Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep3_banner.thumb.jpg.5533fb830ae914798f4dbbdd2c8a5853.jpg

spartan45

Is the Moon moving away from Earth due to big bang inflation?

Recommended Posts

No. If that were the case, we too would be expanding, as would the Earth and everything else and therefore we wouldn't even know it. But we can measure the Moon's departure with lasers, and it is quite independent of the big bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. If that were the case, we too would be expanding, ....

But I AM expanding for the last 10 years or so... :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a coincidence the the moon is moving away at the same speed fingernails grow when tectonic plates at mid-oceanic spreading centers are also growing at the same rate  fingernails grow. I think the universe is trying to tell us something.

Our planet spins so fast the the tidal bulge caused by the moon's gravity is always ahead of the moon, thus tugging the moon forward. You would think that should make it go faster, but it just makes it spiral into a higher orbit, with kinetic energy getting transformed into potential energy.

Eventually the moon will be so far away that it will..., oh wait, I just remembered, by the time that happens the sun will have changed, causing the oceans to boil away, thus eliminating the whole tidal problem. Thank goodness, I was so worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these things are calculated by some seriously bright people, far brighter and much better informed that you and I. Personally, I leave it to professional astronomers and physicists to figure these things out. Who am I to question their professional judgement?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, everytime someone eats cheese the moon gets lighter; lighter = less gravity so that's why the moon is moving away.

Simples.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who am I to question their professional judgement?

Oooh, I think "anyone" (particularly astronomers! lol) have that right. :p

These days we are TOLD that scientific "peer review" is quasi-infallible! 

I find it hard to distinguish TEDx "conferences" from religious rallies... :D

(Sorry about the R-word, Mods - But "lay sceptics" are vital to science?) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly have the right to question anyone's opinion. The difference is that experts in the field speak from a position of usually being far better informed about a subject than I. When it comes to physics, I would trust the view of a physicist over mine every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-39127-0-63201200-1411896955_thumb.jpost-39127-0-21922400-1411896962_thumb.j

As someone else once said ....it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out......

It's hard sometimes to clearly identify the emotional meaning on forums and it's easy to misconstrue what appears (to the writer) to be a clear and succinct post with something a bit harsher. Personally I don't think that anyone denigrated Spartan45 at all. The content of his post wasn't that well worded (he or she acknowledges that) and it was shown to be in error. But I didn't see anyone denigrating the person.

That's interesting! Do you have a source for that please?

Regarding the "proven" fish depth limit of 9,000m. My memory was slightly out. The claim was actually 8,200m. Please see attached photos of the BBC teletext science posting of 4th March 2014. The word "proven" was not used here and I dont have the hyped-up press article - sorry. However, I can post the first hand account of Jacques Picard of his record dive on Jan 23, 1960 in the Trieste - featured in the August 1960 edition of National Geographic if required. This gives a clear account of a sole type fish and other life at about 11,000m.  I hope the pictures appear!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the "proven" fish depth limit of 9,000m. My memory was slightly out. The claim was actually 8,200m. Please see attached photos of the BBC teletext science posting of 4th March 2014. The word "proven" was not used here and I dont have the hyped-up press article - sorry. However, I can post the first hand account of Jacques Picard of his record dive on Jan 23, 1960 in the Trieste - featured in the August 1960 edition of National Geographic if required. This gives a clear account of a sole type fish and other life at about 11,000m.  I hope the pictures appear!  

Don't rely on the popular press for science news (or indeed accurate reporting). Their desire for attention grabbing sound-bites frequently warps the content. Though, in this case, you took a headline and then misinterpeted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now read the 2011 Nobel prize in Physics was awarded to 3 scientists for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe. It has no real relevance to the question, but I just thought it interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a strange thread. Most illuminating.

Slightly off-topic, but I recall the statement somewhere about how amazingly weak the force of gravity actually is. We think it's a phenomenally powerful force, yet you can lift your hand up in the air effortlessly, despite the gravitational pull of a 12,742km diameter lump of iron beneath it trying to pull it down. Awesome stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spartan

Good stuff posting the article relating the fish depth limit, it helps shed some light on it.

Upon reading the text pages provided there seems to be some ambiguity if you read between the lines of what is said and perhaps just as importantly what is not said. So first off on the top screen is says "fish would need to develop some other mechanism". Well there is room for for an explanation for starters. Marine biologists are united in the fact that they are sure there are many deep see species yet to be discovered and many many more that have yet to be studied. So straight away it is possible that the fish seen at 11,000m in 1960 is a yet undiscovered / unstudied species that has indeed developed a new mechanism that allows it to survive in depths beyond those that restrict our current fish knowledge base.

Then on the second screen it says "unlikely they can survive". Well "unlikely" in my books is not definite and certainly not proven. So again there is a chance even by their own admission that it is at least possible that  a fish could survive.

Then you come to the second paragraph of the second screen which i think is the most interesting statement. "No fish has been seen living beyond this depth" ??? huh??? but surely it has?. So how can this be? Well there is a few possibilities here, first off is it possible that Jaques Picard was wrong or even fabricated his account? seems unlikely but i guess not impossible. However im pretty sure i have watched documentaries of recent deep sea dives beyond the 8000m mark that clearly have fish on film. Second is it possible that the research team and the BBC are not aware of Jaques Picards sightings? And more recent dives? Either way the evidence seems to blow their theory out of the water before your teletext could load page 2. So what else could explain the discrepancy? Well what about if the BBC journalist trimmed all the facts to provided a outline of the research in the allotted space!. Maybe a explanation of the researchers definition of "living" might be missing. What if the researchers actually said "no fish has ever been seen living a sustained existence"? quite different i feel. So with out the transcript it impossible to tell if the researchers are indicating that no fish can survive period at depths exceeding those indicated or if they mean no fish can sustain living at such depths. Its entirely possible even if the research stands that some fish species maybe able to raid the deep sea floor for short periods before retiring to safe depths thus explaining Jaques sighting. So even if something is proven which i see no evidence to suggest this is doesnt mean that there cannot be room for exceptions. But its a very risky thing to read condensed articles from media etc and then to quote them off as fact. And im not saying that you were the one that quoted it as fact (i think your proven ref was directed at another article) and after all im sure everyone is guilty of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly have the right to question anyone's opinion. The difference is that experts in the field speak from a position of usually being far better informed about a subject than I. When it comes to physics, I would trust the view of a physicist over mine every time

Do you remember when 'experts' told us diesel cars were better for the environment? In May 2014 Professor Frank Kelly, Chairman of the department of Health's committee on air pollution, said governments had taken the 'wrong route' for decades by encouraging drivers to switch from petrol to diesel. A view backed by Martin Williams, professor of air quality at Kings College London 'In hindsight the switch to diesel was a mistake - in the past 20 years we've had far more toxic emissions from cars than we should have done.' {Source - Daily Mail May 1st 2014) .Sorry to labour this point, but as I was cycling, choking behind a diesel car many years ago, I remember my instincts telling me the experts had got it wrong, diesel cars were not better for the environment. Conclusion ; always question, never blindly follow. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly have the right to question anyone's opinion. The difference is that experts in the field speak from a position of usually being far better informed about a subject than I. When it comes to physics, I would trust the view of a physicist over mine every time.

I tend to try and find out who is sponsoring the research , it's funny that the " evidence " usually is friendly towards the sponsor.

Scientists are not stupid , they know who pays the piper ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Like Andrew Wakefield? Or Haruko Obokata?

Falsification of research tends to get found out....that's the beauty of peer - review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you remember when 'experts' told us diesel cars were better for the environment? In May 2014 Professor Frank Kelly, Chairman of the department of Health's committee on air pollution, said governments had taken the 'wrong route' for decades by encouraging drivers to switch from petrol to diesel. A view backed by Martin Williams, professor of air quality at Kings College London 'In hindsight the switch to diesel was a mistake - in the past 20 years we've had far more toxic emissions from cars than we should have done.' {Source - Daily Mail May 1st 2014) .Sorry to labour this point, but as I was cycling, choking behind a diesel car many years ago, I remember my instincts telling me the experts had got it wrong, diesel cars were not better for the environment. Conclusion ; always question, never blindly follow.

I completely agree with you on questions relating to the social, political, economic or environmental suitability of a technology. The answers you will get is dependent on such things as the terms of reference, hidden agendas and perceived wisdom. My answer related to fundamental physics, an area less prone (but not completely devoid) of these factors.

I know the limits of my expertise and try (but don't always succeed) to avoid stepping much beyond it. Given the choice I'd have to find a very good reason to chose the opinion of a novice over an expert. All things being equal, they are much more likely to be right.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you remember when 'experts' told us diesel cars were better for the environment? In May 2014 Professor Frank Kelly, Chairman of the department of Health's committee on air pollution, said governments had taken the 'wrong route' for decades by encouraging drivers to switch from petrol to diesel. A view backed by Martin Williams, professor of air quality at Kings College London 'In hindsight the switch to diesel was a mistake - in the past 20 years we've had far more toxic emissions from cars than we should have done.' {Source - Daily Mail May 1st 2014) .Sorry to labour this point, but as I was cycling, choking behind a diesel car many years ago, I remember my instincts telling me the experts had got it wrong, diesel cars were not better for the environment. Conclusion ; always question, never blindly follow. 

Firstly, you are using the Daily mail as a source- a paper that is known to repeatedly lie and distort the facts when it comes to climate change (the Met Office has had to, on at least two occasions, release press statements to specifically show that the Daily Mail had deliberatley misquoted them).

Secondly, if you are expecting every statement to be correct 100% of the time then you are expecting the impossible. The scientific method changes it's view based on what is observed. The important part of the quote is this "'In hindsight the switch to diesel was a mistake". Hindsight gives an additional 20 years of data that was unknown at the time. It's very easy to be correct with the benefit of hindsight. Much harder to be correct in advance.

Thirdly you are using a "straw man" argument in answer to Michael Morris' point. Physics and environmental sciences are not the same disciplines.

As for questioning everything? That's exactly what the scientific method requires. That's what makes it so successful.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, you are using the Daily mail as a source- a paper that is known to repeatedly lie and distort the facts when it comes to climate change (the Met Office has had to, on at least two occasions, release press statements to specifically show that the Daily Mail had deliberatley misquoted them).

Secondly, if you are expecting every statement to be correct 100% of the time then you are expecting the impossible. The scientific method changes it's view based on what is observed. The important part of the quote is this "'In hindsight the switch to diesel was a mistake". Hindsight gives an additional 20 years of data that was unknown at the time. It's very easy to be correct with the benefit of hindsight. Much harder to be correct in advance.

Thirdly you are using a "straw man" argument in answer to Michael Morris' point. Physics and environmental sciences are not the same disciplines.

As for questioning everything? That's exactly what the scientific method requires. That's what makes it so successful.

Part of the problem lies in science education. It may have improved since I was at school but we were taught that science is about facts which is, if not total nonsense, a good approximation of it. The people who get terribly excited and jump up and down and scoff when a scientific consensus is reversed are the people who think as my teachers thought. Getting it wrong, refining, taking a step backwards and then taking two steps forward, is what science does. What is the alternative? Is there a better way?

I'm minded of maps. When taking kids out on trips I'd take out the map and have a look at it. To the less aware kids this was clear proof that I was lost. If I wasn't, why did I need a map? This logic satisfied them but also gave me an opportunity to see if I could give them an elegant alternative view!

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

always question

Truly a very brave sentiment :grin: But one that ought to be treated with caution. Taken to its conclusion, it would leave us emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually stranded. We would even have to doubt the very language we are use to question. Taken superficially, if there is no end given, no direction and one is simply free to question everything for the sake of questioning everything, then this is a sure way of not challenging the individual's reason :p

From this, I think it's a good idea not to look at 'science' as some 'body of knowledge' but rather as a system of hypotheses which in the ultimate analysis cannot be absolutely justified (after all, the hypotheses are inductive, as opposed to deductive) but which stand up to current tests and observations. As every generation comes to discover, there will be erroneous observations, inadequate formulations and tests, not to say misleading prejudices which will have to be torn down and cut away.

As such, any movement that calls itself 'scientific' but fails to nurture these exact opportunities for the falsification of its own beliefs is not scientific. In the same light, quoting a given Daily Rag or some Broadcasting Network on blind faith, accepting it as some 'evidence-against this or that' and not offering them yourself the same opportunity of the motto, Question Everything, might come across to many as a little tactless at best.

Needless to say, one of the principal premises of the scientific endeavour is that it is a system of doubt. In a very real way the drive which fuels science is also that which fuels philosophy. In the process of journeying through the Forest of Ignorance we create tiny little clearings, perhaps a camp or two which we tentatively call Knowledge - not truth! - and as these little fields of knowledge expand, so too that of Ignorance. New mysteries that previous knowledge has revealed. 

Question everything! Indeed, but with sincerity :smiley:

Edited by Qualia
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

typed stuff in the wrong thread....:)

Edited by Tinker1947

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fish seen beyond 11,000M.. and in the 60's as well, Now my instincts tell me that is a load of rubbish considering the deepest known and explored depths of any ocean is 10'916M. With the margin of error it could be 10'984M, ocean mapping 2010.

but with that said it is very plausible for fish species to live at these depths.

As for the moon moving away from us With the earths rotational spin slowing then would it be right to say that the gravitational influence of the earth is weakening and is more likely the reason the moon is moving away from us than the expansion theory?

Instinct is the very thing that causes us to ask question in the first place, without it we wouldn't be intuitive and question the things we see or hear.

I seem to recall a fellow long before einstein who dropped things from his balcony.. i wonder what made him do that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The objective here is to show the plausibility of Big Bang expansion being the main reason the Moon is moving away from the Earth each year at about the rate finger nails grow by using school boy mathematics:

 Lunar Distance       X   Universe expansion rate at one Mega parsec

One Mega parsec

    

Average Lunar Distance = 384,400 Km

One Mega parsec =  3.08567758  x 1019 Km

Universe expansion rate 73.8 Km per second at one mega parsec

          3.844 x 105     X     73.8 Km/s 

3.08567758 x 1019

Answer = 9.193676029 x 10-13 Km/s

This answer in Km is the distance the moon has moved away from the Earth in one second. Now to convert this answer from Km to cm and from one second to one year.

Earth / Moon distance expansion rate is (9.193676029 x 10-13 ) x 100,000 x 31,556,926 cm per year

Answer  = 2.9cm per annum.

Earth / Moon distance expansion is 2.9cm per year due to Big Bang expansion.

Actual annual distance increase is 3.78cm.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.