Our moon is constant

[Native]

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...

All this is based on a celestial gravity model which derived from the Solar System and this model don´t fit in the larger cosmic scale - if anywhere - and because this misfit, scientist had to add "dark matter" in order to sustain and keep their false proven theory.

I have totally discarded these ideas because they are insufficient in all cosmic accounts - also the MOND.

 

[Willamena]

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.

How did that cause it?

 

[Ouroboros]

@Ouroboros
It is in fact my opinion that the recession rate IS constant.

So I was right, it's your opinion, or in other words, your assumption.

Or do you have any evidence to back it up that the recession rate has been constant for billions of years? Do you know what's causing the recession to begin with? What is causing the energy loss? Or rather, to where is the energy transferred?

 

[Native]

How did that cause it?

Please read the thread posts above and be welcome to ask further into the contents

 

[Willamena]

Please read the thread posts above and be welcome to ask further into the contents

How does "cause" cause effect?

 

[Onyx]

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

This.

 

[SoyLeche]

How does "cause" cause effect?

Good luck!

 

[Native]

So I was right, it's your opinion, or in other words, your assumption.

Or do you have any evidence to back it up that the recession rate has been constant for billions of years? Do you know what's causing the recession to begin with? What is causing the energy loss? Or rather, to where is the energy transferred?

Correct. This is my opinion and assumption - which is the beginning of every theory, right?

The evidence of a posible constant recession rate doesn´t come before it can be calculated and eventually confirmed or falsified. (Which not is my favorite cup of tea)

But in the theory of the formation of the Solar System in the Milky Way center, all motions from the center must have a fairly constant motion forward to its actual position. And the same goes for the motions of planets and their moons when once ejected from the Sun and their mother planets.

It is this outgoing motion in the galactic center which initially causes the overall receding motions. The energy is transferred in a circuit of formation, driven by electromagnetism in the galactic center.

All in all there is an actual and overall expanding motion in our Solar System right from the departure from the Milky Way center.

 

[Native]

PS: It´s bed time on my longitude - See you tomorrow.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

All this is based on a celestial gravity model which derived from the Solar System and this model don´t fit in the larger cosmic scale - if anywhere - and because this misfit, scientist had to add "dark matter" in order to sustain and keep their false proven theory.

I have totally discarded these ideas because they are insufficient in all cosmic accounts - also the MOND.

It appears to me that you are cherry picking what you accept and don't accept, whatever supports your notion, and ignoring whatever contradicts your ideas without understanding anything about the larger theories.

I'd really like to see your EVIDENCE in support of your intuition, not another repeat of what you think. Evidence. Sources. Documentation. So far, you've presented nothing worth really, responding any further to.

Sorry, but I'm really not interested in discussing/debating with you about this; I think your idea is nonsense, and I have no interest in trying to explain why because you appear to have no interest in understanding that you are wrong, or how you are wrong.

There are some truly interesting puzzles in our understanding of the universe, but you are clearly throwing out our understanding to support ideas that have been dismissed by people who actually study this kind of thing. On the basis of your intuition, not on the basis of facts or evidence.

 

[viole]

PS: It´s bed time on my latitude - See you tomorrow.

You mean longitude, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

Correct. This is my opinion and assumption - which is the beginning of every theory, right?

Well. Every theory begins with a hypothesis which then are supported by evidence. The hypothesis starts with opinions and assumptions.

The evidence of a posible constant recession rate doesn´t come before it can be calculated and eventually confirmed or falsified. (Which not is my favorite cup of tea)

Since it's a very complex interchange of forces happening between Earth and Moon, I strongly suspect it's not as simple as one might think.

For instance, Earth's rotation is slowing down, and the Moon's velocity is increasing, and it's because of the tidal bulge that is pulled forward by Earth's rotation.

I can only think of one of the large ice ages when some 70% of the Earth's oceans were frozen over. The tidal bulge couldn't have been as extreme during that time, and hence not affecting Moon's velocity. So I'd say, just by that fact alone, the recession should have been a lot less than it is now during that time.

But in the theory of the formation of the Solar System in the Milky Way center, all motions from the center must have a fairly constant motion forward to its actual position. And the same goes for the motions of planets and their moons when once ejected from the Sun and their mother planets.

And normally there's no friction. A binary system would stay unchanged unless there was some kind of transfer of energy or mass. In Earth-Moon relationship, the oceans play a large role.

It is this outgoing motion in the galactic center which initially causes the overall receding motions. The energy is transferred in a circuit of formation, driven by electromagnetism in the galactic center.

I'm not sure about that. The gravity vs velocity would find some equilibrium unless the system is changing somehow, but i could be wrong. Satellites are placed in geosynchronous lock where they stay in a fixed position, and fixed distance from Earth. So it's not necessarily true that an orbit become spiral.

What I learned is that the moon's recession has to do with the friction caused by the tidal bulge. It's pulled forward in front of the moon, causing it to speed up and slowing down Earth's rotation. By speeding up the moon's velocity, it's orbit will increase.

All in all there is an actual and overall expanding motion in our Solar System right from the departure from the Milky Way center.

Ok. Didn't know that. Sounds interesting. Do you have an article that I could read?

 

[Thief]

It's tidally-locked with Earth due to Earth's gravity, which is a pretty common occurence throughout the Solar System. The moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos), the four major moons of Jupiter (Europa, Io, Callisto and Ganymede), Saturn's moon Titan, Neptune's moon Triton and Pluto's moon Charon are also tidally-locked.

I hear Mercury is one face to the Sun at all times

 

[Thief]

so picture a really hot 'blob' spinning quickly....
enough so a portion of it breaks away....

the thread like portion that almost holds on will synchronize the rotation to the orbit

When that last thread fails....and the newly formed moon fails to escape into space

 

[Aupmanyav]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon has nice information.

"The Moon is thought to have formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, not long after Earth. There are several hypotheses for its origin; the most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body called Theia."

For information on Theia, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theia_(planet)

"Most of the Moon's mare basalts erupted during the Imbrian period, 3.0–3.5 billion years ago, although some radiometrically dated samples are as old as 4.2 billion years. Until recently, the youngest eruptions, dated by crater counting, appeared to have been only 1.2 billion years ago. In 2006, a study of Ina, a tiny depression in Lacus Felicitatis, found jagged, relatively dust-free features that, due to the lack of erosion by infalling debris, appeared to be only 2 million years old. Moonquakes and releases of gas also indicate some continued lunar activity. In 2014 NASA announced "widespread evidence of young lunar volcanism" at 70 irregular mare patches identified by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, some less than 50 million years old. This raises the possibility of a much warmer lunar mantle than previously believed, at least on the near side where the deep crust is substantially warmer due to the greater concentration of radioactive elements. Just prior to this, evidence has been presented for 2–10 million years younger basaltic volcanism inside Lowell crater, Orientale basin, located in the transition zone between the near and far sides of the Moon. An initially hotter mantle and/or local enrichment of heat-producing elements in the mantle could be responsible for prolonged activities also on the far side in the Orientale basin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Volcanic_features

"We see slightly more than half of the moon from Earth: Most reference books will note that because the moon rotates only once during each revolution about the Earth, we never see more than half of its total surface. The truth, however, is that we actually get to see more of it over the course of its elliptical orbit: 59 percent (almost three-fifths)."
http://www.space.com/11162-10-surprising-moon-facts-full-moons.html

If there are more questions you are welcome to ask them. I will try to find the answers.

 

[Native]

You mean longitude, right?

I was too sleepy . . .

 

[Native]

It appears to me that you are cherry picking what you accept and don't accept, whatever supports your notion, and ignoring whatever contradicts your ideas without understanding anything about the larger theories.

I'd really like to see your EVIDENCE in support of your intuition, not another repeat of what you think. Evidence. Sources. Documentation. So far, you've presented nothing worth really, responding any further to.

Sorry, but I'm really not interested in discussing/debating with you about this; I think your idea is nonsense, and I have no interest in trying to explain why because you appear to have no interest in understanding that you are wrong, or how you are wrong.

There are some truly interesting puzzles in our understanding of the universe, but you are clearly throwing out our understanding to support ideas that have been dismissed by people who actually study this kind of thing. On the basis of your intuition, not on the basis of facts or evidence.

When the theories of the standing cosmology is contradicted, I take the alternative approach and look for other possibilities.

Yes I am cherry picking what I can use from modern science in order to build up an alternative theory and I really think this is the scientific way to find new answers.

Regarding "evidence". The first "evidence" I can provide, is circumstantial indications (just like in the standing modern cosmology) where I describe my points of views in plain sentences.

If you, after a thoroughly pondering over my plain explanations and arguments, still thinks this is nonsense, we´ll just leave it there

PS: Since we are discussing in a Religious Forum, I can inform you that my ideas/theories basically derives from personal inspirations of cosmic information - which already exist in the numerous cultural Stories of Creation.

Cheers

 

[SoyLeche]

Well. Every theory begins with a hypothesis which then are supported by evidence. The hypothesis starts with opinions and assumptions.


Since it's a very complex interchange of forces happening between Earth and Moon, I strongly suspect it's not as simple as one might think.

For instance, Earth's rotation is slowing down, and the Moon's velocity is increasing, and it's because of the tidal bulge that is pulled forward by Earth's rotation.

I can only think of one of the large ice ages when some 70% of the Earth's oceans were frozen over. The tidal bulge couldn't have been as extreme during that time, and hence not affecting Moon's velocity. So I'd say, just by that fact alone, the recession should have been a lot less than it is now during that time.


And normally there's no friction. A binary system would stay unchanged unless there was some kind of transfer of energy or mass. In Earth-Moon relationship, the oceans play a large role.


I'm not sure about that. The gravity vs velocity would find some equilibrium unless the system is changing somehow, but i could be wrong. Satellites are placed in geosynchronous lock where they stay in a fixed position, and fixed distance from Earth. So it's not necessarily true that an orbit become spiral.

What I learned is that the moon's recession has to do with the friction caused by the tidal bulge. It's pulled forward in front of the moon, causing it to speed up and slowing down Earth's rotation. By speeding up the moon's velocity, it's orbit will increase.



Ok. Didn't know that. Sounds interesting. Do you have an article that I could read?

I think the tidal bulge is a lot more than just the oceans. I'm not an expert, but I would think that the effect of the oceans is insignificant in respect to the forces acting on the moon since their mass is really insignificant compared to the mass of the earth.

Overall, though - good post

 

[Native]

What I learned is that the moon's recession has to do with the friction caused by the tidal bulge. It's pulled forward in front of the moon, causing it to speed up and slowing down Earth's rotation. By speeding up the moon's velocity, it's orbit will increase.

I know. This is the standard gravitational explanation - which no one really can explain causally or logically and it include a "spooky force acting on distance without any visible connection" as it is said. I don´t accept this explanation because it only "explain" "half the truth" regarding motions in space, namely the attractive motion and not the expulsive motions in cosmos.

I wrote:

All in all there is an actual and overall expanding motion in our Solar System right from the departure from the Milky Way center.

Ok. Didn't know that. Sounds interesting. Do you have an article that I could read?

Yes, I have a short description here on the free alternative peer review website, vixra.org - "Circular Galactic Formation" - http://vixra.org/abs/1605.0283

PS: Just by the very looks of a barred galaxy you can intuitively and logically conclude the motion to go outwards from the center. There is no way a galactic arm can take a suddenly 90 degree turn from the arms into the barred structure if the motion should go outwards in. The barred galaxies works just like a two arm rotating garden sprinkler spreading the stars out from the galactic center. - Look here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barre...ubble2005-01-barred-spiral-galaxy-NGC1300.jpg

Cheers

 

[Ouroboros]

I think the tidal bulge is a lot more than just the oceans. I'm not an expert, but I would think that the effect of the oceans is insignificant in respect to the forces acting on the moon since their mass is really insignificant compared to the mass of the earth.

Overall, though - good post

My understanding is that the tidal bulge is pulled forward by the rotation of Earth, so it goes ahead of the Moon and pulls it forward, and hence increase its velocity. At least that's how they explained in it my astronomy class to be the reason to Moon recession.