The Moon moves away from the earth - Is the theory correct ?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bjarne
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Moon Theory
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Moon is receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year, a phenomenon explained by tidal forces resulting from gravitational interactions. The prevailing theory suggests that this recession rate was faster in the past due to different configurations of Earth's continents and varying friction levels between tidal bulges and the ocean floor. Calculations indicate that if the Moon had been much closer to Earth in the past, it would have had to average a significantly higher recession velocity. The discussion highlights the complexities of tidal acceleration and the eventual synchronization of Earth's rotation with the Moon's orbit, leading to a state known as tidal locking.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational forces and tidal dynamics
  • Familiarity with orbital mechanics and angular momentum
  • Basic knowledge of Earth's rotation and its effects on tidal bulges
  • Concept of tidal locking and its implications in celestial mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Tidal Friction" and its role in celestial mechanics
  • Study "Tidal Locking" and its occurrence in other celestial systems
  • Explore "Orbital Mechanics" to understand the dynamics of celestial bodies
  • Investigate "Gravitational Interactions" and their effects on planetary bodies
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, students of planetary science, and anyone interested in the dynamics of celestial bodies and gravitational interactions.

  • #31
Bjarne said:
How can friction between the oceans’ bodies of water and the sea bottom - explain that friction between 2 internal bodies on Earth can have such an effect on the Moon that its acceleration increases, - it has not been explained how a dynamic rotational force could be transferred to the Moon through space.
Can someone explain that, in simple words.

Easy. The friction causes the tidal bulges to lag behind the rotating Earth. Thus there's a non-conservative process occurring and the Moon is accelerated slightly by the bulge that's a bit ahead of rotationally. The gravity of the bulge, offset from perfect symmetry by friction, is what transfers energy between the Earth and the Moon. A perfectly frictionless interaction between the two would mean no net acceleration and no recession of the Moon.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Bjarne said:
The moon moves away from the Earth 3,8 cm per year.
In the past the velocity has been gradually increased.

I have read at the internet, that when the theory explaining this cause of this phenomena is correct the moon would for about 85 million years been orbiting 4 meters above the earth.

My own calculation shows this would have happen for about 1, 2 billion years ago (if this theory is correct).

We know that the moon is more than 4 billion years old, so how is it possible to keep believing such dictionary theory?

(sorry if this is not perfect English)

If the tides lost energy to friction as quickly as they do at present, then the Moon wouldn't last so long in its orbit. However there's nothing theoretical or observational saying the friction should remain the same and detailed modelling of how the tides change with the rotation rate and positions of the continents has shown the frictional loss was much, much lower in the past. Only in the last ~500 million years or so has the loss been so high. Tidal rhythmites are periodic sedimentary deposits laid down by daily tides. Fossil examples are known all the way back to ~3.2 billion years ago and they show the Moon wasn't much removed from its present orbit - at the closest it was about 38 Earth radii away (presently it's at ~60.)

When the Moon was formed or captured, the tidal forces were sufficient to cause large scale motions of the semi-fluid silicate mantle, causing very rapid energy dissipation and flinging the Moon out to a more distant orbit very rapidly. Further out the body tides, as such tidal deformations are called, became minor and the energy-loss rate become low, until the system hit its present configuration.
 
  • #33
Your are ignoring fluid friction, which increases the braking effect. Waves are the peak of the gravitational iceberg.
 
  • #34
Chronos said:
Your are ignoring fluid friction, which increases the braking effect. Waves are the peak of the gravitational iceberg.

Who's ignoring fluid friction? Which post are you replying to?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K