstanding something I mentioned earlier. This is good though, provides me something to explain. First I'll start by pointing out the moon is falling to Earth (as i indicated in my first post). As a result of any fall, there is acceleration. Objects do not fall at a constant speed, but instead at a constant acceleration, assuming of course unchanged force(s). So, for the purposes of this short explanation, secular acceleration does not agree with your claim that the moon is moving faster and away from Earth. It is, in fact, accelerating to Earth. Rate of speed (faster/slower) is a different issue.
So, when I mentioned both of you were right, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, in that I decided to ignore your earlier comment about the moon moving faster and thus escaping from the Earth in favor of your later comment where you merely argued the moon is accelerating.
I will explain the rest later, presently typing away on my phone.
So, when I mentioned both of you were right, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, in that I decided to ignore your earlier comment about the moon moving faster and thus escaping from the Earth in favor of your later comment where you merely argued the moon is accelerating.
I will explain the rest later, presently typing away on my phone.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Waiting to see how you are right and NASA (and the rest of the scientific community) are wrong...
Please post links for the sources.
Please post links for the sources.
DeletedUser
Your original error was in confusing acceleration with an increase in speed when you claimed that the moon was moving faster in a higher orbit. In normal parlance equation of acceleration with increased speed is reasonable, but for physicists "acceleration" has the well-defined meaning of any alteration in the velocity vector.
Try looking at http://physics.info/acceleration/-from which I would like to highlight:
"Acceleration occurs anytime an object's speed increases, decreases, or changes direction."
So moving to a new, slower orbit is the effect of the tidal acceleration on the moon.
Unfortunately, rather than accept the original correction of your mistake in claiming that the moon was moving faster (rather than 'accelerating') you chose, against my best advice, to persist in and amplify your claim.
"A wise man accepts immediately what a foolish one is forced to admit eventually"
DeletedUser
So, you ignore my quotation of NASA and their use of the word?
Nothing more to do here...
Nothing more to do here...
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
No, since other than the implied "You're wrong," there is nothing I can do for someone who mistakes "moving faster" and "accelerating" as two different concepts. And, honestly, I don't understand what the argument is all about, considering the facts have been known for generations.
DeletedUser
So, you admit that you ignored the link and info that Eli provided?