??? :roll: You've ever heard about tidal waves?
:roll: Merely not knowing something doesn't make a fool. It takes insisting ignorance is knowledge.
"Furthermore it is argued that the presence of the orbiting Moon has, through a large part of geological time, stabilised this axial tilt or obliquity of the Earth. This has and has had important ramifications for life on the Earth as major and frequent shifts in the Earth obliquity would have led to significant and rapid changes in the Earths climate due to changes in insolation values at the poles and equator. A similar mechanism has been suggested to explain the apparent contradictions in the climate record of Mars. The current relatively moderate axial tilt of the Earth ensures that the difference in heating between the poles and equator is sufficient to promote a healthy and diverse range of climatic zones without veering from one extreme to another (e.g. Snowball Earth hypothesis). "
http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/earthmoon.html
"The bulk of arguments about the Moon relate to its effect on the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system (which is stabilised against spin-axis inclination variations, unlike Mars), "
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html
"The Moon is believed to play an important role in Earth's habitability. Because the Moon helps stabilize the tilt of the Earth's rotation, it prevents the Earth from wobbling between climatic extremes. Without the Moon, seasonal shifts would likely outpace even the most adaptable forms of life.
"A Moon-less Earth with the same mass, rotation rate, and orbit as today would have the direction of its spin axis vary chaotically between 0 and 90 degrees on time scales as short as 10 million years," says Darren Williams, Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Penn State University and NAI member. "At high obliquity, temperatures over mid-to-high latitude continents would reach near boiling 80 to 100 Celsius around the summer solstice under a 1-bar nitrogen- dominated atmosphere. Such temperatures would be damaging to all forms of water-dependent life on Earth today." "
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article178.html
There is also this theory on DNA formation:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4786
"Nothing else" Eh?
A lot of things would happen. Loss of visable spectrum of light would sure get our attention. But only thing of immediate concern would be the rapid and drastic drop in temperature, that would promptly kill us.
MrDudeMan
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 15,069
- 94
- 91
Vee, they are obviously not educated in science past 10th grade, so dont get too worked up over their incredible ignorance.
Regarding the tides, if even one type of ecosystem was impacted on a regional or perhaps global scale, the entire world would suffer. However, this is a minute detail compared to the temperature change that would quickly kill everything.
Some info on a planets temperature
"There is no lower limit on how cold the dark side of a planet or Moon can get; this mostly depends on how fast the planet rotates. Slow rotators cool off more than fast rotators."
Translation for the ignorant: Without the moon reflecting light on the dark side of the planet, it would cool off way faster. Yes, atmospheres act like a blanket, but they cant keep heat in if none or little exists.
Link to show the tards in this thread that the barycenter is not at the center of earth. if the moon poofed, it would change that center and probably the orbit of earth, which would in turn effect climates.
barycenter. the location of the barycenter, which is shown in my 2nd link, also stabilizes our planet. habitability is a delicate scenario, and you cant just throw out a massive gravitational body which has a huge effect on a habitable planet and expect nothing to change.
Regarding the tides, if even one type of ecosystem was impacted on a regional or perhaps global scale, the entire world would suffer. However, this is a minute detail compared to the temperature change that would quickly kill everything.
Some info on a planets temperature
"There is no lower limit on how cold the dark side of a planet or Moon can get; this mostly depends on how fast the planet rotates. Slow rotators cool off more than fast rotators."
Translation for the ignorant: Without the moon reflecting light on the dark side of the planet, it would cool off way faster. Yes, atmospheres act like a blanket, but they cant keep heat in if none or little exists.
Link to show the tards in this thread that the barycenter is not at the center of earth. if the moon poofed, it would change that center and probably the orbit of earth, which would in turn effect climates.
barycenter. the location of the barycenter, which is shown in my 2nd link, also stabilizes our planet. habitability is a delicate scenario, and you cant just throw out a massive gravitational body which has a huge effect on a habitable planet and expect nothing to change.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Actually, I think the limit would be 2.7K, or whatever the background radiation is at.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad5.html
I don't think the first quote supports your hypothesis here. I'm not sure why you're trying to be insulting, either.
I looked and couldn't find a number for how much heat the earth receives from the moon. Given the max surface temperature of the moon is only something like 123C, I suspect it's not a lot, maybe insignificant. Don't forget the dark side of the Earth receives no heat from the moon on a new moon. Are there appreciable differences in how fast the Earth cools off on nights with new moons vs full moons? My googling hasn't provided an answer.
JonB
Platinum Member
If you built a mass proportionate replica of the earth and moon, tied a string between them of the proportionate length, and began spinning the assembly using an rod running top/bottom (north/south) through the larger central body, it would spin happily around that rod with little visible indication that a barycenter exists except for a varying radial load on the rod. But, set this assembly spinning and then remove the rod, and you would see an immediate eccentricity as it begins to rotate around barycenter.
So, how much does the barycenter of earth/moon affect the orbits of our space station and satellites?
So, how much does the barycenter of earth/moon affect the orbits of our space station and satellites?
Actually... the menstrual cycle becomes synchronized with the lunar phases after a woman is in any given region for awhile. PMS occurs mainly during the "new moon" phase. -- I don't think it's a coincidence that the cycle has evolved to be the same amount of time as the lunar orbit. I am thinking that this fact is probably the real source of the werewolf myths. Moon gone would be most like the new moon phase --- that time of the month ALL MONTH.
MrDudeMan
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 15,069
- 94
- 91
Sorry, i should have been more clear on the lower limit. I thought everyone who came in this thread knew 0k is rock bottom. It doesnt mean infinitely low temperature. Dont read into it too much.
I wasnt being insulting. Calling people ignorant is not rude. When i linked to the explanation for the tards, that may have been insulting, but not uncalled for. read some of the earlier posts and tell me that doesnt want to make you pull your hair out (assuming you have even the slightest clue about space and planets).
im pretty sure it is an "on average" kinda thing. the moon is NOT reflecting light way less than it is reflecting light, and since the atmosphere acts like a blanket, it keeps the warmth in on the nights the moon is not helping. If it went away permanently, it would slowly but definitely decrease the average temperature on the earth. even 2-3C would be an enormous change, but it would probably end up being a lot more than that.
beside all that, it would throw off the orbit and that would, in the truest sense of the word, pwn us.
Possibly create a gravitational shockwave or whiplash which would cause tidalwaves only at your house ;-)
Fragments will hit earth... and earth may form a ring... but nothing that Vim can't clean up ;-)
Jeff
Fragments will hit earth... and earth may form a ring... but nothing that Vim can't clean up ;-)
Jeff
Wow ... where to start?
Ok, first the mass of the moon would not disapear. Most of it would likely remain in orbit around the earth, or impact the earth. Even given the scenario where the impactor hits the earth-side of the moon, most of the mass would likely not escape. We'd end up with our own ring system and/or lots of little moons.
Because the mass is still there, the impact on our heliocentric orbit would likely be small. As the debris spread out into a ring, the barycenter would shift from its current distance of roughly 4600 Km from the center of the earth toward the center of the earth. And yes, the tides would be gone. Not sure about the stabilizing effect on the earths axis of a ring system vs. a moon of the same mass. Looks like interesting links above, I'll take a look sometime.
As far as the earth cooling down due to not having a moon reflecting sunlight onto the night side ... my seat-of-the-pants reaction is that it would be neglible. In fact, a ring might actually reflect more light to the night side then the moon, although I'm not sure what the albedo of that material would be like. And a ring may block more light from the day side.
Ok, first the mass of the moon would not disapear. Most of it would likely remain in orbit around the earth, or impact the earth. Even given the scenario where the impactor hits the earth-side of the moon, most of the mass would likely not escape. We'd end up with our own ring system and/or lots of little moons.
Because the mass is still there, the impact on our heliocentric orbit would likely be small. As the debris spread out into a ring, the barycenter would shift from its current distance of roughly 4600 Km from the center of the earth toward the center of the earth. And yes, the tides would be gone. Not sure about the stabilizing effect on the earths axis of a ring system vs. a moon of the same mass. Looks like interesting links above, I'll take a look sometime.
As far as the earth cooling down due to not having a moon reflecting sunlight onto the night side ... my seat-of-the-pants reaction is that it would be neglible. In fact, a ring might actually reflect more light to the night side then the moon, although I'm not sure what the albedo of that material would be like. And a ring may block more light from the day side.
The year 1994: From out of space comes a runaway
planet, hurtling between the Earth and the Moon,
unleashing cosmic destruction. Man's civilization is
cast in ruin.
Two thousand years later, Earth is reborn...
A strange new world rises from the old: a world of
savagery, super science, and sorcery. But one man
bursts his bonds to fight for justice! With his companions
Ookla the Mok and Princess Ariel, he pits his strength,
his courage, and his fabulous Sunsword against the
forces of evil.
He is Thundarr, the Barbarian!
planet, hurtling between the Earth and the Moon,
unleashing cosmic destruction. Man's civilization is
cast in ruin.
Two thousand years later, Earth is reborn...
A strange new world rises from the old: a world of
savagery, super science, and sorcery. But one man
bursts his bonds to fight for justice! With his companions
Ookla the Mok and Princess Ariel, he pits his strength,
his courage, and his fabulous Sunsword against the
forces of evil.
He is Thundarr, the Barbarian!
Discovery Channel aired a show some years ago called "If We Had No Moon." I watched it a few times, and my recollection is that the consequences would be catastrophic. In particular, I think the program suggested a number of the items listed above, changing of the tilt of the earth, drastic tidal changes, etc. I believe the program illustrated that even small changes in the climatic conditions can be extremely damaging to life on earth, and that the types of changes that would occur without the moon went well beyond the sort of occurences that we could withstand.
Originally posted by: Paratus
Now which weighs more a pound of uranium or a pound of hydrogen?
trick question. They both have the same mass (assuming you mean lbm), but the pound of hydrogen would "weigh" a lot less on a standard spring scale (or balance).
MrDudeMan
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 15,069
- 94
- 91
the original question was if the moon was hit by an asteroid and none of the remaining pieces had influence on earth. that makes your first paragraph invalid.
why say the word heliocentric? that has nothing to do with this. no moons or 5 moons, we would still have an elliptical orbit AFAIK. i dont know anything about rings, so you could be right...not sure.
the earth would change temperature drastically. cooling down would be only one of the many effects. and yes, it would happen. i am just assuming we are talking no more moon mass, which means no ring. if a ring did exist, then you, again, could be right...i just dont know.
that link seems pretty clear to me. sometimes the author talks out of his rear end (or so it seems) but the information seems valid and logical.
From the first post:
He says none of the pieces have any significant earth impact. By that I assume he means no pieces strike the earth/atmosphere. The moon is gone, but the mass is still there except for some fraction that might achieve escape velocity due to the impact.
Because I'm refering to the orbit of the earth/moon system about the sun, not the geocentric orbit of the moon about the earth.
All orbits are elliptical ... well conic sections at least. But if the mass of the moon was magically removed from the earth moon system, it would have some small effect on the heliocentric orbit of the earth about the sun ... change the shape of the ellipse.
Are you working with actual analysis here, or just the same seat-of-the-pants guess I am?
Some of the physics under it ... such as the calculation of the earth/moon barycenter appear correct. But they aren't used toward anything useful as far as I can tell in a quick read. Lots of pseudoscience crap likes to build itself on top of a few irrelevent facts. Not saying that's the case here ... just that I didn't discern anything useful in that site in a quick read.
MrDudeMan
Lifer
- Jan 15, 2001
- 15,069
- 94
- 91
well, the first paragraph can be read 2 ways...i see what you mean now but i took that as no impact on the earths gravity, not actual impact.
i still dont see the need for heliocentric because it was obvious we were talking about earths orbit, but i guess that makes sense after the explanation.
i thought i remembered seeing that all orbits are elliptical but i wasnt sure. conic sections sounds more on target, though. when you said it would change the shape of the orbit, thats what i meant earlier when i said that, so no arguement here.
as far as the temperature goes, its sort of between guessing and real analysis. because of this thread, ive had to do a whole lot of reading, so some of it has been put together with logic and other tidbits are actual facts...i do know, however, that we would most likely experience a climate shift that would kill most forms of life since most organisms arent capable of extreme and rapid adaptation.
i think that webpage has no overall goal other than to talk about space and a few concepts.
i still dont see the need for heliocentric because it was obvious we were talking about earths orbit, but i guess that makes sense after the explanation.
i thought i remembered seeing that all orbits are elliptical but i wasnt sure. conic sections sounds more on target, though. when you said it would change the shape of the orbit, thats what i meant earlier when i said that, so no arguement here.
as far as the temperature goes, its sort of between guessing and real analysis. because of this thread, ive had to do a whole lot of reading, so some of it has been put together with logic and other tidbits are actual facts...i do know, however, that we would most likely experience a climate shift that would kill most forms of life since most organisms arent capable of extreme and rapid adaptation.
i think that webpage has no overall goal other than to talk about space and a few concepts.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Uhhhh, for those of you saying "no more tides"
Incorrect
The sun DOES in fact have quite a bit of tidal influence on the earth's ocean - between 1/2 and 1/3 the influence the moon has.
Ever heard of a spring tide and a neap tide?
Spring tide when moon and sun are on the same (or opposite) sides (lined up)
Neap tide when moon and sun are at right angles to the earth...
These are because of the sun's influence on the tides.
edit: spring tides are higher high tides and lower low tides...
A neap tide is a smaller tide because the sun partially cancels the tidal effects of the moon.
Incorrect
The sun DOES in fact have quite a bit of tidal influence on the earth's ocean - between 1/2 and 1/3 the influence the moon has.
Ever heard of a spring tide and a neap tide?
Spring tide when moon and sun are on the same (or opposite) sides (lined up)
Neap tide when moon and sun are at right angles to the earth...
These are because of the sun's influence on the tides.
edit: spring tides are higher high tides and lower low tides...
A neap tide is a smaller tide because the sun partially cancels the tidal effects of the moon.
JonB
Platinum Member
Instead of twice daily tide fluctuations, we would have high tide once per year and it would be so gradual that a strong wind could mask it?
I wouldn't call that much of a tide. Those sea creatures living in bays and inlets would die because salt water intrusion would stop without tidal flow pushing it (only diffusion would remain and that's pretty weak). Say goodbye to the Chesapeake Bay ecology.
I wouldn't call that much of a tide. Those sea creatures living in bays and inlets would die because salt water intrusion would stop without tidal flow pushing it (only diffusion would remain and that's pretty weak). Say goodbye to the Chesapeake Bay ecology.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Did you read the thread above yours?
The tidal effects of the sun are significant.... about 1/3 to 1/2 that of the moon.
(1/2.5 actually IIRC)
The earth, in case you didn't notice, rotates on its axis. The side toward the sun and the side away from the sun would experience high tides.
edit: Thus, 2 times a day tides.
JonB
Platinum Member
That says to me that the more off-center the barycenter is for two orbiting bodies (earth/moon), the higher the tidal force. With the Sun/Earth, we barely affect its barycenter, therefore, tidal forces would be less significant.
and, yes, I seem to remember that the Earth rotates on an axis. Must have read that somewhere or saw it playing Halo.
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