MedVision ad

Question about the moon (1 Viewer)

slyvester63

New Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
22
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Hi everyone, what do you think of the answer for this?

1. If the Earth's gravity has been pulling on the moon for billion years. explain why the moon has not already fallen down and crashed onto earth?

2. Explain why a total eclipse of the Sun is a very rare event at any one place on Earth?
 

alcalder

Just ask for help
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
601
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
slyvester63 said:
Hi everyone, what do you think of the answer for this?

1. If the Earth's gravity has been pulling on the moon for billion years. explain why the moon has not already fallen down and crashed onto earth?
Whether it has been orbiting for billions of years is open for discussion. The actual age of the universe is debated by two sides to be either billions of years or just several thousand years.

Anyway, Wikipedia seems to indicate that the orbit or the moon is slightly increasing each year, not decreasing. Not finding anything specific (in albeit a short search) I can only suggest the following reasons:

- There are other gravity factors affecting the moon, e.g. the sun, that stop it falling in to the Earth.
- The Earth and Moon whip each other around in a cosmic gravity dance.
- We are still to understand more about space/time and gravity.

2. Explain why a total eclipse of the Sun is a very rare event at any one place on Earth?
The diameter of the moon is almost exactly the same as that of the sun (at their current realtive distances from the Earth). Although, because the moon seems to be moving away from Earth, the diameter of the moon is becoming less than the Sun and so we are seeing more Annular Eclipses.

Anyway, the solar eclipse can only happen once a month when there is a new moon and only then when the moon, sun and earth all line up exactly. If the moon does not line up with Earth at all, then the Eclipse shadow will be lost in space. (There has been an eclipse at one of the poles.) The moon does not travel around the Earth on exactly the same path, passing between the sun and Earth in exactly the same place each month. And a Solar eclipse will only happen, obviously, on the side of the Earth facing the sun at that exact time.

Hope that all helps get a discussion going, at least.
 

webby234

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
361
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
slyvester63 said:
Hi everyone, what do you think of the answer for this?

1. If the Earth's gravity has been pulling on the moon for billion years. explain why the moon has not already fallen down and crashed onto earth?

2. Explain why a total eclipse of the Sun is a very rare event at any one place on Earth?
Whether it has been orbiting for billions of years is open for discussion. The actual age of the universe is debated by two sides to be either billions of years or just several thousand years.
I don't think you can argue that anymore - there is way too much evidence for the actual age being 13.7 (+/- 0.2) billion years. In 2005 the age of the moon was measured as being 4527 (+/-10) million years

Anyway - in answer to 1) - the moon has an orbital speed that is a relic of its momentum when it was created (either by being caught by the earth or by an impact with the earth). Its centripetal force (mv2/r) is therefore equal to the force of gravity. If it had originally had more velocity, r would also be greater and it would be in a longer orbit. The orbits of two objects do decay gradually as a result of the emission of gravitational radiation, but this process takes 250 billion years even for binary pulsars and substantially longer for less massive objects with greater separation. Tidal effects greatly overwhelm this and the moon is currently moving away by 4 metres per century - it was once much closer to the earth - note - compared to the distance from the earth to the moon 4 metres is incredibly small. Only over billions of years will the effect be noticable.

2) Total eclipses are rare at any one place because they are only seen where the darkest part of the moon's shadow is on the earth's surface.
 
Last edited:

alcalder

Just ask for help
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
601
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
webby234 said:
I don't think you can argue that anymore - there is way too much evidence for the actual age being 13.7 (+/- 0.2) billion years. In 2005 the age of the moon was measured as being 4527 (+/-10) million years.
No, there is only certain published iterpretation of evidence that supports that view. There is actually a lot of research that supports the other view but mainstream publications will not touch it because they believe it is wacko science (mainly because it interferes with their notion of the world). It is, in fact, a fallicy to claim there is "way too much evidence" the other way. NO, it is the same evidence used by both camps just interpreted differently. One camp throwing out interpretations that don't fit their old age view, the other not.
 

webby234

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
361
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
alcalder said:
There is actually a lot of research that supports the other view but mainstream publications will not touch it because they believe it is wacko science
Can you give me any examples of this research? Like for example how do you explain the results of radiometric dating, observations of the cosmic microwave background, fossils, the distance of stars (are you suggesting that no standard candle is accurate?), the rate of expansion of the universe, the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the sun.
 

alcalder

Just ask for help
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
601
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Hi Webby,

Initially I would refer you to the following sites:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

These two sites hold scientifically based articles on the things you mention and MORE. I just ask that you approach the issue open to the posssibility that perhaps the evidence shows something other than what popular, mainstream science is trying to tell us.

Radiometric dating:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2016/

Cosmic Microwave Background:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4643
(and links therein)

Fossils:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001
(lots of links here)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4504/
(and links)

Distance of stars: The actual issue here is time it takes for light to reach us:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3664

Expansion: good question, but what's the effect - Doppler or Lemaitre? Quantised red-shifts. etc
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1559
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/

Sun:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/554
(Haven't heard of any issue re hydrogen/helium mix, but this would assume a certain parent/daughter starting ratio one way or another, I presume)

Thanks for asking.
 
Last edited:

webby234

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
361
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Sorry - I'm not really good with the geological ones - but this is my take on the cosmological ones.

alcalder said:
Cosmic Microwave Background:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4643
(and links therein)
I don't see how the radiation can be coming from the galaxy when it is so isotropic.

Distance of stars: The actual issue here is time it takes for light to reach us:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3664
The speed of light could not have slowed - simply because it would imply that we were seeing events in slow motion. Just as an example, if this was the case then a milisecond pulsar would be spinning so fast it would destroy itself just about immediately. Further, they make such accurate clocks that observations such as those made by Taylor and Hulse over twenty years would pick up any decay in the speed of light. Also - see Sn1987a - the distance to which was measured trigonometrically (see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0309/0309416.pdf). For Humphries - I'm not completely sure, but its far more complex than the usual explanation - while GR shows that they can exist hypothetically, there is no evidence that they do. Further, surely the enormous tidal forces would have destroyed the earth.
Sn1987a also shows the validity of radiometric decay as a dating method - at least for cobolt.

Expansion: good question, but what's the effect - Doppler or Lemaitre? Quantised red-shifts. etc
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1559
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/
Quantised redshifts appear to have been disproved by galaxy surveys. Further more, the redshifts are not doppler - you could not otherwise explain objects that are observed to recede faster than the speed of light - the reason you can see them is because the expansion of space has slowed down sufficiently.

Yes, but isn't that countered by the decrease in the amount of greenhouse gases as plants took hold. Surely greenhouse gases were more prevalent in the past.

Thanks for asking.
I'm interested - and I've treated it as a research type project, but tried to think of my own answers first.
 

slyvester63

New Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
22
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
webby234 said:
2) Total eclipses are rare at any one place because they are only seen where the darkest part of the moon's shadow is on the earth's surface.

For eclipse, I read in the book that people know certain place and when it occurs on certain time... how is it possible??
 

alcalder

Just ask for help
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
601
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
They have computer models of the motion of the moon and have used tricky maths to do this. They can predict exactly where and when the moon will be and where the earth will be for these eclipses.

They have even done this for hundreds of years into the future. There is a great website I like to visit that has the moon phases all the way to the year 3000.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html

Check it out, it's really interesting. You may even find more of an answer to your question because mine was pretty lame.
 

gurusson

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
119
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
alcalder said:
No, there is only certain published iterpretation of evidence that supports that view. There is actually a lot of research that supports the other view but mainstream publications will not touch it because they believe it is wacko science (mainly because it interferes with their notion of the world). It is, in fact, a fallicy to claim there is "way too much evidence" the other way. NO, it is the same evidence used by both camps just interpreted differently. One camp throwing out interpretations that don't fit their old age view, the other not.
i might throw the day age theory in to mess u boys up.
the theory state that each of gods creation days was set over billions of years, hey he trancends time, the point is, that with no drag to slow the moon down, it should just keep accelerating foreva, this is y the moons orbit is in fact deacraesing. also, for some odd reason not entirely known to scientists, more meteors hit the side of the moon that is at the back of it's motion that do the front. go figure.
 

TurkStyle

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
103
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
the moon is in a constant freefall due to the orbit of the earth
 

HalcyonSky

Active Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
1,187
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
alcalder said:
Hi Webby,

Initially I would refer you to the following sites:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

These two sites hold scientifically based articles on the things you mention and MORE. I just ask that you approach the issue open to the posssibility that perhaps the evidence shows something other than what popular, mainstream science is trying to tell us.

Radiometric dating:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2016/

Cosmic Microwave Background:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4643
(and links therein)

Fossils:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001
(lots of links here)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4504/
(and links)

Distance of stars: The actual issue here is time it takes for light to reach us:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3664

Expansion: good question, but what's the effect - Doppler or Lemaitre? Quantised red-shifts. etc
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1559
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/

Sun:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/554
(Haven't heard of any issue re hydrogen/helium mix, but this would assume a certain parent/daughter starting ratio one way or another, I presume)

Thanks for asking.
fucking lol
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top