the EARTH is expanding!!!!

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

  1. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    We say the Earth transfers momentum to the Moon and so the Moon gets further away from the Earth (38 mm per year).
    Now I want to understand the math of that for the moon slows down at a higher altitude. I think you have to include the net gain in orbital energy. Does anyone know the math of the situation? as it says in Wikipedia "Although its kinetic energy decreases, its potential energy increases by a larger amount." It an acceleration that slows something down, but it is not a deceleration as such. It is a bit like accelerating up a hill in your car. You put your foot to the metal but as the hill approaches you slowdown. Are you accelerating or decelerating?

    From Wikipedia:
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    In the Yo-yo Moon Capture theory the Earth expands, well the terrestrial part does, that is after the volatile materials have blown off into space.
    So it expands by losing mass. So if a Moon is orbiting around a central planetary object that is losing mass what happens to the Moon? Does it increase in radius, does it slow down or what?
    My gut feeling is that it will move off further out into space, that movement increases the amount of energy tied up in the gravitational potential. So it might actually slowdown as well, of course it would other wise it centrifugal forces would be too great.

    So if the central body halves its mass how much further out does the Moon go?, starting values a r and v. How do you work out the new speed and position?

    I was thinking there would be a change in the potential Energy but maybe that it stays the same?? When calculated from infinity, starting from zero potential energy if the mass it was being attracted to it would have to fall further to lose the same amount of GPE. So that if it is further out the GPE is less negative (energy has gone into the gravitational potential, so I think I was right first. Some of the Energy is stored in the gravitational field.
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    What I mean is this. We can make the statements we make with the degree of accuracy we make them because we can use tools like Monte Carlo simulations to test them. Monte carlo simultations allow us the ability to explore a range of initial conditions which can be evolved forwards in time and tested by an actikon as simple as looking out the window after moonrise.

    Take the statement regarding the amount of mass already present, for example. Earth has too much mass, not enough of the ejecta escapes to orbit to make a ,moon the size we see today. I also imagine there would be problems around angular momentum. Earth is too small you run into problems predicting the chemistry of the lunar surface. I also imagine you might have problems with retaining enough material in eaRths orbit to form a large moon.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Those problems are the problems that the Giant Impact theory has, and on the link above there were a range of others like isotopes of oxygen and Tungsten. I listened to the YouTube and I assume they are right, so to account for it the Harvard team were making the Earth spin at such a rate it would be just about be flying apart, so the Moon would be proportionally more Earth material rather than predominately impactor.
    But they had other issues of their own and I must say they had the courage to continue trying to explain it.

    With the Yo-yo capture theory (YCT) the Moon is formed in the same orbit as Earth with parts of the torus that were not accreted to Earth so it is likely to have the same isotopes for it has been made from the same band of thoroughly mixed stuff (the torus that formed within the protoplanetary disc).
    So the YCT doesn't have all the issues listed above provided the early earth and moon have enough mass to do the "Yo-yo dance". [the yo-yo dance is the moon coming inward and rotating the Earth up to the point where they are tidally locked, and then later separating once tidal acceleration takes over.]
    That is what I want to find out; if it is possible (that there are no limits exceeded at least). I can't apply the math till I understand the physics, and that is what I need to refresh for the first month or so.
  8. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    If the Earth was compressed and later it expanded, the Moment of Inertia of this part will rise, so the omega (Angular velocity) will go down.
    So that maybe significant or not because the volatile mass has to disappear at the same time so that will reduce the Moment of Inertia but in this loss there is no change in the Angular Velocity. This sounds like it will dampen any change in the Angular velocity.
    Now it might be worth thinking about whether the change in Earth Mass is significant. If the Earth mass is currently 1 and immediately after formation it was 42 would that change in satellite mass significantly affect the orbital period of the Earth. [Note we are talking about the orbital period of the Earth-Moon binary planet system prior to them becoming gravitationally involved.] This could be very interesting for even though we might say the Moon and the Earth would be orbiting the Sun at the same rate because they were formed from the same torus, they won't be exactly the same rate so this means that after a certain length of time they would be brought together.
    So if they were formed at opposite sides of the orbit how often would they pass each other? Mass of Earth 42 and saying Moon likewise is 42 times it current mass.

    I'll post this now to save it but once I've done a rough calculation I'll edit it.

    So I thought but the problem is a bit more difficult than that, for it is possible to have a satellite orbiting at any height it is just a matter of changing it speed or its orbital energy. So even if the Earth was 42 times heavier if its orbital energy per kg stays the same.
    The period changes proportional to radius even if velocity stays the same.
    Or if Radius stays the same the velocity will need to increase if the mass has increased.
    So what could happen? As I said the radius should stay the same, so if Earth is more massive it will orbit the Sun faster than the Moon.

    So if the Earth and Moon were formed in the same torus they would pass each other in orbit every 50,452.5 years. So they would tend to pull each other during this pass the Earth would gain energy and the Moon would lose energy (get closer together) and after a couple of passes they would orbit each other as well as orbiting the Sun. So does that mean the Moon passes the Earth on the inside and the Earth on the outside as their velocities change?? This is quite tricky as they are always orbiting the Sun at the same time. But definitely the Moon would move more than the Earth (less inertia).

    So that part of the capture can be done but at what distance apart would this happen? In order to get the Moon closer in there has to be a transfer of momentum, and if it is tidal deceleration the Earth must have been spinning relatively slowly to begin with.
    Last edited: May 15, 2013
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    This has turned into the Robbity nonsense blog.
  10. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    One thing I have learned from you Alex and that is Arguing with a crank - useless!

    So leave me alone please.
  11. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    I do not think some are even considering the expanding earth. It is a common weakness with many. Its like a built in prejudice against what they have been taught. Too easy to say it is wrong and to hell with the truth. We had the same thing on the LENR thread, and now everybody knows LENR is real. We seem to all think Andrea Rossi is a crackpot still (except me), but everyone now knows LENR is real. Several years ago that would be denied.
  12. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    You might not appreciate just how much thought has to go into making an original finding like that above. It might not be right but the calculations ended up with a believable figure. Now that we have something to work with I am starting to think what would happen if the two mass were not strictly 42 times their current mass? Would the conjunctions have a period that might reflect the ice-age periods or something like that? Maybe some of the original elliptical rhythms remain in the system until the end of time. I'll try it again later.
  13. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    I am a bit focused on the Earth - Moon thing and I'm not sure what LENR stands for sorry.
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    You are going to wish you had not asked...
  15. kwhilborn Banned Banned

  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    The study of the ice ages would take another lifetime, but taking just this one statement from Wikipedia on the subject:
    So what adjustment in the ratio of the Earth:Moon masses do we have to make to get the free bodies to have a 41,000 year periodicity rather than the 50,000 years sourced from yesterday's calculations.
    The logic goes like this:
    If two bodies of significant mass are orbiting a third body at the same distance they will be orbiting at the same speed if they are the same mass, otherwise if they are of different masses the more massive one will be moving slower.
    So to bring the periodicity down to a lower value we have to make the Early Earth mass:Early Moon mass further apart, so one will move relatively faster and hence pass each other more frequently.

    If the Early Earth had 51 times it current mass (compressed terrestrial part for sure), and so did the Moon they would capture each other in orbit, and if during the deceleration phase the Moon heated and lost all its volatile mass, right down to the current Moon mass, if at any stage there was the 51:1 ratio of current masses there would be a 41,000 year periodicity in their orbitals. So that is surprising as I can't reduce the Moon mass any more for it is dry by this stage. But it is still a very possible set of figures and in is in line with Herndon's figures.

    There certainly was plenty of matter in the proto-planetary disc to make an Earth this massive as we are using NASA's estimate of using only 15% of available material to get 42 Earth masses, so that 51 Earth masses might have put it up by just a few percent.
    Obviously this supports the expanding Earth later and assists in Moon capture. So there are some good reasons to try and see if these figures make sense in the longer term.
    A 41,000 year perturbation would imply periodic ice ages were the result of the Moon's natural orbital period differing from the Earth's at some distinctive period in the Earth's history. Don't ask me what it was at this time, sorry.
    Last edited: May 16, 2013
  17. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    I'm not convinced by my last post. I have the feeling any rhythm established years ago would have been dampened over the billions of years, even though a planet taking an elliptical orbit will continue on that path. I can't quite determine whether a rhythm established 3.5 billion years ago would still have a presence felt today. Maybe Harvard is right, the core of the Earth rotating within the Earth contributed to these tilt changes.
    The Moon and the Earth are still orbiting the Sun so maybe their natural rates of orbit are causing the other fluctuations. What happens if I put in the Earth and Moon current masses into the orbital velocity formula and compare their natural orbit velocities?
    Answer came out to 2,118,740 years , which probably for no particular reason is approx 51 times the 41,000 wobble of the tilt period.
    2,118,740 years is the time it would take the Moon to lap the earth in the orbit of the Sun. This restrained difference must be accounted for in the system somehow.
    I say restrained for the Moon isn't lapping the Earth around the Sun every 2,118,740 years, so this must show up in the system somewhere.
    Last edited: May 16, 2013
  18. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Got this bit wrong sorry. It is the other way around. The more massive object has to orbit faster at the same distance.
    But widening the gap between the masses was still the correct method.
    At the current masses and distances Velocity for Earth and Moon
    Earth - 1.4959787E+11 m/sec
    Moon - 1.4959743E+11 m/sec

    Note: the Earth on its own would go slightly faster than the Moon on its own if orbiting at the same radius!
    Note: "if they are of different masses the more massive one will be moving slower." This is wrong.
  19. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    an interesting problem

    What I want to do now is to look at the Early Moon and the Early Earth and to see how much speed they would generate as they were pulled toward each other (we will assume they both start off on the equal radius from the Sun but as they get closer once every 50,000 years they would be accelerated toward each other. Could this acceleration ever be enough to allow for capture and then based on that speed allow for the Moon to orbit the Earth? Can the two ever have the right amount of angular momentum? I have no idea what problems we could come up with, but it will be a matter of waiting and seeing.

    So we have the Early Moon and the Early Earth both orbiting the Sun at the current distance and at the current period of a "year", at one point they will be at opposite sides of the Sun and gradually the Earth catches up to the Moon, so the Moon will slowed and the Earth will speed up due to the gravitational forces between them. So that means the Earth will pass on the outside and the Moon being slowed will pass on the inside.
    This starts off one of those mind twisting orbital rotation problems where if an orbiting body is slowed it falls and the GPE is converted to kinetic energy and it actually speeds up but at a lower orbit, and conversely for the Earth it accelerates and is flung to a higher orbit and actually slows, due to momentum and energy being transferred. Relative to the Earth the Moon looks as if it has been pulled backwards and may orbit the Earth if the gravitational attraction is at the right strength.

    Can their relative motion ever be low enough to allow the Moon to be captured by the Earth?

    It seems like an interesting problem. I might have some of the logic a bit mixed up but I think it will be enough to allow us start applying some figures.
  20. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Bob, you sound like you're a fan of J. Marvin Herndon.
  21. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    His concept, yes, but I could never accept the 300 Earth mass figure for in my calculations I don't think we can have all the planets with such huge masses. For the estimate of the material in the proto-planetary disc would not allow this. But I must admit there is a fair degree of guesswork in this sciences for we have limited information of the past.
    My original calculations came to 28 Earth masses, but later I was told this would not be enough mass to cause the degree of compression needed. When I redid the calculation last year it came out to 42. This was closer what someone else thought was needed (he said 50 plus). The whole thing is quite odd for if you put such a blanket of water around the Earth we have to figure a way of removing it, and that is not so easy is it?
    I was going to see if the Moon was brought in real close whether the tidal bulge would extend into space and just allow water to blow away with the Solar Wind? Maybe the Moon and Earth could exchange a water spouts, as you see drawn in diagrams where a binary star is being stripped by another neutron star?
    It is all new territory.
    So you can see if 15% will allow the Earth to have 42 Earth masses, 100% will go over 300. So in Herndon's theory every last drop must get involved in the planet building process.
  22. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    I have also corrected a couple of mistakes in the maths.
    It is all good for I have a better understanding of what is happening now.
    My velocity rates for the Early Earth and Early Moon were correct
    Early Earth 2.9786956E+04
    Early Moon 2.9788810E+04
    This is in meters per second so we multiply by number of seconds in a year and subtract this gives the difference distance per year. Divided into the circumference of orbit and this gives the period of conjunction.

    I had entered the rate per year and hence the number of years to conjunction was incorrect (previously 50,000). New figures are quite interesting in that the conjunction period has improved and is now estimated at 16,057 years, so that means there is more prospect of aberration in the orbits and this increases the potential for collision or at least capture.
  23. Robittybob1 Banned Banned


Share This Page