Improving upon or even contributing to a given topic just got a little 
nastier.

It seems as though I can't so easily add to an existing topic without losing 
ground, as in not being able to do such without others blocking my efforts 
or otherwise taking whatever from my poor old PC.  In which case I'll simply 
have to post a new topic each and every time.  I hope that's OK.

Here's a few of those typical mainstream status quo reasons, as contributed 
from lord all-knowing "Peter Webb", as to why our extra special (one of a 
kind) moon is never going to crash into Earth.  It's called hocus-pocus 
NASA/Apollo physics, the very same conditional physics as supposedly having 
us walking essentially moonsuit butt naked on that guano island like and 
otherwise xenon lamp spectrum illuminated passive moon of ours, yet without 
so much as a shred of independent or any other hard evidence that you can 
take to an honest bank.

Apparently that silly moon of ours has gotten itself even more 
taboo/nondisclosure rated than even I'd thought possible, as a damn good 
flak suit we can't even argue about the amount of mass that it's losing, 
without each of those status quo or bust Old Testament doors of Usenet 
slamming shut.

I'd been contributing my usual dyslexic thoughts into the following topic 
when I'd apparently over-rocked their mainstream status quo boat (the USS 
LOLLIPOP) to such an extent that some of those MIB clowns were falling 
overboard, or as having otherwise pissed off my trusty Mailgate/Usenet 
server that wasn't supposed to be a robo/stealth moderated server, yet lo 
and behold it is.

As to the topic: "Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.
astro/browse_frm/thread/da9e5d6a20df9e5b/1e236dc1635465a5?
lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1&hl=en#1e236dc1635465a5
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.
geology/browse_frm/thread/e64feb738e6c0981/710627ae9e52865f?
lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=16&hl=en#710627ae9e52865f

"Peter Webb"  wrote in message
news:45e79776$0$9774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au

> Firstly, the only significant impact that changes the moon's orbit is 
tidal 
> locking with the earth. This can be verified in two ways - the easy way is 

> to note that the current recession of the moon exactly the same as that 
> predicted by tidal locking alone. The hard way is to look at every other 
> effect (eg the solar wind), calculate the effect's magnitude, and find out 

> that they are each several orders of magnitude lower than tidal locking.

So, I'm thinking that you mainstream folks clearly don't have to believe in 
the regular laws of physics.  Does that mean you're Amish, or of some other 
faith-based mindset?

Silly old me, I guess that's also why none of our artificial satellites, as 
having in any measurable way, ever once received so much as a microgram 
worth of orbital benefit from those same tidal forces.  Instead of our 
utilizing those extremely powerful and free for the taking worth of tidal 
forces, it seems that our satellites have to use those spendy ion thrusters 
or via some other form of reaction thrust (the controlled losing of mass) in 
order to keep from falling back to Earth.  Of course, when you're physically 
as big as our moon (having a rough surface of 40e12 m2), the terminal 
velocity or slug factor of space travel itself gets a little in the way, 
which obviously demands even more energy in order to sustain that nearby yet 
receding orbit.


> Now lets imagine that I have a futuristic ray gun #1 that turns the moon 
> into two equal spheres of some incredibly rigid material, each half the 
> weight of the moon, orbiting right next door to each other (because they 
are 
> made of some incredibly rigid material, they don't coalesce into a single 

> body again). This would clearly have no effect on the orbit - the orbit of 

> the two adjacent spheres would be exactly the same as the orbit of one 
> bigger sphere.

I actually agree, but that's not at all of what I'd said, or even the honest 
jest of what I'd meant, now is it.  As a combined or collective mass, you 
could have a million such nearby bits of moon coasting along as a collective 
7.35e22 kg mass, and you'd get the same result as if they were combined as 
one.  I do believe that's called the Guth 'duh factor'.

However, half the moon coasting along by itself (at the same velocity and 
distance) has but half the mutual gravity of attraction to Earth.  At least 
that's what the regular laws of physics have to say.  Half the mutual 
gravity of attraction is also going to demand half the centripetal kgf for 
keeping such a relatively constant orbital radius and velocity on tap.  But 
then, where exactly did the other half of that 2e20 joules worth of orbital 
binding energy go?

If we did the same to a given rocket deployed satellite, by having gradually 
eliminated half of it's orbital mass over a given period of time is what 
might otherwise be considered as a form of thrust, especially if it's 
getting solar wind directed or otherwise influenced.


> I then pull out futuristic ray gun #2, and instantaneously send one of 
these 
> spheres off to Alpha Centauri. There would be no immediate change to the 
> orbit of the remaining sphere. The orbit is completely independent of the 

> mass of the orbiting body (as long as it is much smaller than the primary).


The last time I'd checked, the moon that's gradually losing mass has no such 
magic ray gun #1 or #2 at its disposal for having eliminated any and all 
reaction forces.  As for what's actually making whatever mass go away is 
mostly the solar influx, solar wind and bit of stellar/cosmic energy or 
stellar/cosmic gravity doing its thing of supposedly sucking most everything 
apart, along with supposedly benefiting from whatever local tidal forces 
that somewhat magically do not seem to affect any of our artificial 
satellites, at least not in any positive way of keeping their orbits going 
(much less receding).

So, apparently it's only the hocus-pocus physics of our physically dark and 
somewhat salty moon that's getting affected in any positive way by those 
secondary tidal forces.  But where exactly would such a moon of half the 
mass (that's still making 1.023 km/s and currently at 384,400 km) have to 
end up, if it were to remain as safely orbiting Earth instead of leaving us 
in its sodium and other elements of dust?

OOPS!,  I forgot that you "Peter Webb" essentially said the mass of any 
given satellite makes hardly if any difference whatsoever upon sustaining 
its orbit.  Therefore, any orbit of most any given radius and velocity 
that's related to damn near any amount of mass (even if it's gaining or 
losing mass along the way) is nearly the exact same as accomplished by most 
any other orbiting mass, that's either much greater than or far less than as 
massive.  In which case, at least technically we could have the likes of 
Venus in orbit around Earth, even a Venus w/moon in orbit about Earth, and 
as such we'd merely obtain some pretty impressive and/or complex tidal 
forces (global warming us inside and out) that in spite of all the 
planetology trauma, we could get used to.

I very much like your conditional laws of physics, as they're certainly more 
fun.  It's always loads more fun to exclude evidence that doesn't fit your 
mindset, as well as for eliminating those other little pesky factors, such 
as the mutual gravity of attraction, or whatever's of the Earth/moon binding 
energy.  At least that's why it should be rather easy to relocate our moon 
to Earth's L1. (Lord knows we could use the shade)


> The only thing which would change is level of tidal locking. This would 
> about halve (because the moon is now only half the weight, and would have 

> half the tidal effect on the earth. This means half the effect on an 
> orbiting body).

There's no question that such a horrifically massive one-of-a-kind moon 
(even if at half its mass) that's orbiting so nearby, is what affects Earth 
in a very big and unavoidably global warming way.


> The nett result of the moon suddenly losing half its mass would be to 
> decrease the rate of recession from about 3.5 cms/yr to about 1.8cms/yr. 
> This would be measurable, but only by using the LIDAR experiment and 
> similar. Its a tiny, tiny effect.

I'm so glad you folks think we've walked on the moon, and thus don't have to 
take into account the solar wind, or the solar heating and subsequent 
sub-freezing cycle of what's traumatising that moon, or as to the ongoing 
loss of sodium plus losing a few other elements, or for that matter have to 
worry ourselves about the regular laws of physics that should logically 
affect artificial satellites exactly as our moon is getting positively 
affected, by way of those very same tidal forces that are supposedly strong 
enough to overcome the terminal velocity or slug factor of space that's 
working against that big old salty susker, as well as continually 
accelerating our 7.35e22 kg moon, as though the greater the mass the faster 
such things move apart.  It's as though perpetual motion has at last been 
discovered, and of its ever expanding energy is unlimited to boot.

Perhaps we should merely focus upon using those secondary tidal forces that 
are supposedly powerful enough for making our moon leave town.  Such orbital 
capitalization of our utilizing such a renewable and thus perpetual resource 
of such vast energy seems almost too good to be true.  This also means, that 
instead of being limited to my wussy 256e6 tonne CM/ISS could actually 
become worth 1024e6 tonnes, and there'd still be no apparent affect upon the 
orbital status quo (if anything, I'd only be making that moon along with my 
LSE-CM/ISS leave Earth in the moon's dust that much faster by way of my 
having relocated such lunar mass closer to Earth's tidal forces, so that 
such tidal forces would therby have that nifty affect of pushing rather than 
pulling.

Too bad that we're still not smart enough to having established anything 
within the moon's holy grail L1 sweet spot, somewhat Clarke Station worthy 
for example would obviously be too much to ask for.

In any silly event, can you or any other smart folks (such as within this 
Usenet anti-think-tank of mostly naysayers and MIB spooks) otherwise give 
the rest of us village idiots ten or even one serious method of extracting 
from the surplus of all that binding or tidal energy that's coexisting 
between Earth and that of our extremely unique (one of a kind) moon?

Otherwise, how about a few of your smart kind of wizards sharing your best 
swag as to the daunting task of simply relocating that nifty sucker to 
Earth's L1, for accomplishing some of that much needed solar isolation as 
shade.
-
Btad Guth