Why the Moon is moving away from Earth?

How can you tell?

[link to curious.astro.cornell.edu]


[link to www.astronomy.com]

[link to www.csr.utexas.edu]

have you looked? Is Google broken for you?
Putting your exact question into Google returns multiple sites.
[link to www.google.com]

[link to curious.astro.cornell.edu]
[link to www.astronomy.com]


You posted an article just last night that explained it.
Thread: Moon Moving Waaaaaay too fast (Page 4)
Why wasn't that good enough for you? Wouldn't you say that asking a question that YOU answered the night before could be considered trolling?

Last Edited by LHP598 on 11/21/2012 10:13 AM

Better moving away than moving closer.

are people really this ignorant?

wasn't there just a solar eclipse?

wouldn't the moon be of different proportion to the sun if it were changing its distance from the earth?

didn't the moon eclipse the sun in the expected fashion?

the moon is moving away

The Moon is moving away but at the rate of only a few centimeters per year. At that rate it will be hundreds if not thousands of years before it is visible to the naked eye.

It's distance is tracked via laser...

The moon is accelerating due to the "sling" effect of the tides. Meaning, the center of mass of the ocean water pulled up by the gravity of the Moon itself is higher on that side than the center of mass of the earth. That difference provides enough centrifugal energy to the Moon to accelerate it.

However ...

If the Moon was actually part of the Earth from the beginning, according to this theory IT WOULD HAVE ALREADY LEFT ORBIT.

It wasn't part of Earth from the beginning. The current theory is a Mars size planetoid impacted the Earth and the debris formed the Moon. You are also assuming that the rate is constant.

This question makes evolutionist nervous, as it disputes their theory the moon formed with the earth, thus satbilizing the earth for evoltion. However, at the moons present rate of escape it would have been long gone, if it and the earth have existed 4.5 billion years. The farcical theory of evolution needs a lot of time, but the moon's elusivness doesn't give it that kind of time. Life needs the moon, as the world would be a very unstable place without it (intelligent life wouldn't have a snowball's chance without the moon).

Now, as for your original question...Scientists do believe that the Moon is responsible for tides on the Earth. They believe that the Moon loses energy to the tides. Scientists believe that because the Moon is losing energy, it is moving farther from the Earth. There are scientific observations that back up all these beliefs. We can use these observations and physical laws to compute how far the Moon would have been from the Earth at various times in the past, assuming that it was in orbit then.


The moon is moving away from us at the rate of approximately 2.0 inches per year.

Sixty million years ago, the distance between the Earth and the Moon would have been 99.4% of what it is now. For ages older than 1 billion years, the uncertainty in the model increases, but about 2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been 24,000 miles away from the Earth, orbiting the Earth 3.7 times per day, causing tides 1 million times higher than those we see today. This possibiliy would've made earth an extremely hostile place for life.

The moon's size and distance, coupled with the earth's 23.5 degree tilt are just too perfect to have come into place out of some randomness. It's hard to convince me that a grand designer didn't put all this together along with a planet fine tuned for life. Materials are just too dumb to have though of this on their own. Oh, they don't think, and generally materials left to their own devices, do nothing.

Because whoever lives within that fake moon, doesn't want to be anywhere near Earth when TSHTF...

So, someone who actually offers you the answer to your question is a shill?


Brainless fucktard.

I guess you are the brainless man, not me at all.

I ask for an official scientific explanation of that phenomena. Did you ever read that on books? (not)


For example, do you find some explanation here below?



--------------------
While 3.78cm /y may not seem like much, this small difference over a long enough period of time could affect life on Earth, making the planet slow down.
--------------------

And at the end, they NOT explain why it should happens.

Congratulations, you might be one of the stupidest posters on here.

Quite an honor--the competition is pretty stiff.

Did you also vote obammy, tard, doing your life job? I guess yes.


.

Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 11/21/2012 11:43 AM

Yup. Breathtakingly stupid.

Do you even dress yourself in the morning, or does your mother have to do it for you?

Google is your friend! Perhaps you should use it?

First two hits:

[link to curious.astro.cornell.edu]

[link to www.astronomy.com]

Took me five seconds.

Last Edited by AllGunsBlazing on 11/21/2012 11:55 AM

Google is far too complicated for DUCM900....

So is basic astronomy.

I have a feeling walking and chewing gum at the same time may prove problematic for DUCM....

I am not sure of the reason, but it is a great evidence that the Earth cannot be more than around 6,000 years old. Think about it logically, if you go back in time it gets closer and closer. Going back only a few million years puts it practically touching the surface of the earth. What would that do to gravity, the tides, etc. That is one of hundreds, if not thousands of scientifically empirical evidences for a young earth.

So do you think I do not know google right? I know what docs are online, why you did not read the entire topic before writing the same things? your links are still there (posted by other users).

Oh that's right, they're shills because they don't think the moon is hollow or the earth is flat?

Plus, is it still a theory or not?

'Many physicists considered the effects of tides on the Earth-Moon system. However, George Howard Darwin (Charles Darwin's son) was the first person to work out, in a mathematical way, how the Moon's orbit would evolve due to tidal friction, in the late 19th century. He is usually credited with the invention of the modern theory of tidal evolution.'

Theories in science mean something different than the way we use theory in everyday speech. A scientific theory means it's backed up by large amounts of data which all make accurate predictions.

For instance, gravity is "just" a theory. No one in their right mind would doubt it because that's what a scientific theory is.

the·o·ry
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.