Why do we only see one side of the moon?

[Azrioch]

My friend who is taking an Astronomy course said that the Moon and the Earth rotate at the exact same speed because the Earth and Moon were both hit by something at the same time... or something to that effect. It didn't really make logical sense to me.

Does anyone know why we only see one side of the moon?

[Brad_Ad23]

Greetings!

I think he has something wrong there as well. The moon and the earth do not rotate at the same speed. Rather, the moon rotates at the same speed that it revolves around the earth. This is because it is tidal locked in the earth's gravity.

This site has some good info for you:
http://starryskies.com/The_sky/events/lunar-2003/eclipse9.html

[Phobos]

Welcome to Physics Forums, Azrioch! [:)]

Like Brad_Ad23 said, the Moon and Earth don't rotate (spin on their axis) at the same speed.

Visual aid...Take a quarter and a penny (or whatever 2 Italian coins that have faces). Lay them flat and move the penny around the quarter (orbit) such that the face on the penny is always facing the quarter. See that the orbital period of the penny (once around the quarter) matches the penny's period of rotation (one spin on its own axis). That's essentially the earth-moon situation.

As explained by the links provided, this is due to gravity which pulls the Earth and Moon into a slightly elongated shape (like how the moon rises the ocean tides on the Earth...this works on rock too just to a much lesser extent). As that elongated shape rotates forward (with the rotation of the planet/moon), there is a slight braking action as the gravity of the other pulls back on that raised portion. The Moon's rotation has been slowed to a point where it's rotation speed matches it's orbital period. So it maintains the same face toward the Earth. But the moon still rotates with respect to the sun (as you see from the quarter/penny example).

more helpful links...
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q866.html
http://www.seds.org/billa/tnp/luna.html

[AndersHermansson]

If the same side of the moon is always facing earth then it is not rotating around it's own axis at all. According to GR, the moon is following a "straight path" around the Earth.

[chroot]

Originally posted by AndersHermansson
If the same side of the moon is always facing earth then it is not rotating around it's own axis at all. According to GR, the moon is following a "straight path" around the Earth.
You're an idiot.

- Warren

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by AndersHermansson
If the same side of the moon is always facing earth then it is not rotating around it's own axis at all. According to GR, the moon is following a "straight path" around the Earth.

If you face a lampost and walk around it, always facing toward it, you will find that the landscape behind it rotates the same way it would if you stood still and turned around. In fact you will successively face every point of the compass. To put it shortly, you will have turned around. And that's what the moon does vis-a-vis the earth.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by chroot
You're an idiot.

- Warren

[:D]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by chroot
You're an idiot.

- Warren So unnecessary.[zz)]

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
You're an idiot.

- Warren

Hi Warren,
How are you doing, I mean really?

You seem like such a nice guy and your comments demonstrate your absolute brilliance in deconstructing the errors you find in all of these silly questions!!! ((who needs questions anyway when one has all the answers?... oops!))

Keep up the good work and maybe some day you will win the Nobel Prize for insightful criticism!!

[:)]

[chroot]

Hell, I'd be happy with the Nobel in physics, personally.

Some questions beg answers; some statements beg intelligent counterpoint. Others... simply aren't worth it.

- Warren

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Hell, I'd be happy with the Nobel in physics, personally.

Some questions beg answers; some statements beg intelligent counterpoint. Others... simply aren't worth it.

- Warren

And so why make the effort to belittle someone? Oh yes, it is to state your superiority for everyone to see. What else could it be?

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
And so why make the effort to belittle someone? Oh yes, it is to state your superiority for everyone to see. What else could it be?
Why yes, you're correct. I am, in fact, better than you. Good of you to see it. :)

- Warren

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Why yes, you're correct. I am, in fact, better than you. Good of you to see it. :)

- Warren

so your ego escapes into the open...

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
so your ego escapes into the open...
Was it ever contained???

- Warren

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Was it ever contained???

- Warren


ok so it has taken over your rationality...which apparently is not hard to do.

[Brad_Ad23]

To respond to SelfAdjoint,

In a very weak sense you are correct. Orbits are merely the paths of least action in a warped spacetime, however, it does not necessitate an object in orbit not rotate. See for example: The earth rotates as it revolves around the sun.

It is merely that at certain distances, gravity tidal locks objects into a rotational period equal to the revolutionary period.

[kleinma]

i read also that the moon is moving away from the earth.. something like an inch a year.. or half inch..

would take some time to break free i guess [:D]

[chroot]

Yep, the Earth is slowing its rotation, becoming tidally locked to the Moon. To conserve angular momentum, the Moon's orbit increases a little.

- Warren

[kleinma]

how come planets that are in the suns orbit don't drift towards the sun slowly?

[chroot]

Originally posted by kleinma
how come planets that are in the suns orbit don't drift towards the sun slowly?
Er, why would they?

- Warren

[kleinma]

Originally posted by chroot
Er, why would they?

- Warren

gravity? i mean i obviously know that they don't drift towards the sun... but why not.. if the suns gravity pulls things towards it.. as earths gravity does, then why doesn't the sun draw the planets in?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by kleinma
gravity? i mean i obviously know that they don't drift towards the sun... but why not.. if the suns gravity pulls things towards it.. as earths gravity does, then why doesn't the sun draw the planets in?

The gravitational pull of the sun is supposedly exactly offset by the tangential velocity of the earth. It is in a constant state of acceleration (falling) toward the sun but it's tangential velocity keeps it from ever reaching it. This newtonian assumption, of course, is how we "measure" the mass of these bodies, by simply fitting the equations to the observation of the orbit and the speed. But this in turn rests on further assumptions of the mass of the earth and the mass of the sun. The whole thing could be way off if a single one of these assumptions is incorrect, which the plasma model seems to suggest. The masses of these objects may be very much less than our current estimates.


The question is whether the gravitational newtonian interpretation is even correct, given the new Plasma models of the solar system. The regularity of the orbits (as seen in Bode's law and the same pattern is seen in the structure of the electron shells of an atom) may in fact be due to more of an electro-magnetic harmonic resonance than a simple gravitational accident. Such a purely gravitational scheme fails to explain the extreme regularity of the orbits of the solar system and much else including the rotational curve of the galaxies.

A good test would be to place an object in the orbit of the earth and cancel its tangential motion wrt the sun to see if it falls toward the sun. Does anyone know if this test has ever been done?


---------------

on a tangential note...

Does anyone know if the interplanetary probes are/were sent along the plane of the ecliptic of the solar system or if they are offset to escape the interstellar debris that collects upon this plane?

In all the images I have seen it seen they appear to be offset from the plane, but perhaps there have been a few that have traveled directly through another orbital intersection with the plane of the ecliptic?

There may be some data in those experiments which point to the resonance mechanism hinted at above.

[Janus]

Originally posted by subtillioN


A good test would be to place an object in the orbit of the earth and cancel its tangential motion wrt the sun to see if it falls toward the sun. Does anyone know if this test has ever been done?




Yes, everytime we've launched a probe into an orbit that takes it in closer to the Sun. In fact, if any of our "assumptions" of celestrial mechanics were of by any significant amount, none of our probes would have ever reached their destinations.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Janus
Yes, everytime we've launched a probe into an orbit that takes it in closer to the Sun. In fact, if any of our "assumptions" of celestrial mechanics were of by any significant amount, none of our probes would have ever reached their destinations.

Very true, but do you know if any of the probes have crossed the plane of the ecliptic at any of the planetary orbits?

[Janus]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Very true, but do you know if any of the probes have crossed the plane of the ecliptic at any of the planetary orbits?

They all have. The probes are launched along Earth's orbital plane. They follow this trajectory until they reach that point where the Earth's and destination planet's orbital planes cross, at which point they do what is known as a "broken plane maneuver" , which tranfers them to the orbital plane of the destination planet.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Janus
They all have. The probes are launched along Earth's orbital plane. They follow this trajectory until they reach that point where the Earth's and destination planet's orbital planes cross, at which point they do what is known as a "broken plane maneuver" , which tranfers them to the orbital plane of the destination planet.

Thank you very much. [:)]

[kleinma]

can you explain tangential velocity a little better to someone that isn't very physics savy

[Ace-of-Spades]

Tangential velocity is just velocity in the direction perpendicular to the force of gravity that would be felt by the probe.
eg. The moon orbits around the earth and so feels a gravitational force towards the earth.
The thing that stops the moon from falling into the earth is its tangential velocity (velocity perp. to this force)

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by kleinma
gravity? i mean i obviously know that they don't drift towards the sun... but why not.. if the suns gravity pulls things towards it.. as earths gravity does, then why doesn't the sun draw the planets in? Thats the definition of an orbit.

A common way to put it is that all of the planets ARE accelerating (or falling) toward the sun. The just also happen to be moving tangentially at the exact rate necessary to cancel that acceleration.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats the definition of an orbit.

A common way to put it is that all of the planets ARE accelerating (or falling) toward the sun. The just also happen to be moving tangentially at the exact rate necessary to cancel that acceleration.

Well, of course it doesn't really cancel out the acceleration so much as it offsets it tangentially.

[:D]

[kleinma]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats the definition of an orbit.

A common way to put it is that all of the planets ARE accelerating (or falling) toward the sun. The just also happen to be moving tangentially at the exact rate necessary to cancel that acceleration.

but it can't just be coincedence that they move tangentially at the rate needed to prevent moving towards the sun, what is the reason that they do this?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by kleinma
but it can't just be coincedence that they move tangentially at the rate needed to prevent moving towards the sun, what is the reason that they do this?

That is an excellent point. The standard model assumes that these regularly spaced orbits (modeled by Bodes Law) happened by accident. This same pattern of regularly spaced orbits is encountered in the electronic shell spacing of the atoms. Can this be a mere coincidence? I think not. There must be some other mechanism involved in the formation of orbits that applies to the orbits of the electrons as well. It is a quantum level fluid-dynamic wave-resonance mechanism and it is modelled in a new Unified Field Theory called Sorce Theory.

See www.anpheon.org

[Brad_Ad23]

*slaps head*

It is just a coincidence. Why? Because the orbits that these planets happen to have formed in are stable, and hence will remain. There are many other solar systems discovered that are in no way like our own.

Planets travel in things called orbits. Orbital velocity is defined as follows:

The velocity necessary so that for every meter you fall the body you are orbiting curves 1 meter away from you. In other words, bodies in orbit are indeed in free fall. The only thing that distinguishes an orbiting body from a non-orbiting one, is that the non-orbiting one will not have enough velocity and will tend to fall more than it moves. A body that orbits is balanced. And obviously one that moves far faster than the other body curves away under it will break orbit.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
[B]*slaps head*

It is just a coincidence. Why? Because the orbits that these planets happen to have formed in are stable, and hence will remain. There are many other solar systems discovered that are in no way like our own.

Of course. That is how we have detected them. They have giant orbiting planets that exert a massive pull on their star.The fact is that we don't know all the detals of these solar systems either, such as all the orbits of all the planets.

[Brad_Ad23]

It doesn't matter we don't know all the details. What matters is that the orbits are more or less random, and the ones that ar stable, as in any chaotic system, will tend to last longer than those that are not.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
It doesn't matter we don't know all the details. What matters is that the orbits are more or less random, and the ones that ar stable, as in any chaotic system, will tend to last longer than those that are not.

Right it is certainly true that the stable orbits would last, but this doesn't address the ubiquitous patterning of bodes law found in the planet orbit spacings the moon spacings, the atmospheric shells of the earth, and the electron shells of the atom.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
It doesn't matter we don't know all the details. What matters is that the orbits are more or less random, and the ones that ar stable, as in any chaotic system, will tend to last longer than those that are not.

If the orbits are more or less random then why do they follow the regular square of the distance pattern of bodes law? And why is this very same pattern seen in the electron shells of the atom?

[Brad_Ad23]

Say that again? Explain each of those statements fully. I don't recall ever hearing about Bode.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Say that again? Explain each of those statements fully. I don't recall ever hearing about Bode.

"In 1766, a German mathematician named Johann D. Titius developed an arithmetical relationship between the approximate distances of the planets from the sun. Although it wasn't until 1772, when it was published by a man known as Johann E. Bode that it attracted attention. Today it carries his name and it's known as Bodes' Law.

The law states the relationship between the planets can be expressed by adding 0.4 to each term in the progression - 0 , 0.3 , 0.6 , 1.2 , 2.4 , 4.8 , 9.6 , etc. ( in which each number is double the preceding one). Each term in the sequence is given in astronomical units, or A.U. ( 1 A.U. = 93 million miles, the mean radius of earths distance from the sun).9 "

This same pattern shows up in all the places listed above

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Say that again? Explain each of those statements fully. I don't recall ever hearing about Bode.

The mechanism of Bodes law is completely forgotten and unexplained by the standard model. Yet there it is. Showing up on multiple scales of spherical astronomical/quantum phenomena.

[Janus]

Originally posted by kleinma
but it can't just be coincedence that they move tangentially at the rate needed to prevent moving towards the sun, what is the reason that they do this?

The planets do move towards(and away from) the Sun. Once every orbit.

When they are at aphelion(furthest from the sun), they are moving slower than circular orbital velocity for that distance. they then start to "fall" towards the sun. As they do so, they pick up speed, until they reach perihelion (closest to the sun) at which point they are moving faster than circular orbital velocity, and start to climb away from the sun again.

Pluto for instance, swings over 591 million kilometers in and out from the sun. (about twice the diameter of Earth's orbit.)

As long as a body has enough velocity to keep its perhelion from actually touching the body it orbits, it will be in a stable orbit.

For the Earth, it would take a change of velocity in the order of 27km per sec, (its present average velocity is 30 km per sec) to knock it "out of orbit" such that it grazes the sun at perhelion.

The reason the planets move in the nearly circular orbits they do is because of the angular momentum left over from the original dust/gas cloud the solar system formed from.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Janus
The planets do move towards(and away from) the Sun. Once every orbit.



That is a very good point.

The reason the planets move in the nearly circular orbits they do is because of the angular momentum left over from the original dust/gas cloud the solar system formed from.

Again, the problem with that model is the lack of an explanation for Bode's Law.

[Janus]

Originally posted by subtillioN
If the orbits are more or less random then why do they follow the regular square of the distance pattern of bodes law? And why is this very same pattern seen in the electron shells of the atom?

But they don't . Neptune doesn't follow the rule, and all the matter in the asteroid belt wouldn't even make a decent sized moon, let alone a planet.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Janus
But they don't . Neptune doesn't follow the rule, and all the matter in the asteroid belt wouldn't even make a decent sized moon, let alone a planet.

The deviations from the rule are slight and the asteroid belt does fit into the Bode rule.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Janus
But they don't . Neptune doesn't follow the rule, and all the matter in the asteroid belt wouldn't even make a decent sized moon, let alone a planet.

“As far back as 1772, Bode had pointed out a simple numerical relation connecting the distances of the various planets from the sun. This is obtained as follows: Write first the series of numbers

0 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128

Multiply each by three, thus obtaining

0 3 6 12 24 48 96 192 384

and add four to each, thus giving

4 7 10 16 28 52 100 196 388

These numbers are very approximately proportional to the actual distances of the planets from the sun, which are (taking the Earth’s distance to be 10):


Mercury 3.9
Venus 7.2
Earth 10
Mars 15.2
Asteroids 26.5
Jupiter 52
Saturn 95.4
Uranus 191.7
Neptune 300.7

[subtillioN]

The following and the previous post is from a core Sorce Theory document.


---------------

"So far no explanation of Bode’s law has been given, and it seems more than likely that it is a mere coincidence with no underlying rational explanation.”

We disagree with Jeans’ expression that this regular relation is “mere coincidence.” If we examine the relative distances between the various planetary orbits we find some striking analogies with matter-units of other levels. Note that the differences between Bode’s numbers (4-7-10-16-28, etc.,) are 3-3-6-12-24-48, etc. The difference between successive planets is equal to the sum of all previous differences. Or, looked at differently, the distances double, after the first two. Or, after the first two, again, the differences are 1. 5 times 2 to the (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.) power.

When we check the various orbital distances of the moons of various planets to their planet, we find a “Titus-Bode Law” which informs us that they also follow this doubling pattern. When we throw in a bit of electron theory we find again a suggestive square of the numbers relationship between the possible orbital positions of successive electrons, and that the squares of several of Bohr’s integers; i.e.:

22 32 42 52 72 102
4 9 16 25 49 100

are not far from

4 10 15.2 26 52 100

which are Bode’s numerical proportions of the planet distances from the sun, where Earth’s distance is represented by 10.
Furthermore, Bohr’s square of the whole numbers as representative of the orbital positions of electrons suggestively uses the same 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., which are the successive powers of two required to be multiplied by 1.5 to yield the representative orbital positions of either planets or moons of stellar or planetary matter-unit systems.
In the atom, the first two shell-layers form an equilibrium pattern around any nucleus, and the next two sets of eight shells form equilibrium patterns, and the next two sets of eighteen shells form equilibrium patterns. In the sets of eight shells, each of the first five layers doubles the thickness from the nuclear surface, while the next three shells increase in thickness, but at a diminishing rate.

[Janus]

Originally posted by subtillioN


and add four to each, thus giving

4 7 10 16 28 52 100 196 388



Mercury 3.9
Venus 7.2
Earth 10
Mars 15.2
Asteroids 26.5
Jupiter 52
Saturn 95.4
Uranus 191.7
Neptune 300.7


388 and 300.7 are not even approximately close!

One is almost 30% larger than the other. I could come up with a ton of "laws" if I allowed myself that large a margin of error!

[subtillioN]

From the same source:

The regularities of these relationships are of interest for two reasons. The first is that such a regularity indicates the strong probability of a direct physical cause for these positions. ....

“The lower regions of the atmosphere up to the thermal zone is called the “troposphere,” signifying the region of continual change in conditions, such as temperature and barometric pressure; winds, clouds, and storms exist only in the troposphere. Above the troposphere there is calm and steady temperature; the temperature gradient runs parallel to the earth’s surface, and other physical characteristics are distributed in parallel layers or are stratified, this region extending indefinitely above the troposphere is known as the “stratosphere.” The boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere is the “tropopause,” the region where storms cease, and calm begins.

“In the lower part of the stratosphere, or what may be considered as the true upper layers of the atmosphere, is a region extending to a height of about 50 kilometers in which the principle gaseous content is ozone, called the “ozonosphere.” The ozone is distributed in layers, as to density, the maximum density being at an altitude of about 23 kilometers. This stratum is often referred to as the D layer of the stratosphere. Its formation is probably brought about by the action of the ultraviolet radiation of the sun.
“Above the ozonosphere, the atmospheric pressure is too small to be measurable; however, this region is strongly ionized, there being several important and definitely determined layers of ionization. This outer region, above the height of 50 kilometers, is called the ‘ionosphere.’

“In 1902, A. E. Kennelly in America, and independently, Oliver Heaviside in England, suggested the presence of a conducting layer of free electricity, ionized particles, in the upper atmosphere which prevents electromagnetic waves from spreading into outer space. Such a layer would act like a reflecting surface and would confine the waves to a spherical shell (sic) between the surface of the earth and the conducting layer. In 1925, E. V. Appleton in England, and G. Breit and M. A. Tuve in America, by direct experiments definitely proved the existence of this Kennelly-Heaviside layer referred to as the E layer; and they also found two layers at higher altitudes known as the Appleton layers, F1 and F2. The heights of these layers vary greatly with the time of day, with the seasons, and with stratosphere meteorology. There are sudden and erratic changes in the heights, especially of the D and E layer. The sun-spot cycle apparently affects the ionization in all parts of’ the atmosphere. The Heaviside layer may vary in height from 50 kilometers in the daytime to 100 kilometers at night.

“The Appleton layers range from 160 to 250 kilometers above the earth’s surface. The heights shown in the diagram (Figure 19-2) are representative values to illustrate the general relations of the various layers.”




Figure 19-2.


Let us list the heights of the various layers numerically:

11.5 23 50 100 200 400

Note that the doubling pattern is obvious. Note also that just as in the planetary sequences, the first two layers are of equal thickness. Note also that if we allow 11.5 to take the place of the 1.5 of the sequence on page 145, we repeat our power-of-two progression.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Janus
388 and 300.7 are not even approximately close!

One is almost 30% larger than the other. I could come up with a ton of "laws" if I allowed myself that large a margin of error!

That is the outer shell. This deviation is easily explainable as a consequence of interaction with the outer environment of the solar system.

EVERY other planet fits the rule quite accurately and so do the moon systems, the atmosphereic shells of the earth and the shell structure of the atom.

Coincidence? You may think so but I don't. Especially when there is a mechanism at hand to explain this phenomenon at all scales and which also unifies all the forces of Nature in the process.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Janus
388 and 300.7 are not even approximately close!

One is almost 30% larger than the other. I could come up with a ton of "laws" if I allowed myself that large a margin of error!

Note that Bodes Law does not give a physical explanation of this dynamic and complex phenomena. It merely quantifies this visually OBVIOUS pattern. Just look at a diagram of the solar system and compare it to a electron probability density mapping of a similarly complex atom and you will see the obvious striking similarity. The mind can see such patterns instantly, no mathematics needed.

[Brad_Ad23]

Again I say it is just coincidence. What of every other solar system that does not follow it (i.e most every solar system found to date).

And even then,electrons are not in planet like orbits, they are in orbitals, which are regions of probability of locating an electron.

[Hurkyl]

The mind can see such patterns instantly, no mathematics needed.

It's also well known that the mind invents patterns which don't exist, thus the need for objective confirmation.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Again I say it is just coincidence. What of every other solar system that does not follow it (i.e most every solar system found to date).

And even then,electrons are not in planet like orbits, they are in orbitals, which are regions of probability of locating an electron.

You say it is coincidence because you don't know the mechanism. You say it is a probability cloud because you don't know what an electron is. You say that fundamental reality is indeterminate, because you don't know fundamental mechanisms.

As I said before we don't know all the orbits of all the other known star systems so we don't know if they follow this pattern or not.

A pattern is a pattern. It is too obvious to ignore.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
It's also well known that the mind invents patterns which don't exist, thus the need for objective confirmation.

yes and objective confirmation says that this pattern exists and there is a mathematical law describing this pattern.

Are you really going to deny that the pattern exists? The data is plain and clear. Go ahead and ignore reality if that is how you deal with data that is unexplainable by your pet theory..

[kleinma]

is the earth also influenced by other planets when it comes to rotation, etc...

i read that if jupiter didn't have its virtually circular orbit... it would become to close to earth when it would orbit the sun and actually knock the earth out of its orbit with its own gravity.. but since it orbits how it does, this does not happen... so are other planets gravity effecting one another.. i know they do in the outter solar system

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by kleinma
but it can't just be coincedence that they move tangentially at the rate needed to prevent moving towards the sun, what is the reason that they do this? Well there are two explanations:

Using the anthropic principle, any object that did NOT have a stable orbit would either have impacted the sun or been lost to space. So obviously anything thats left would have a stable orbit.

Its a catch-22 and it works, but its not really an explanation.

The eplanation is in planetary formation - the planets condensed from a disc of gas and dust that was rotating. As it collapsed from gravity, it rotated faster, eventually reaching a sort of equilibrium of density and rotational rate from which the planets condensed.

You say it is coincidence because you don't know the mechanism. You say it is a probability cloud because you don't know what an electron is. You say that fundamental reality is indeterminate, because you don't know fundamental mechanisms. And *YOU* do!!!??? Well damn, lay out your theory to replace QM, then hop a plane to Stockholm to collect your prize! Or maybe the alternative - *YOU* do not understand what probability is and how it relates to physical reality.
yes and objective confirmation says that this pattern exists and there is a mathematical law describing this pattern.

Are you really going to deny that the pattern exists? The data is plain and clear. Go ahead and ignore reality if that is how you deal with data that is unexplainable by your pet theory.. Oh the irony. Wasn't it you who spent 20 pages in another thread trying to show that math does NOT represent physical reality? And btw, those "pet theories" are the ones accepted by the best minds in physics. I'm not going to bet money against Einstein or Heisenberg or Planck any time soon.

Now despite all this, I *DO* think there may be something to "Bode's Law". "Bode's Law" itself is simply a numerical pattern and not an explanation of anything, but I'm thinking that if you look at planet formation (the density pattern of the initial disc), rotation rate and tidal forces, planets formed in the size and location that they are in now for a reason. It would not surprise me at all if we found other solar systems that look exactly like ours. And I must point out that the solar systems we found don't look anything like ours because the means we have to look for them can only find solar systems that look nothing like ours. Most extra-solar planets were found through gravitational perturbations and light intensity fluctuations in stars - and only large planets with small orbits can produce the effect we need to detect them.

is the earth also influenced by other planets when it comes to rotation, etc...

i read that if jupiter didn't have its virtually circular orbit... it would become to close to earth when it would orbit the sun and actually knock the earth out of its orbit with its own gravity.. but since it orbits how it does, this does not happen... so are other planets gravity effecting one another.. i know they do in the outter solar system. Yes, the planets DO all effect each other. Jupiter being the largest has the largest effect - its believed that tidal forces from Jupiter are what kept the asteroid belt from condensing into a planet for example. Also, Pluto (and maybe Neptune?) were predicted and found by observing perturbations in the orbits of nearby planets).

[Janus]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well there are two explanations:

Also, Pluto (and maybe Neptune?) were predicted and found by observing perturbations in the orbits of nearby planets).

Neptune is the best example Since it was predicted due to perturbations of Uranus.

After Neptune was found there was still a small discrepancy left over, so the search for another planet was made, Pluto was found as a result, but turned out to be too small.

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B] And *YOU* do!!!??? Well damn, lay out your theory to replace QM, then hop a plane to Stockholm to collect your prize!

Yes I am sure it will be just that easy. I do know the mechanisms and you are welcomed to read a Sorce Theory book if you wish. Just send me an email and I will send you the book.

Or maybe the alternative - *YOU* do not understand what probability is and how it relates to physical reality.

Sorry, I do understand that simple concept.


Oh the irony. Wasn't it you who spent 20 pages in another thread trying to show that math does NOT represent physical reality?

Actually that is NOT what I was saying. I was saying that math is not physical reality. The math does REPRESENT reality but we often confuse the math with reality itself as in the probabilistic replacement of causality in QM.

The physical pattern does exist and there is an equation representing it. period. plain and simple

And btw, those "pet theories" are the ones accepted by the best minds in physics.

You mean the best at evolving the standard paradigm.


I'm not going to bet money against Einstein or Heisenberg or Planck any time soon.

good for you...

[:D]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Yes I am sure it will be just that easy. I do know the mechanisms and you are welcomed to read a Sorce Theory book if you wish. Just send me an email and I will send you the book. Thanks, but I'm not interested. Good luck in any case (seriously).

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thanks, but I'm not interested. Good luck in any case (seriously).

Thank you very much and good luck to you too.

BTW, in which direction do you think the big TOE points?

[AndersHermansson]

Originally posted by chroot
You're an idiot.

- Warren

Chroot you're smart enough to put down some physics noobs in a forum? Lol! :) Does that really reward you? Isn't it like a 25-year old beating up little kids and feeling strong about it?

And you have to understand; I just _had_ to find a quote from you that I think applies here. I knew of course I would eventually find some stupid remark, just not that I would find it so fast!!

"I therefore refrain from making comments about how surgeons think. It is offensive that you seem to think you know how I think. It just makes you look stupid."

Pwnd!

[chroot]

Now subtillioN has fallen head-over-heels into the bottomless chasm of ineptitude known as 'numerology.'

Once we begin discussing Bode's Law (which isn't even accurate anyway, and is of no use to anyone except schoolchildren) and how it relates to electron-cloud probability densities, we have moved from science to pseudoscience.

I, for one, vote that moderators take action and remove this inane thread from the Astronomy & Cosmology forum.

- Warren

[AndersHermansson]

Maybe if i elaborate, people who actually know something, like Chroot, might choose to retort in a more constructive way.

Anyway, I looked at it from this way.

If a geodesic can be considered to be a straight line, because of curved space, then a moon following that geodesic can be considered to follow a straight path around the Earth. If it can be considered so, then could not it not be considered that the moon - facing the same side towards Earth - have no angular momentum, in respect to the straight line, the geodesic.. ?

[Phobos]

Originally posted by chroot
I, for one, vote that moderators take action and remove this inane thread from the Astronomy & Cosmology forum.


Hang on...let me flip a coin on this one...

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
Once we begin discussing Bode's Law (which isn't even accurate anyway, and is of no use to anyone except schoolchildren) and how it relates to electron-cloud probability densities, we have moved from science to pseudoscience.

The harmony of the Universe is pure magic to those who do not know its mechanisms!!!

[Phobos]

now what was the original question?
I seem to have forgetten it amid the tangents, hijacks, and nonsense.