Without the Moon

[Dice144]

Guy at work and me were debating what would happen if the moon was no longer there. Tide wave effect? No more "pull" of gravity from it etc.

What do you think the effect would be?

 

[pcgeek11]

I'll bet it would not be a good thing.

 

[PsiStar]

1) "lunatics" never would have existed. Ergo, no ATOT!!!
2) no howling at night, therefore no werewolves ... and therefore, no counter-acting vampires
3) no man in the moon ... we *are* alone!!!
4) no driving at night with the headlights turned off
5) no "moon is made of cheese"
6) the cow would have jumped over ... the evening star or Venus or Mars ... doesn't work. So no jumping cows.:'(
7) no "By the light of the harvest moon"
8) no shooting the moon
9) no moonshine
10) "flat earth" *theory* would have lasted much longer .. oh, wait ...
11) the moon is associated with crime, suicide, mental illness, disasters, accidents, birthrates, and fertility
12) no ill effects (bad luck) of any lunar eclipse (best I can tell is that most lunar eclipse is bad)
13) less interesting Shakespearean quotes & plays of the day

Wow! Who knew? That with out the moon, that not just life for humans would have been so much more tranquil, but the whole planet? Never gave it a thought before!?! Me thinks it would have been most bland:\


The sun's gravity is "responsible for 44% of the tidal energy".

So there would be no in phase out of phase of the gravitational energy between the sun and the moon, therefore less extremes of mechanical stress on the earth as well less effect on the atmosphere. But there still would have been a tidal effect.

So maybe the continents might not have drifted as far apart from Pangaea? And maybe, some guy in big row boat would have found North America (which would not have been all that far north?) Unless he set out the wrong direction & he would have had a really long ride in the water.

 

[TuxDave]

Tides would still exist although with less extremes, and the earth would be rotating a little faster among other stuff

 

[Lemon law]

No, there have been serious scientific discussions of what would happen to the earth without a moon, and the Earth would simply wobble beyond all control. The equator would flip flop between being the new polar regions and back again, and life as we know it would never be able to survive.

Other than that, the moon is neither here or there. As the moon's orbital radius continues to expand, just a bit, with every passing year.

What me worry, I have been always a big fan of moonshine. We have not paid any whiskey tax since 1792.

 

[oynaz]

No, there have been serious scientific discussions of what would happen to the earth without a moon, and the Earth would simply wobble beyond all control. The equator would flip flop between being the new polar regions and back again, and life as we know it would never be able to survive.

That sounds like pseudoscience to me. Link?

 

[Tsavo]

No seasons.

No moonshine.

 

[Ninjahedge]

If we have none NOW or ever?

If it was never there, I think our evolution would have been delayed (no need for any critters that could exist in the tidal zones, little reason to come out of the water).

NOW? I think it would kill of many tidal ecosystems and we would have to rethink how we have set up our coastal civilization.

As for the earth precessing, that seems unlikely. The moon is not keeping us from wobbling. i really cannot see how having a second item spinning around you will stop you from tipping or shaking...

 

[Lemon law]

That sounds like pseudoscience to me. Link?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I recall this was strongly suggested on A Nova science program called our lone wonderful moon or words to that effect. And that without a moon we would have no stability about our axis, and therefore changes in climate would occur far faster than plants and many animals could adapt to changes.

I did also try a google search, but found a few similar but more superficial links.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I recall this was strongly suggested on A Nova science program called our lone wonderful moon or words to that effect. And that without a moon we would have no stability about our axis, and therefore changes in climate would occur far faster than plants and many animals could adapt to changes.

I did also try a google search, but found a few similar but more superficial links.

There have been theories in the past that the moon may have helped life start on earth due to the tides, but I don't buy the axis stability argument. Mercury and Venus have no moons and are not spinning out of control, and while Mars does have two satellites, they are so small that I'm not sure they exert that much control over Mars' rotation.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Mars does have huge tilts on it's axis varying from 15 degrees on the low and 75 degrees on the high side. The moon locks our axis in at 23 degrees. That's why we have stable climates. If there wasn't a moon the other planets and our sun's gravity would cause our axis to tilt wildly. Extreme climate changes would follow. If it just disappeared suddenly we'd have a global tsunami as well as the water would rush towards the gravity of the sun. Watch the show The Universe season 4 episode 2 "The day the moon was gone." You can stream it instantly on Netflix. They talk to scientists from major universities and astrophysicists as well. This is what they say not me.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

As for the earth precessing, that seems unlikely. The moon is not keeping us from wobbling. i really cannot see how having a second item spinning around you will stop you from tipping or shaking...

It's true. The moons gravity is what keeps our axis stable. Sure the sun has a much higher gravity but it's much further away than the moon so the moon has the higher gravitational pull on us than the sun.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Yep, the moon acts together with the water in the ocean's on earth as a flywheel for earth.

There is one thing i never understood.

When the moon is on the opposite side of the earth, it causes almost the same spring tide as when the moon is at the same side of the earth as the sun is. I would expected it to be stronger...

 

[Throckmorton]

Yep, the moon acts together with the water in the ocean's on earth as a flywheel for earth.

There is one thing i never understood.

When the moon is on the opposite side of the earth, it causes almost the same spring tide as when the moon is at the same side of the earth as the sun is. I would expected it to be stronger...

I still don't understand how the moon can cause a high tide on the opposite side of where it's on. No textbook has ever explained that, only showed this same stupid picture.

 

[Throckmorton]

OH... the moon pulls the earth away from the water on the opposite side. Why has no one ever explained this before Howstuffworks?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/tide-cause.htm

 

[William Gaatjes]

OH... the moon pulls the earth away from the water on the opposite side. Why has no one ever explained this before Howstuffworks?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/tide-cause.htm

I can imagine the gravitational pull on the water and the earth on the side where the moon is. It makes sense that density also is a factor. But that would mean that the bulge of the water on the opposite side of where the moon is, should be less then the bulge on the same side of where the moon is.
It makes me think of an inertial effect that causes a delay in the way the moons gravitation pulls at the water and at the earth. The same flywheel effect that stabilizes the earth's orbit causes the earth and the water to respond differently. The water responds slower then the earth on the gravitational pull because of density differences i would think. But maybe i am wrong. I am sleepy and tired. Maybe somebody else has a better explanation.
It also does not explain why the bulge at spring tide with the moon and sun aligned and pulling together on the earth is almost the same as the bulge on the side of the moon when the earth is between the earth and the moon. Although IIRC the gravitational pull of the sun is about half of the gravitational pull of the moon, the sun seems to have almost no influence.

The pictures are just plain wrong in my view.
But then again, i could be wrong.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Center of gravity maybe?

The mass center is still the same no matter how much you are pulling the water away. It may be a rotational moment of inertia problem.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Center of gravity maybe?

The mass center is still the same no matter how much you are pulling the water away. It may be a rotational moment of inertia problem.

I would think so too. If i have 2 bodies pulling on a third body( Inreality all heavenly bodies must be taken into account), it should be noticeable. If we assume that gravity is a force where differences in that force can be transmitted only with the speed of light, then there is also a delay in the way the gravitational pull of the sun and the gravitational pull of the moon exerts a force on the earth.

It would be strange that the sun would have almost no effect. It is hidden as a delay i would think. It would take 8 minutes before we notice any change in gravity from the sun. How much time would it take when there is a change in the gravitational pull from the moon ?

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

No seasons.

No moonshine.

No seasons?!?!

Science fail.

 

[PsiStar]

Mars does have huge tilts on it's axis varying from 15 degrees on the low and 75 degrees on the high side. The moon locks our axis in at 23 degrees. That's why we have stable climates. If there wasn't a moon the other planets and our sun's gravity would cause our axis to tilt wildly. Extreme climate changes would follow. If it just disappeared suddenly we'd have a global tsunami as well as the water would rush towards the gravity of the sun. Watch the show The Universe season 4 episode 2 "The day the moon was gone." You can stream it instantly on Netflix. They talk to scientists from major universities and astrophysicists as well. This is what they say not me.

I am disappointed with that video in that they discuss the sudden disappearance of the moon. I think it would have been more interesting if the discussion had at least included the scenario of the moon never existing ... or even a much smaller one. For the moon to suddenly disappear there would obviously have to be a cataclysmic collision of the moon and some pretty massive and/or fast moving asteroid. Earth, having the front row seat, would clearly experience far more immediate effects from this collision & the washing of giant waves, tho extreme, would be secondary.

Not sure that the moon has ever had a direct effect on the tilt of the earth's axis. I mention this as a google of "earth rotational dynamics" finds some sites with incredible amount of math describing this. BUT, having just a little bit of laziness precludes any summary of those. yawn!

However, I have read or seen on TV some discussion of how the moon may have been formed in the 1st place. This involved a collision with the early earth of some large asteroid & the ripping off of a chunk ... aka the moon.The last link also describe the tidal effects in a little more detail. One link has an animation & if accurate would indicate a pretty likely influence on the earth's rotation & tilt. Tilt may have also been influenced by the glaciers of the ice ages.

 

[Sunny129]

I still don't understand how the moon can cause a high tide on the opposite side of where it's on. No textbook has ever explained that, only showed this same stupid picture.

this is a tough concept for many people to grasp...that's OK. i'll try to put it in layman's terms as best i can. the fact that the force of gravity changes with distance gives rise to the term "tidal" force. that is, tidal forces are really just differences in the force of gravity between one location and another. clearly the oceans facing the moon have a greater gravitational bond with the moon than the oceans on the side of the earth opposite the moon. while howstuffworks.com's explanation of the bulge on the opposite side of the earth isn't totally incorrect, IMO its a pretty poor explanation. the bottom line is that the moon pulls harder on everything closer to it (the oceans, the mountains, and the entire earth itself for that matter) than it pulls on anything that's farther away from it. that is, as you get progressively further away from the moon, so does its gravitational force on you get progressively weaker. hence the tidal force's ability to "stretch" things out along the axis of force (in this case, the force of gravity).

another example that helps alot in visualizing this concept is a body in the vicinity of a black hole, particularly a stellar mass black hole (as opposed to the super-massive black holes found at the centers of galaxies...but that's neither here nor there). black holes are known for their very disruptive tidal forces b/c their gravity is so strong. let us suppose you're falling toward a black hole feet first from very far away. you would not be able to notice the difference in the amount of gravity of the BH exerts at 10 billion miles out versus 9.9billion miles out for example. and yet during that time, you'll have fallen 100 million miles closer to the black hole - that's a long way to travel toward a massive object and not feel the change in gravitational force. but the closer you get to the BH, the greater its gravitational force becomes. eventually you'd get close enough to the BH to where the difference between the gravitation force pulling on your feet is significantly greater than the gravitational force pulling on your head. this is "tidal forces 101," and the closer you get to the BH, the greater the tidal forces become (and the greater the difference between the gravitational pull on your feet vs your head becomes). you will eventually get stretched out along the axis of force, and your feet will accelerate toward the BH at a greater rate than your head, stretching you out like a piece of spaghetti.

so that is why there is high tide on opposite sides of the earth at any given time. that is, the above explanation is why the earth (along with its oceans, since they are fluid) takes on an elongated shape along the axis of gravitational pull. i can see how some folks still might be cofused as to why all the oceans don't just flow to the side of the earth nearest the moon, but it just doesn't work that way. tidal forces have the tendency to stretch things out along the axis of force, giving matter farthest from the source of gravity the appearance that it is being stretched in the opposite direction, when really its getting pulled in the same direction as everything else - just less so b/c it is farther from the source of gravity.

 

[DrPizza]

Without the moon, yes, the Earth would "wobble" more, but the time scales are larger than I think some people in the thread are thinking. However, over larger time scales, many types of life today wouldn't survive (if they couldn't move.)

 

[Throckmorton]

this is a tough concept for many people to grasp...that's OK. i'll try to put it in layman's terms as best i can. the fact that the force of gravity changes with distance gives rise to the term "tidal" force. that is, tidal forces are really just differences in the force of gravity between one location and another. clearly the oceans facing the moon have a greater gravitational bond with the moon than the oceans on the side of the earth opposite the moon. while howstuffworks.com's explanation of the bulge on the opposite side of the earth isn't totally incorrect, IMO its a pretty poor explanation. the bottom line is that the moon pulls harder on everything closer to it (the oceans, the mountains, and the entire earth itself for that matter) than it pulls on anything that's farther away from it. that is, as you get progressively further away from the moon, so does its gravitational force on you get progressively weaker. hence the tidal force's ability to "stretch" things out along the axis of force (in this case, the force of gravity).

another example that helps alot in visualizing this concept is a body in the vicinity of a black hole, particularly a stellar mass black hole (as opposed to the super-massive black holes found at the centers of galaxies...but that's neither here nor there). black holes are known for their very disruptive tidal forces b/c their gravity is so strong. let us suppose you're falling toward a black hole feet first from very far away. you would not be able to notice the difference in the amount of gravity of the BH exerts at 10 billion miles out versus 9.9billion miles out for example. and yet during that time, you'll have fallen 100 million miles closer to the black hole - that's a long way to travel toward a massive object and not feel the change in gravitational force. but the closer you get to the BH, the greater its gravitational force becomes. eventually you'd get close enough to the BH to where the difference between the gravitation force pulling on your feet is significantly greater than the gravitational force pulling on your head. this is "tidal forces 101," and the closer you get to the BH, the greater the tidal forces become (and the greater the difference between the gravitational pull on your feet vs your head becomes). you will eventually get stretched out along the axis of force, and your feet will accelerate toward the BH at a greater rate than your head, stretching you out like a piece of spaghetti.

so that is why there is high tide on opposite sides of the earth at any given time. that is, the above explanation is why the earth (along with its oceans, since they are fluid) takes on an elongated shape along the axis of gravitational pull. i can see how some folks still might be cofused as to why all the oceans don't just flow to the side of the earth nearest the moon, but it just doesn't work that way. tidal forces have the tendency to stretch things out along the axis of force, giving matter farthest from the source of gravity the appearance that it is being stretched in the opposite direction, when really its getting pulled in the same direction as everything else - just less so b/c it is farther from the source of gravity.

Your explanation is what I took away from the Howstuffworks description-- that the moon is stretching the earth out, including its oceans, and that is manifest as the oceans bulging on both sides.

 

[PsiStar]

I do not understand how the moon's gravity has a stabilizing effect on the earths' wobble.

Nothing about this diagram

supports this assertion

 

[degibson]

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Moon

FWIW, Nasa believes the moon "makes Earth a more livable planet by moderating our home planet's wobble on its axis".