Our moon is constant

[DawudTalut]

Why is our moon constant? We only see one side of the moon. And this was what our ancestors saw.

Peace be on you.
Only one side of the Moon is visible from Earth because the Moon rotates about its spin axis at the same rate that the Moon orbits the Earth, a situation known as synchronous rotation or tidal locking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_side_of_the_Moon

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There's a joke in there somewhere, if only I can find it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mooning

 

[Native]

I don't think that would work, because it would assume that the recession rate is/was constant.

You're welcome to do the math yourself. Although I did it as a linear calculation, it's really not linear; the tidal slowing was much greater early on, and will be much slower billions of years from now. So my 65 million year calculation is probably off a bit (but since it's only about 1.4 percent of the time since the formation of the moon, it shouldn't be off by too much). I'm sure it's not difficult to find the correct formulae for doing the more accurate calculations.

@Ouroboros
It is in fact my opinion that the recession rate IS constant.
@beenherebeforeagain,
I know the motion is not linear, but IMO there is no "tidal slowing down". This is just a "gravity model theory" and this don´t work in the larger scales.
I´m convinced that the Solar System once was formatted in the Milky Way center and has slowly moved out to it´s actual position, hence the overall continued receding motion of the Earth from the Sun as well as the Moon receding away from the Earth. These motions indicates - and proves to me - such an expanding motion.
You wrote: " I'm sure it's not difficult to find the correct formulae for doing the more accurate calculations".
My big problem - and advantage - is that I´m working very intuitively and I`m useless regarding math and calculations - so
PLEASE IF YOU WISH AND CAN?
Couldn´t it be interesting to test - also to prove me wrong?

Edit: With the formation in the galactic center I mean the planets and their moons also were ejected fairly early in this proces, hence the receding motion from this formation and seperation of planets and moons from the solar sphere.

 

[SoyLeche]

From your link:

I don´t think so. The cause of this is that the Moon once was ejected from the Earth early in the formation when the entire Solar System was molten hot.

I'm not sure why you think those 2 things are related.

 

[Skwim]

That used to give me the Mother of All Headaches until I saw this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking)

....................GOOD MOON.................................................BAD MOON



According to my caculations Using the rate of recession of 1.5" a year as a constant, and the current distance to the moon at 238,900 miles, the moon distanced itself from Earth 10, 091,000,000 years ago. That's a little over 10 billion years ago. So the current distance to the moon doesn't compute at all with the a constant rate of recession of 1.5 inches per year.


.

 

[Native]

I wrote:
"I don´t think so. The cause of this is that the Moon once was ejected from the Earth early in the formation when the entire Solar System was molten hot".

I'm not sure why you think those 2 things are related.

I think they are. Imagine when the Earth still was molten hot very early in the formation of the Solar system and the Moon was ejected from the Earth. In this way the Moon would follow the motion of its mother planet with a rotation which fits its orbital motion around the Earth = the locked motion.
This can also confirm the still annual receding motion away from the Earth

 

[SoyLeche]

I think they are. Imagine when the Earth still was molten hot very early in the formation of the Solar system and the Moon was ejected from the Earth. In this way the Moon would follow the motion of its mother planet with a rotation which fits its orbital motion around the Earth = the locked motion.
This can also confirm the still annual receding motion away from the Earth

I'm still not seeing how this follows. It seems more likely that the moon's rotation would be similar to the earth's rotation in that scenario, although I'm not really sure what the different forces involved would end up causing. I see no reason why the moon being ejected from a molten earth would cause it to have a rotational period that is equal to it's revolution period. It "could" occur, but I don't see that it would "have to" - and so the fact that it "does" wouldn't provide any evidence of the whole "ejection" thing.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

@Ouroboros
It is in fact my opinion that the recession rate IS constant.
@beenherebeforeagain,
I know the motion is not linear, but IMO there is no "tidal slowing down". This is just a "gravity model theory" and this don´t work in the larger scales.
I´m convinced that the Solar System once was formatted in the Milky Way center and has slowly moved out to it´s actual position, hence the overall continued receding motion of the Earth from the Sun as well as the Moon receding away from the Earth. These motions indicates - and proves to me - such an expanding motion.
You wrote: " I'm sure it's not difficult to find the correct formulae for doing the more accurate calculations".
My big problem - and advantage - is that I´m working very intuitively and I`m useless regarding math and calculations - so
PLEASE IF YOU WISH AND CAN?
Couldn´t it be interesting to test - also to prove me wrong?

Hello, Native,
okay, you don't believe in tidal friction and conservation of energy, it appears...if you're gonna convince me that Newton and Einstein, etc., are wrong, you're going to need to show 1) that their math doesn't work, and 2) that your model (which needs to be mathematical in order to replace the very-well-proven existing maths) is better. Back when I was younger, I still could understand and do the Newtonian calculations of mass, orbit, tides, etc....it would take a lot for me to get back to that point...I never did learn the math of de Sitter space...

You're also going to have to provide some kind of evidence of your theory of the solar system originating at the center of the Milky Way and later moving out here. That doesn't match with any existing theories of how the galaxy operates and where and how the Solar System originated, and it would take more than just an intuition to give it any serious consideration. What I can say is that if the solar system formed near the center of the galaxy and moved outward, that would also apply to everything else in the galaxy...and dynamically, that would be VERY difficult to come up with a coherent model, given our observations of this and other galaxies.

If you're not much good at math, and are relying on intuition, how would my laying out the math help you, or me? Before I'd go to the effort to try to disprove you, I'd need to be convinced that you might be right...and so far you haven't convinced me.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I wrote:
"I don´t think so. The cause of this is that the Moon once was ejected from the Earth early in the formation when the entire Solar System was molten hot".

I think they are. Imagine when the Earth still was molten hot very early in the formation of the Solar system and the Moon was ejected from the Earth. In this way the Moon would follow the motion of its mother planet with a rotation which fits its orbital motion around the Earth = the locked motion.
This can also confirm the still annual receding motion away from the Earth

This particular model was once considered the most likely, and since the sampling of the moon and many other studies, was dismissed. The biggest problem is that it is impossible to get anything "ejected" from a planet...except as a result of a large impact...unless you have another theory of gravity, planet formation, etc.

Recent advances in computer modeling have made the Theia impact theory pretty much a certainty.

 

[Skwim]

@Ouroboros
I´m convinced that the Solar System once was formatted in the Milky Way center and has slowly moved out to it´s actual position.

What!!!! What on earth ever convinced you of this?


.

 

[Native]

I'm still not seeing how this follows.

You have to imagine an initial spinning sphere which become the entire Solar System where the planets are ejected fmo this central sphere and where the Moons are ejected from their mother planets.
In this spinning motion and formation the moons logically will follow the mother planets with an orbital motion and 1 lunar rotation as the momentum is given by the mother planets.

 

[SoyLeche]

You have to imagine an initial spinning sphere which become the entire Solar System where the planets are ejected fmo this central sphere and where the Moons are ejected from their mother planets.
In this spinning motion and formation the moons logically will follow the mother planets with an orbital motion and 1 lunar rotation as the momentum is given by the mother planets.

I'm trying to imagine such a scenario, and failing to see what forces would cause this.

Also, wouldn't this make the earth's (and all the other planets') orbital motion follow the "central sphere's"? Since we have "day" and "night", that obviously isn't the case (although in a couple million year's it well may be).

FWIW, you repeating the claim doesn't actually do anything to add to the discussion. Each new post it seems like you think you are clarifying, but really you are just repeating.

 

[Jainarayan]

What on earth

Interesting turn of phrase.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You have to imagine an initial spinning sphere which become the entire Solar System where the planets are ejected fmo this central sphere and where the Moons are ejected from their mother planets.
In this spinning motion and formation the moons logically will follow the mother planets with an orbital motion and 1 lunar rotation as the momentum is given by the mother planets.

you should read some about the history of ideas about the origin of the solar system. Something like this was once a theory...like back in the 1700 and 1800s...later evidence and calculations showed that it really doesn't work that way, and can't work that way, given what we now know about chemistry and physics--first off because the material that formed the solar system was not "molten;" it was gaseous...

 

[columbus]

You have to imagine an initial spinning sphere which become the entire Solar System where the planets are ejected fmo this central sphere and.....

The purpose of math and science is to discourage people from mistaking their imagination for reality.
It is a cross religious people must bear.
Tom

 

[Native]

You're also going to have to provide some kind of evidence of your theory of the solar system originating at the center of the Milky Way and later moving out here. That doesn't match with any existing theories of how the galaxy operates and where and how the Solar System originated, and it would take more than just an intuition to give it any serious consideration. What I can say is that if the solar system formed near the center of the galaxy and moved outward, that would also apply to everything else in the galaxy...and dynamically, that would be VERY difficult to come up with a coherent model, given our observations of this and other galaxies.
If you're not much good at math, and are relying on intuition, how would my laying out the math help you, or me? Before I'd go to the effort to try to disprove you, I'd need to be convinced that you might be right...and so far you haven't convinced me.

1) Take the observed galactic rotation curve which contradicts the standard model of celestial motion around a gravity center. The rotation graph shows a almost straight line and not the expected one. This is an evidence of an outwards going motion from the galactic center.
2) Take a look at the Milky Way and its barred structure and open wrapped arms. There is no way the bars and the suddenly 90 degree arms can be formed by other ways than an outgoing motion, just like a two arm rotating garden sprinkler where the water drops resembles the stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

You:
"If you're not much good at math, and are relying on intuition, how would my laying out the math help you, or me?".
If you are good at math I´m very easy to be convinced - and if the result fits my logical intuition = It would benefit both of us.

 

[Native]

you should read some about the history of ideas about the origin of the solar system. Something like this was once a theory...like back in the 1700 and 1800s...later evidence and calculations showed that it really doesn't work that way, and can't work that way, given what we now know about chemistry and physics--first off because the material that formed the solar system was not "molten;" it was gaseous...

Have you any links to the history of the SS origin?.
I agree in the initial gaseous stage, but this became heated up in the formational proces.

 

[Native]

The purpose of math and science is to discourage people from mistaking their imagination for reality.
It is a cross religious people must bear.
Tom

On the other hand the purpose of intuition is to grasp cosmological ideas wich can be calculated.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

1) Take the observed galactic rotation curve which contradicts the standard model of celestial motion around a gravity center. The rotation graph shows a almost straight line and not the expected one. This is an evidence of an outwards going motion from the galactic center.
2) Take a look at the Milky Way and its barred structure and open wrapped arms. There is no way the bars and the suddenly 90 degree arms can be formed by other ways than an outgoing motion, just like a two arm rotation garden sprinkler.

You:
"If you're not much good at math, and are relying on intuition, how would my laying out the math help you, or me?".
If you are good at math I´m very easy to be convinced - and if the result fits my logical intuition = It would benefit both of us.

1) No. The current thinking attributes the curve's difference to the presence of "Dark Matter," which helps explain gravitational lensing and other phenomena. There is an alternative theory called MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), which accounts for the curve in other ways than Dark Matter. In neither case is it evidence of an outward motion, it is an indication of waves in the interstellar medium.

2) No. Computer modeling shows a number of ways for various galaxy shapes to form; none of them are like a sprinkler because a galaxy is not a solid object, but a loose collection of stars, dust and gas...

3) I used to be decent at math; it has become much more difficult for me beyond some simple math and statistics. It is clear you need to learn a lot more about chemistry, physics, astronomy and related subjects; this is possible even without the math...and it's necessary to understanding what the historical and current theories actually are about.

As for sources to learn about these things, I've got to go run some errands, I'll see what I can come up with later.

 

[Native]

@beenherebeforeaga,

I found this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solar_System_formation_and_evolution_hypotheses

§ Alternative theories:

“However plausible it may appear at first sight, the nebular hypothesis still faces the obstacle of angular momentum; if the Sun had indeed formed from the collapse of such a cloud, the planets should be rotating far more slowly. The Sun, though it contains almost 99.9 percent of the system's mass, contains just 1 percent of its angular momentum. This means that the Sun should be spinning much more rapidly”.

My comment: All the other paragraphs do me no good because they don’t include the Solar System formation in the Milky Way formation which is the logical formation.

The Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way orbital motion and logically also an integrated part of the Milky Way formation process. In fact, the Solar System orbits the Milky Way center in the similar way the Moon orbit the Earth.

The “angular motion” of the entire Solar System was once given in the galactic center and al rotations and orbital motions of planets and their moons mirrors this angular momentum in the galactic center.