If you explain your picture wrong, odds are people will either view your picture as wrong or will make a mistake when they take your incorrectly explained picture to be correct. It's not smugness that drives my corrections, but a desire to be technically correct. Any ego stroking or bashing that may or may not take place is merely serendipitous.
What about the "spring constant" (elastic modulus) of the earth (rock) itself ? I'm not sure how long it would take to spring back but I've done a very rough calculation that places it somewhere about half an hour, so potentially this bulge would relax perhaps ten times or more quickly than it presently does due to Earth rotation alone. As to whether or not this would cause calamity I still don't know.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
But, there are two bulges... 1 hour would only be 6 times more rapidly. (Without thinking about it, I'm going with the 6 hours 12 minutes - difference between tides?)
sao123
Lifer
- May 27, 2002
- 12,653
- 205
- 106
Ok, I'm back again and here is my take on everything...
If I am correct, the bulge never really goes away....it mearly travels completely around the earth every 24 hours. Existing always just in different position. so now...the earth is constantly in an elongated sphereical shape always. IE the bulge travels like a wave in the crust. So now a volume comparison must be made, but if the moon disappeared... the earth would return to true spherical (no bulge) shape in whatever time frame. So now, the volume of a sphere should be less than the volume of the elongated sphere, and therefore volcano eruption should be inevitable. less internal volume squeezing liquid rock out at the seams?
Since the current wavelike travels of the bluge dont cause earthquakes, i doubt losing the moon would either, unless it is volcanic pressure related.
Now i must say that a traveling wavelike bulge has the possibility to initiate an earthquake in high pressure fault lines, however this phenomenon(coincidence or factor) has not been researched to my knowledge.
As far as continental drift, I believe this traveling wave would cause the entire floating crust (on liquid rock) to make a net movement, but not really contribute to overall continental drift. Think how a washing machine agitation causes the clothes to spin around the agitator, they all travel, but they travel together.
If I am correct, the bulge never really goes away....it mearly travels completely around the earth every 24 hours. Existing always just in different position. so now...the earth is constantly in an elongated sphereical shape always. IE the bulge travels like a wave in the crust. So now a volume comparison must be made, but if the moon disappeared... the earth would return to true spherical (no bulge) shape in whatever time frame. So now, the volume of a sphere should be less than the volume of the elongated sphere, and therefore volcano eruption should be inevitable. less internal volume squeezing liquid rock out at the seams?
Since the current wavelike travels of the bluge dont cause earthquakes, i doubt losing the moon would either, unless it is volcanic pressure related.
Now i must say that a traveling wavelike bulge has the possibility to initiate an earthquake in high pressure fault lines, however this phenomenon(coincidence or factor) has not been researched to my knowledge.
As far as continental drift, I believe this traveling wave would cause the entire floating crust (on liquid rock) to make a net movement, but not really contribute to overall continental drift. Think how a washing machine agitation causes the clothes to spin around the agitator, they all travel, but they travel together.
There is absolutely no reason to assume that the total volume must decrease when the bulge dissappears (as opposed to the volume simply redistributing). That assumption is both unfounded and incorrect.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
I am gathering that people are saying that the ground itself bulges? I'd think that the moon's effects on the ground would be very miniscule by comparison to the tides - and the loss of the moon's gravity wouldn't really trigger any sudden changes in the ground anyway. The biggest bulge I can think of in the ground is around the equator - caused by outward inertia from Earth's rotation. Jupiter and Saturn easily exhibit this - they have short days, and they're gas balls. Saturn especially has a pronounced flattening.
If you want to see what really strong gravity (like, Jupiter for instance) can do to solid objects though, check out Jupiter's moon Io. Volcanoes everywhere, caused by the moon getting squished and stretched by gravity. But there's not going to be anything close to that here - the moon's too small.
If you want to see what really strong gravity (like, Jupiter for instance) can do to solid objects though, check out Jupiter's moon Io. Volcanoes everywhere, caused by the moon getting squished and stretched by gravity. But there's not going to be anything close to that here - the moon's too small.
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
Different thought...
Space is not really empty. If the moon disappeared, I assume the medium of space is not dense enough to notice the hole. I don't think there would be a rush to fill the true vacuum. So no shock wave. No notice there except a bunch of photons that got to go straight.
Space is not really empty. If the moon disappeared, I assume the medium of space is not dense enough to notice the hole. I don't think there would be a rush to fill the true vacuum. So no shock wave. No notice there except a bunch of photons that got to go straight.
Yes, the ground bulges as the moon passes over. No, it's not a trivial amount for the purposes of this discussion.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I think whether or not it's a trivial amount depends on how rapidly the earth "snaps" back to a spherical shape. If it takes more than a minute, then it's trivial. The bulge is only 20 or 30 centimeters.
Best answer yet
I for one haven't a clue as to the effect... Basic science tells us that the moon affects the earth's tidal patterns, and perhaps assists in climate control (again, never took much science, so feel free to bitchsmack me if I'm sounding like a smacktard..
). If that were the case, i imagine that the disappearance of the moon would have an immediate impact, though it would eventually correct itself, as the force of change would be ultimately negligble when compared to the constancy of the earth itself. Perhaps some coastal flooding, or a somewhat violent change in weather patterns round the areas of the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.
Again, if I should be putting a tinfoil hat on, do be a friend and enlighten me, aye?
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
in review of recent events.... namely, a sh!tload of rain... I'm revising my earlier thoughts on tsunamis.
I don't think so. A local lake (really a reservoir) has a spillway/dam at one end. During a recent deluge of rain, they had to lower the spillway by 4 feet to keep the water flowing out fast enough to avoid the lake from flooding people's back yards. That is, over the course of 1 mile, the difference in altitude of the lake's surface could be as much as 2 feet (apparently... I didn't see it flooding into yards, but I heard about some major complaining last summer when they refused to open the gates) - at the spillway, it's approximately 100 feet wide where water normally flows over, but the gate itself is only about 30 feet wide. The lake is no more than 1/2 mile wide. Thus, the water does not flow from one end of the lake to the other end of the lake fast enough to avoid being in people's yards. At the spillway end, it's never more than a couple inches deep where it runs over.
I've observed the same at home. I have a couple of small lilly ponds in the backyard with a stream running between them. (sort of like those kits from Walmart, but much bigger and much more elaborate, higher quality) I run a 1/2 horsepower pump to recirculate the water from the lower pond to the upper pond. I've noticed that gradually the upper pond gets deeper than I expected - it didn't seem to me when I designed the overflow into the stream channel, that the water would reach a depth of 3/4 of an inch (given the width I have, and considering the volume of water that flows)
Then it dawned on me... water pressure is dependent only on the depth (and is equal in all directions). If you have a pool that's 10 feet across and 3 feet deep, it's going to exert the same pressure on the sides as a pool 1 mile across and 3 feet deep. Releasing water at an extra depth in the middle of the ocean would result in little more than a gentle shove. Based on my observations at the lake and in my pond, I don't believe the water would flow fast enough to cause tsunamis. Think of it as gravitational potential energy being converted into kinetic energy. The mgh of the water will become 1/2 mv^2 of the water. The mass (thus volume) doesn't matter. Want to run a simulation? Build a swimming pool a mile across and 3 feet deep. Release all the water at once, allowing it to run up a slight slope (representing getting shallower) It's not going to create massive waves, and it doesn't matter if the pool is 1 mile across or 1000 miles across. This differs from earthquake generated tsunamis by a great amount of energy imparted to a much smaller volume of water.
I'm not an expert in fluid dynamics by any stretch, but I believe my above logic is more on the right track.
I don't think so. A local lake (really a reservoir) has a spillway/dam at one end. During a recent deluge of rain, they had to lower the spillway by 4 feet to keep the water flowing out fast enough to avoid the lake from flooding people's back yards. That is, over the course of 1 mile, the difference in altitude of the lake's surface could be as much as 2 feet (apparently... I didn't see it flooding into yards, but I heard about some major complaining last summer when they refused to open the gates) - at the spillway, it's approximately 100 feet wide where water normally flows over, but the gate itself is only about 30 feet wide. The lake is no more than 1/2 mile wide. Thus, the water does not flow from one end of the lake to the other end of the lake fast enough to avoid being in people's yards. At the spillway end, it's never more than a couple inches deep where it runs over.
I've observed the same at home. I have a couple of small lilly ponds in the backyard with a stream running between them. (sort of like those kits from Walmart, but much bigger and much more elaborate, higher quality) I run a 1/2 horsepower pump to recirculate the water from the lower pond to the upper pond. I've noticed that gradually the upper pond gets deeper than I expected - it didn't seem to me when I designed the overflow into the stream channel, that the water would reach a depth of 3/4 of an inch (given the width I have, and considering the volume of water that flows)
Then it dawned on me... water pressure is dependent only on the depth (and is equal in all directions). If you have a pool that's 10 feet across and 3 feet deep, it's going to exert the same pressure on the sides as a pool 1 mile across and 3 feet deep. Releasing water at an extra depth in the middle of the ocean would result in little more than a gentle shove. Based on my observations at the lake and in my pond, I don't believe the water would flow fast enough to cause tsunamis. Think of it as gravitational potential energy being converted into kinetic energy. The mgh of the water will become 1/2 mv^2 of the water. The mass (thus volume) doesn't matter. Want to run a simulation? Build a swimming pool a mile across and 3 feet deep. Release all the water at once, allowing it to run up a slight slope (representing getting shallower) It's not going to create massive waves, and it doesn't matter if the pool is 1 mile across or 1000 miles across. This differs from earthquake generated tsunamis by a great amount of energy imparted to a much smaller volume of water.
I'm not an expert in fluid dynamics by any stretch, but I believe my above logic is more on the right track.
The Discovery Channel had a show a while back called which I believe was called "What if the Earth Had No Moon" where they talked about what would happen.
If the moon wasn't there the Earth would wobble on it's axis and the environment would change by increadible amounts. Ice caps could melt while glaciers formed elsewhere, deserts would become flooded, tropical areas could turn to deserts, and there would be wind storms of hundreds of miles/hr. It would eventually rip up the surfance of Earth pretty badly and kill off most of the big life.
At least that's what I remember form the show.
If the moon wasn't there the Earth would wobble on it's axis and the environment would change by increadible amounts. Ice caps could melt while glaciers formed elsewhere, deserts would become flooded, tropical areas could turn to deserts, and there would be wind storms of hundreds of miles/hr. It would eventually rip up the surfance of Earth pretty badly and kill off most of the big life.
At least that's what I remember form the show.
Alright,
I usually just browse the Hot Deals forums on this web site. I was bored and decided to check out this section. After reading through this thread I had to register and post a reply.
Anyways, I'm an Envi Sci major and found this thread really interesting. I am by no means an expert on this subject but just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.
First off, sao123 stated something about earthquakes as a result of the crust floating on liquid rock. The crust does not float on liquid rock. A quick explination. The crust rests on the mantle, which is divided into two sections, the Lithosphere and the Asthenosphere. The Lithosphere is rock the like crust, and the Asthenosphere is molten rock. This rock is not liquid, it's more plastic-y, like silly puddy. It circulates extremely slowly. I do agree though, that as far as continental drift is concerned, there wouldn't be any.
Also, a pet peeve of mine. Everyone keeps referring to tsunami's as "tidal waves." Scientifically speaking a tidal wave is exactly what it denotes. "Tsunami" is the proper term for those natural disaster waves. After taking Oceanology this past semester it bugs me. I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops, I just wanted to explain the real meanings.
Here's what I think would happen. No tsunamis would result. The Earth's oceans would more or less move back to an equilibirum. You would see high tides (although lower than a typical high tide at that area) when you should be seeing low tides and vice versa. There would still be tides, because the Sun also affects the tides. The tides would be much lower. The ocean currents would also be affected, although I don't know how. Anyone who thinks the tides and/or currents would stop is wrong because you still have other bodies exhibiting forces on the Earth.
For the same reason, the Earth would not snap back into shape as a sphere. It would probably become more sphere like than it is, but there are still forces pulling it out of shape. Also, the result of the earth become more of a sphere may cause some earthquakes, but I wouldn't expect massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Earth processes are measured in geologic time, meaning they take massive amounts of time to occur. It is not likely that the earth would "snap back into shape" in a matter of hours or even days. The earth is not elastic enough to simply pop back into shape quickly.
As far as AluminumStudios post is concerned he/the show is probably right. However, ice caps melting, deserts flooding, etc. etc. are all results of climate change. The change of ocean currents would affect the climate. These same things could occur due to Global Warming. Anyways, these events would not happen overnight either. They would probably take at least 100 years before you really started seeing major changes.
I usually just browse the Hot Deals forums on this web site. I was bored and decided to check out this section. After reading through this thread I had to register and post a reply.
Anyways, I'm an Envi Sci major and found this thread really interesting. I am by no means an expert on this subject but just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.
First off, sao123 stated something about earthquakes as a result of the crust floating on liquid rock. The crust does not float on liquid rock. A quick explination. The crust rests on the mantle, which is divided into two sections, the Lithosphere and the Asthenosphere. The Lithosphere is rock the like crust, and the Asthenosphere is molten rock. This rock is not liquid, it's more plastic-y, like silly puddy. It circulates extremely slowly. I do agree though, that as far as continental drift is concerned, there wouldn't be any.
Also, a pet peeve of mine. Everyone keeps referring to tsunami's as "tidal waves." Scientifically speaking a tidal wave is exactly what it denotes. "Tsunami" is the proper term for those natural disaster waves. After taking Oceanology this past semester it bugs me. I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops, I just wanted to explain the real meanings.
Here's what I think would happen. No tsunamis would result. The Earth's oceans would more or less move back to an equilibirum. You would see high tides (although lower than a typical high tide at that area) when you should be seeing low tides and vice versa. There would still be tides, because the Sun also affects the tides. The tides would be much lower. The ocean currents would also be affected, although I don't know how. Anyone who thinks the tides and/or currents would stop is wrong because you still have other bodies exhibiting forces on the Earth.
For the same reason, the Earth would not snap back into shape as a sphere. It would probably become more sphere like than it is, but there are still forces pulling it out of shape. Also, the result of the earth become more of a sphere may cause some earthquakes, but I wouldn't expect massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Earth processes are measured in geologic time, meaning they take massive amounts of time to occur. It is not likely that the earth would "snap back into shape" in a matter of hours or even days. The earth is not elastic enough to simply pop back into shape quickly.
As far as AluminumStudios post is concerned he/the show is probably right. However, ice caps melting, deserts flooding, etc. etc. are all results of climate change. The change of ocean currents would affect the climate. These same things could occur due to Global Warming. Anyways, these events would not happen overnight either. They would probably take at least 100 years before you really started seeing major changes.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter