the EARTH is expanding!!!!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by kwhilborn, May 11, 2013.

  1. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    No, I agree with that. That formula and others will become totally familiar to us as we discuss the topic.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    If you agree with that, then you agree the mass of the satelite is important in detrmining orbital parameters.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    From Wikipedia on orbital speed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
    v is approximately SQRT(MG/r) . But you are right if the mass of the satellite is not negligible we need a different formula.
    v = SQRT(G*M^2/((m+M)*r)), where m is the satellite mass, M the mass of the body being orbited.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    Based on nothing other than a hunch? That is absurd. Why don't you learn a bit more about the reasons and evidence that leads astronomers to the conclusion that the moon is a result of an impact?
     
  8. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Robbity has been posting on this for over a year on Physforum, and hasn't learned anything in that time. He also rapidly forgets anything he's told which contradicts his maunderings.
     
  9. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Its not a hunch , it is statistics. There has been a lot more moons captured than moons formed from Giant Impacts. The odds are in my favor that is all that I have said. I have looked at the evidence for the Giant Impact theory and it is weak in my opinion.
    OK if you believe it, how fast was the Earth spinning prior to the impact and how fast was it spinning after the impact? Has the mass of the "small Mars sized" planet got the momentum to do that plus send enough material up to 40,000 km and have it orbiting the earth at the right rate? Have you looked into it?
    Where did it hit the Earth? What angle? Where did it come from?
     
  10. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    The Yo-yo Moon Capture Theory is not yet 2 weeks old, so stop telling porkies Alex.
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    The key words being "almost negligible" and "approximation".
    The mass of the moon is not "almost negligible" when compared to earth.
    An approximation is not acceptable when trying to predict the long term evolution of the system.
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I'm familiar with statistics, and this isn't it.

    Are they? Have you done an analysis of the moons orbital parameters compared to those we believe to have been captures?
    Have you done an analysis of the parameter space fcor the initial conditions in your capture scenario and compare them to the initial conditions according to the giant impact hypothesis?
    Have you modeled your hypothesis to see if it can even work?

    The biggest problem with thye giant impact hypothesis has been keeping the momentum of the impact l,ow.

    Impact site is probably unknowable (and irrelevant)
    The currently accepted parameter space, as I understand it, requires Theia to have formed at the trailing lagrange point and impacted Earth from behind, striking the eaRth at a shallow glancing angle.
     
  13. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I accept that we will have to apply the correct formula, but any of these theories about planetary changes over the billions of years definitely work off estimates so the answers are educated guesses in the end. It has been said that with the Giant Impact theory 90% of the Earth's mass was present. Now that is the sort of estimate or approximation that this aspect of science is riddled with. There are no fixed quantities.
    So any long term evolution must work with estimations and hence approximations will come into it.
    But we will apply the right formulas at all times.
    But the masses plugged into them will be estimates so how accurate are the answers?
     
  14. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    True there is a lot to it. No I haven't modeled the Yo-yo theory yet, and I was in the process of going through the proof of it on the forums so that no part is missed. I have made quite a bit of progress over the 2 weeks since the concept first sparked.
    With all the help and correction the result will be refined and better than just doing it alone.
     
  15. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    I need to look at how long evolution took vs the billion or whatever years the Expanding Earth took before I can answer. Perhaps Dinosaurs are as big as they are because they dealt with more gravity. I have to look at the timing before I can really answer any of the above.
     
  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Tiny animals deal with gravity better than larger ones. Like ants can lift many times their own weight but humans struggle at half their weight. Large animals are indicative of flotation, like whales etc. Hippo and Elephants like getting into the water, takes the weight off their feet.
     
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    There's a term you should look up.
    "Monte Carlo Simulation."
     
  18. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    That was interesting and it might come down to something like that for we are dealing with so many unknown values. I know macros work best with actual values. I have yet to attempt to work out where the math will take us yet. I am imagining it will take a year or so to get an answer. I was hoping to say each point on the time line is 1 million years so there will be up to 5,500 points on the final graph, representing the 5.5 Billion years of Earth history. That was the easy bit. The other thing is that the change from one point to the next should have the same sign and roughly the same slope (no sudden changes) and gradual steady growths or declines.
    Like if the Earth mass changes it is gradual steady growths or decline. If the Earth mass changes, the Moon's mass will be a similar gradual steady growths or decline. Both bodies are in the same Solar System under the action of the same solar wind. The mass of the rocky core does not change significantly.
    But each of these variables will give a calculable speed of rotation and orbital period and obviously an radius "r" value.
    What else?
     
  19. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    The other thing is the momentum in the system is maintained. if the Moon loses momentum the Earth will gain that exact amount.
     
  20. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    If anyone thinks the Giant Impact theory is cut and dried look at what they doing today.
    "Earth-Moon Resonances - Matija Cuk (SETI Talks)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFX4b2qRsXI

    It is interesting the list of problems outlined and unsolved in the Giant Impact theory. Even their own has major problems.

    But when I see the maths that is coming out of Harvard I haven't got a chance of matching it. I'll just have to hope that the logic of it alerts someone else to look at the Yo-yo theory in greater detail.
     
  21. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I don't think we need to get the Earth to spin at the "Harvard rate" of once every 1.5 - 2 hours. If it was the water world like I propose it was it would be a spin dryer at that speed. How would I calculate a way to slow it down to today's values after that initial high? I can't.
    With the Yo-yo theory the spin rate might only need to go to 2 -3 revolutions per day or less. I can't say for certain but I doubt the sense of spinning the Earth at those extreme speeds. Jupiter is pretty fast for the size of the planet, and it wasn't impacts that made it rotate so fast. At that speed all it's moons will be tidally accelerating away from it.
    Can I make the Moon regress just by lowering the mass of the Earth and the Moon? If I can we don't need the high rotation rates.
     
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Can you now see the answers to, and problems with this post:
     
  23. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I can see the math is difficult, and there are bound to be surprises. Just as the team at Harvard found there were problems, there are problems and there will be problems in the future with the model.
    But what was wrong with the previous post, please tell? The answer simply could be the math is just too hard for the likes of me. I am tempted to just give up.
     

Share This Page