Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravity theory has a bug?

  1. Mar 5, 2007 #1
    For those that reply just to trash others, go find another thread.... please!

    I understand that gravity warps space; I also understand that the moon is revolving once per approx. 27 days.

    If the moon is going in a straight line and gravity is warping its 'straight' path into an orbit, then it is not rotating; and it would rotate still, if it were rotating when it got caught into an earth orbit.
    They say that the far side of the moon is heavily cratored because of the more massive make-up of that side, and techtonic motion can not occur.

    So, I am to believe that the moon had NO original rotation?
    And that the more massive side just happens to be away from the earth? (it's centrifugal 'outside'.)
    - too much coincidence!

    Picture this:
    A string attached to a bucket with some water.
    Floating in the water: a hollow ball with a weight attached to one point inside of it.
    Now, spin the bucket with the string.
    The ball, which can move freely as it floats on the water, will 'float' with its more massive (weighted) side towards the centrifugal 'outside'.

    so, the water is letting the ball orient itself easily, as is space allowing the moon to, and
    the weighted side of the ball is like the more massive side of the moon.

    Now that sounds, and seems, much more like what is going on.

    Then, ofcourse, comes my 'not liking' how gravity is being explained; and as they still can't figure it all out, maybe I have a good point worth looking at.
    ... more on that, reply dependant.

  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 5, 2007 #2
    Several of your assumptions are incorrect.

    The far side of the moon (not the dark side..) is more cratored, because the near side is more shielded by the earth.

    If two bodies orbit close to each other, and have some original rotation, then over time the tidal forces of gravity will dissipate the original separate rotations. So neither of your "coincidences" are so.
  4. Mar 5, 2007 #3

    I got my information from here:

    But that still does not explain conflict between:
    That gravity changes the path of the moon, and
    It's said that moon revolves once per 27 days.

    they can not both be true.

    some change in: which 50% of the moon is facing earth , would have been noticed over the years.... or atleast calculated by now.
  5. Mar 5, 2007 #4
    Yes, they can both be true. In fact, they are. And I already just explained why it isn't a coincidence. Eventually all the friction of the earth's tides moving around our planet, as they are dragged by the moon, will also cause the earth to stop rotating relative to the moon.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2007
  6. Mar 5, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is like saying: Am I to believe that the wheel of a car had exactly the right rotation in order for it to correspond to the speed of the car at its circumference ? Too much coincidence!
  7. Mar 5, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    You seem to be under the impression that "gravity changes the path of the moon" means that gravity is constantly changing the path of the moon- so that it never follows the same path (relative to the earth) twice. That's not correct. "Gravity changes the path of the moon" means that gravity changes the "natural trajectory" of the moon from a straight line to an ellipse. There is no reason for that ellipse to change.
  8. Mar 7, 2007 #7
    here is yet a 3rd thing that must be true then:

    The poles of the moon must be perfectly lined up with those of earth.

    3 things is.... too much coincidence.
  9. Mar 7, 2007 #8
    Trajectory --- path

    If we put something in orbit around earth, a ball, without spin; would the same face always be towards earth?
  10. Mar 7, 2007 #9
    I think you'll find this is not the case. (Is it a coincidence that these three things are all coloured blue: the sky, humans, and the sea? No, because the sea just reflects the colour of the sky, and humans aren't blue.)

    Eventually, yes.
  11. Mar 7, 2007 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well that one isn't even true and the first two aren't a coincidence any more than the fact that it is bright out when the sun is up. One is caused by the other.

    You may find it easier to understand tidal forces if you consider forces separate discrete particles on opposite sides of the moon instead of thinking of the moon as a single point mass.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2007
  12. Mar 8, 2007 #11

    i may find it, depends where i look, thought i was looking here.
    thanks anyways, have a good day?
  13. Mar 8, 2007 #12
    a mentor saying that something isn't true, is not mentoring.

    we need to shake the government up a bit and get the schools working right.
  14. Mar 8, 2007 #13
    well, it's been a fun game of merry go round; i'm getting off now.

    ta ta
    and grand futur, 'in the box'.
  15. Mar 8, 2007 #14
    Several misconceptions here:
    I take it by revolving you mean orbiting the earth.
    no the moon is not rotating, one side always faces the earth (within a human lifetime), it has run out of rotational energy a long time ago. Also the moon formed by a large impact between the earth and a mars sized projectile (this is the current scientific concencus at least), in fact the impact was so large the earth might have looked like an apple with a massive bit taken out of it, cutting right down possibly as far as the core! I don't believe the moon just got caught in our orbit without any collision taking place.
    As far as I am aware the mass of the moon is homogeneously distributed, give or take some anomalous variation. If the moon were more massive on its far side, I fail to see how that would occur, gravity being an attractive force and all, it would make much more sense if the massive side were closer to us (your argument with the bucket of water is flawed for reasons I cannot be bothered to go into). The only thing I can think of to possibly explain this (assuming for a second that it's actually true!) would be that the additional meteorites on the far side effectively increase the average density, possibly by a combination of metamorphosis into higher density mineral phases of the target material associated with the shock of an impact and the addition of high density meteorite material.
    As for using this as an argument for tectonic motion not occuring, you are clearly very far out of your depth, I wouldn't go there if I were you.
  16. Mar 8, 2007 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    When a user produces some nonsense statement out of thin air -- with no explanation of how or why they were led to make that statement -- there's not much 'mentoring' that we can do. You stated a falsehood matter-of-factly, and it it was rejected just as matter-of-factly.

    Does this mean you're trolling? Sure seems like it.

    - Warren
  17. Mar 8, 2007 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Misconceptions upon misconceptions.

    The moon orbits the earth every 28 days, keeping one face towards the earth which means that it also rotates on its own axis in 28 days.

    Use a globe and a golf ball and you'll see it's true.

  18. Mar 8, 2007 #17
    If you attached your golf ball with a solid rod to your globe and then span your globe then the gulf ball would show only one face to the globe. Is it fair to say that the gulf ball is rotating? I don't think so, I could be wrong, one way to check would be to see if there were any Coriolis acceleration on the moon, I don't think there would be.
  19. Mar 8, 2007 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Are you kidding? If you connect the globe and the golf ball rigidly, and then rotate one, how can you not also rotate the other?!

    Draw a little arrow on the top of the golf ball, and watch the direction of that arrow as you turn the globe. Observe that the arrow changes direction constantly as you turn the globe, and makes one complete rotation as you turn the globe through one complete rotation.

    There certainly would be Coriolis forces on the Moon, but they will be much smaller than the Coriolis forces on the Earth. The Earth rotates once each day; the moon rotates once every 28 days.

    - Warren
  20. Mar 8, 2007 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Absolutely. There's an easy way to check, you go to the moon and you'll get a sunrise 14 days after sunset and sunset 14 days after sunrise.

    Or you could do it with the globe and golf ball.
  21. Mar 8, 2007 #20
    Since Coriolis forces were mentioned, a good check might be to look up how oblate the moon's shape is. The oblateness of earth is such (due to the otherwise inevitable flows of material) that the effective gravity (the combination of Newtonian gravity and Centrifugal force, the latter being the most absolute measure of rotation) is constant over most of the surface.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Gravity theory has a bug?
  1. A Theory of Gravity (Replies: 1)

  2. Theory of gravity (Replies: 25)

  3. Theory for Gravity (Replies: 6)