To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.spaceOpen lugnet.space in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Space / 9731
9730  |  9732
Subject: 
Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek
Date: 
Sun, 8 Jul 2001 16:03:21 GMT
Viewed: 
8561 times
  
   Hi,

   Long time no see, John!  Have you just been lurking about?
   (I'm finally back from Europe myself.)  Coming to Brickfest?
   How's JHU?

In lugnet.space, John J. Ladasky, Jr. writes:

In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:

Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
(the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
gradually decelerating the moon's orbit.  So, it's orbit is very slowly
shrinking...

Actually, you have this backwards.  The friction of Earth's oceans against
its solid parts is slowing the Earth's rotation down.  This translates into
a loss of angular momentum for the Earth.  But angular momentum must be
conserved.  The angular momentum is transferred to the moon, so the moon is
actually gradually moving *farther* from the Earth.  IIRC the increasing
separation of the Earth and Moon has been measured quite accurately by
bouncing lasers off of the mirrors left behind by the Apollo missions.

   Weren't there other methods used recently as well?  I'm not
   sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
   the international meter standard is based on the speed of
   light (as of the 1980s, I think).  Somehow using radar sticks
   in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
   measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.

When the Earth has slowed enough so that its period of rotation equals the
period of the moon's revolution, there will be no more tidal friction.  The
Earth will cease to slow, and the moon will cease to move farther away.
Interestingly, at this point one side of the Earth will always point towards
the moon -- just as, right now, one side of the Moon is always pointed
towards the Earth.  This state of affairs is known as "tidal locking."  When
this finally happens, one Earth day will be somewhat longer than 28 current
Earth days.

   I wasn't aware both faces had to be locked for the term
   "tidal lock" to be valid.  For example, I've heard the
   statement made that Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun--
   true in that the same face of Mercury is sunward, but not
   true for the Sun, if you can really call that a "face".
   And locking is not fixed tight--both Mercury and the moon,
   like Jupiter's satellites, and presumably Pluto and Charon
   (which *are* a tidally-locked double planetoid system, like
   Hector in the Belt) too, "librate"--they basically wobble.
   But whether this is the settling of a golf ball in the cup
   or it's being powered from outside, I don't know offhand.

This tidal locking will take a pretty long time.  In fact, some recent
studies suggest that increasing solar radiation will cause Earth's oceans to
evaporate in the next 500 million to 1 billion years, sooner than tidal lock
is expected to be achieved.  Tidal lock can also occur with an ostensibly
solid body (e.g., Jupiter's moons), but it's a slower process.

   Of course, this does assume that no weird momentum-altering
   things happen (collisions, the unexpected expulsion of a
   gaseous shell from the Sun, etc).  But all of those kinds of
   things might make our discussion a little bit, um, "academic."
   Not that there's anything wrong with that.

   Re: the oceans evaporating: I wonder if we can look at solar
   output in past aeons?  It may be that Earth was only warm
   enough for multicellular life at a certain point--and that it
   may be different enough *now* that if one brought, say, an
   eryopsid labyrinthodont (big, giant, mega-amphibian) to the
   present day, it would cook or suffocate somehow.  I know that
   there's a lot of work being done on the sheet-of-ice planet
   idea--where only the equator regions were ice-free, sort of
   a super Ice Age.

   rambling,

   LFB



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
 
(...) Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just different wavelengths of the same thing, right? Or does the wavelength difference (it IS many orders (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
  Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
 
(...) I've posted a few times this year, but mostly I've been lurking. And trying to build something that truly satisfies me. I keep buying more parts and experimenting... patience now... (...) Welcome home. Is the dissertation in the can? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Message is in Reply To:
  Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
 
(...) Actually, you have this backwards. The friction of Earth's oceans against its solid parts is slowing the Earth's rotation down. This translates into a loss of angular momentum for the Earth. But angular momentum must be conserved. The angular (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

195 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR