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

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.        

If this were true, the earth's orbit should expand proportionally, i.e. by 11m per annum. The same holds for all planets. I am not aware of such an expansion. Until you can show tat the orbits of planets, comets, and moons are changing in a similar way, your theory contains a severe flaw (appart from yielding a value 30% off the measured value).

Big bang expansion (not inflation) is a cosmic scale phenomenon which does not forbid local contraction to take place. The change in lunar orbit size is readily explained by tidal friction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Phobos is spiralling in to Mars (very slowly), whereas Deimos seems to be escaping slowly. This does not sit well with the inflation-based theory

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is a lot simpler and nearer to home. The moon is moving further away slowly due to the tidal bulge it creates on the Earth. Some of this energy pushes the moon slightly, enough to account for the drift.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of my favorite "lecture" topics when someone naively asks about what causes the tides....two hours later...they lose the will... :)

I think it was in Asimov's (New?) Guide To Science that I first came across the concept of the Earth/Moon gravitational harmony.

Shirly it's not still open to debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original post in September 2014 related the annual distance expansion of our Moon, to finger nail growth.

Yesterday, Sparton45 said, part quote :-

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

Actual annual distance increase is 3.78cm"

That is a very good comparison to fingernails, which are reputed to grow on average at 3mm per month, so by that conclusion and the big math involved :grin: , the increase would be 3.60cm annual increase. Just thought I would mention this, as the main gist seemed to get lost in the ensuing threads :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SNIP

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

Actual annual distance increase is 3.78cm.        

Even if the distances were the same (and they're not...you are out by 30%) all that would show is that two numbers were the same. That does not prove that the reason for the growth is as per your supposition. Correlation does not imply causation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this were true, the earth's orbit should expand proportionally, i.e. by 11m per annum. The same holds for all planets. I am not aware of such an expansion. Until you can show tat the orbits of planets, comets, and moons are changing in a similar way, your theory contains a severe flaw (appart from yielding a value 30% off the measured value).

Big bang expansion (not inflation) is a cosmic scale phenomenon which does not forbid local contraction to take place. The change in lunar orbit size is readily explained by tidal friction.

I don't think we have the equipment to detect expansion within the solar system with the exception of the Moon (laser use). This lack of equipment doesn't mean a severe flaw in the plausibility of Big Bang expansion being the main reason the Moon is moving away from Earth. I was perplexed by yielding a value 30% off the measured value because I was only thinking of expansion. However, remember the traditional theory of gravity pull caused by the tidal bulge being slightly ahead of the Moon? The effect is to accelerate the Moon to a higher orbit and the energy used results in slowing Earth's rotation. I believe this is what accounts for the missing 30%. The subject of Big Bang expansion is very exciting because there are so many different opinions and ideas about it at the moment. My favourite is how very distant objects can easily surpass the speed of light and disappear from Earth view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have the equipment to detect expansion within the solar system with the exception of the Moon (laser use). This lack of equipment doesn't mean a severe flaw in the plausibility of Big Bang expansion being the main reason the Moon is moving away from Earth. I was perplexed by yielding a value 30% off the measured value because I was only thinking of expansion. However, remember the traditional theory of gravity pull caused by the tidal bulge being slightly ahead of the Moon? The effect is to accelerate the Moon to a higher orbit and the energy used results in slowing Earth's rotation. I believe this is what accounts for the missing 30%. The subject of Big Bang expansion is very exciting because there are so many different opinions and ideas about it at the moment. My favourite is how very distant objects can easily surpass the speed of light and disappear from Earth view.

Your "belief" is only that, a belief. Without accurate calculations and a clear casual link then that's all it will remain.

Personally I believe that it's the action of the Clangers. No good will come of their antics, and I am sure that they are the cause..... :grin:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have the equipment to detect expansion within the solar system with the exception of the Moon (laser use). This lack of equipment doesn't mean a severe flaw in the plausibility of Big Bang expansion being the main reason the Moon is moving away from Earth. I was perplexed by yielding a value 30% off the measured value because I was only thinking of expansion. However, remember the traditional theory of gravity pull caused by the tidal bulge being slightly ahead of the Moon? The effect is to accelerate the Moon to a higher orbit and the energy used results in slowing Earth's rotation. I believe this is what accounts for the missing 30%. The subject of Big Bang expansion is very exciting because there are so many different opinions and ideas about it at the moment. My favourite is how very distant objects can easily surpass the speed of light and disappear from Earth view.

Its my understanding that distant objects cant surpass the speed of light they only appear to from any given perspective via a accumulative value. At any single point in the universe the rate of expansion is actually uniform, at least thats what i believe. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its my understanding that distant objects cant surpass the speed of light they only appear to from any given perspective via a accumulative value. At any single point in the universe the rate of expansion is actually uniform, at least thats what i believe. 

Yes, I totally agree, as usual my phraseology has been found wanting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have the equipment to detect expansion within the solar system with the exception of the Moon (laser use). This lack of equipment doesn't mean a severe flaw in the plausibility of Big Bang expansion being the main reason the Moon is moving away from Earth. I was perplexed by yielding a value 30% off the measured value because I was only thinking of expansion. However, remember the traditional theory of gravity pull caused by the tidal bulge being slightly ahead of the Moon? The effect is to accelerate the Moon to a higher orbit and the energy used results in slowing Earth's rotation. I believe this is what accounts for the missing 30%. The subject of Big Bang expansion is very exciting because there are so many different opinions and ideas about it at the moment. My favourite is how very distant objects can easily surpass the speed of light and disappear from Earth view.

Actually, we do have that equipment, they are called clocks. As the orbit expands, the year would become longer. This is not observed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have the equipment to detect expansion within the solar system with the exception of the Moon (laser use). 

How do you know this?

 This lack of equipment doesn't mean a severe flaw in the plausibility of Big Bang expansion being the main reason the Moon is moving away from Earth.

The burden of proof is on you to support the claim that you are making, not on others to show that your claim is incorrect. Not being able to disprove something is not the same as proving it. This is known as Russell's Teapot argument.

What is a severe flaw to the plausibility of your hypothesis is that the workings out that you have put forward to support the claim is incorrect by a margin of 30%. In addition Newton's Laws of Motion can explain the increase of the distance perfectly AND they agree with what is being observed. Occam's Razor applies...why look for a more complicated solution when a know solution exists AND fits what is observed better than your hypothesis?

 However, remember the traditional theory of gravity pull caused by the tidal bulge being slightly ahead of the Moon? The effect is to accelerate the Moon to a higher orbit and the energy used results in slowing Earth's rotation. I believe this is what accounts for the missing 30%.

Again, you would have to show a substantial proof to have the claim taken seriously.

The subject of Big Bang expansion is very exciting because there are so many different opinions and ideas about it at the moment. My favourite is how very distant objects can easily surpass the speed of light and disappear from Earth view.

As others have pointed out, they are not exceeding the speed of light. Due to the expansion of spacetime, they are moving away from us faster than the speed of light because spacetime is expanding between us and them.

 The subject of Big Bang expansion is very exciting .

Absolutely!

And keep asking question and trying to think of solutions....the best way to learn is to have an enquiring mind. But don't make the mistake of trying to disprove established fact without  heavy-duty workings out. As Sagan once said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"  :icon_salut: :icon_salut:

Edited by Zakalwe
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, we do have that equipment, they are called clocks. As the orbit expands, the year would become longer. This is not observed.

The introduction of using timings to calculate Earth - Sun distance change is a bit of a game changer from the relatively simple Earth - Moon distance calculation. Not least when you consider the complexities of Earth's orbital history : -  the reasons for the ice age, the inconsistancy of Earth/Sun distance, the Earth's slowing axis rotation (complicating timings). The current sidereal year is 31,558,149.8 seconds but at first glance I'm having difficulty finding reliable historical timings. Things are moving up a gear, but if there is no challenge, there is no fun. Please be patient, may be some time. Thank you for your interest and questioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Kepler's third law the increase according to your model should be 3.6 ms per annum. I do not think this matches any data out there. Ice ages are thought to be due to changes in inclination of the earth's axis and orbital eccentricity, not orbital radius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Kepler's third law the increase according to your model should be 3.6 ms per annum. I do not think this matches any data out there. Ice ages are thought to be due to changes in inclination of the earth's axis and orbital eccentricity, not orbital radius.

I believe the Suns magnetic cycles are also to considered to be a possibility for climate change cycles on Earth. Most people are aware of the Suns short 11 year cycle but there also exists a much more dramatic cycle which I think and dont quote is a 320 year or so cycle. It is considered quite possible that much more dramatic cycles could exist that have dramatic effects on our Earths climate but of course we havent studied the Sun long enough to know of them. All we have are climatic records which of course can tells us much about effect but not necessarily cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, we do have that equipment, they are called clocks. As the orbit expands, the year would become longer. This is not observed.

Amazingly a change of down to 1.0 x 10-5 of a second can be detected in a sidereal year, which translates to a 2.5cm detectable change in the Earth/Sun distance.

Actual Sidereal year annual increase is allegedly 6x10-5 seconds translating to 15cm.

This 15cm Sun/Earth distance increase can be explained using same Earth/Moon, Mars/Deimos rule of tidal inter-action: Sun rotating faster than Earth’s orbit so Sun’s tidal bulge accelerates Earth to a higher orbit and the energy used results in slowing Sun’s rotation (New Scientist 1st June 2009). In the case of Mars/Phobos the rule of tidal inter-action works in reverse: Mars is rotating slower than Phobos’s orbit so tidal forces decreases Phobos’s orbital radius.

Thank you for showing me the method to explore the idea of orbit increase due to BB.

Where does this leave orbit increase due to big bang expansion?

The maths does not match what is observed. This is strange and I cannot yet explain. I will keep looking for an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is to continue exploring the idea that the orbits of the Moon and Earth are increasing due to big bang expansion. The calculation of the Moon’s bbe rate of 2.9cm per annum was posted several months ago and here is the calculation for the Earth:

Earth/Sun Distance       X   Universe expansion rate at one Mega parsec

One Mega parsec

    

Average Earth/Sun Distance (1AU) = 149,597,870.7 Km

One Mega parsec = 3.08567758 x 1019 Km

Universe expansion rate 73.8 Km per second at one mega parsec

 1.495978707x 108     X     73.8 Km/s 

3.08567758 x 1019

Answer = 3.577924968 x 10-10 Km/s. This answer in Km is the distance the Earth should have moved away from the Sun in one second. Converting this answer from Km to m and from one second to one year:

Sun / Earth distance increase is (3.577924968 x 10-10) x 1,000 x 31,556,926 m per year.

Answer = 11.2908 metres per annum.

Sun / Earth distance increase should be 11.2908m per year due to Big Bang expansion.

Actual annual distance increase is reported as 0.15m. This Sun/Earth distance increase is thought to be caused by the gravity pull caused by a tidal bulge on the Sun from Earth’s pull being slightly ahead of the Earth. The effect is to accelerate the Earth to a higher orbit and the energy used results in slowing Sun's rotation (New Scientist 1st June 2009).

To show how an annual increase of 11.3 metres of Earth’s orbit due to big bang expansion would increase the sidereal year by 3.6 (rounded) thousandths of a second.

T = 2 π r3/2            T = Period in seconds of satellite (Earth in this case)

         √GM               r = Radius in metres (three-halves power: cube first, then sq. root)

                                    r = Earth/Sun mean distance metres = 1.495978707x1011m

                                    G = Gravitational constant (6.67384 x 10-11 m/kg/s)

                                    M = Mass in kg of centre object (Sun = 1.9885x1030kg)

                                    GM= G x M above works, NASA GM(Sun) is more acc.

                                                GM= GM(Sun) = 1.3271244x1020m/kg/s

Using the above:

T = 2 x 3.141592654 (1.495978707x1011)3/2

            1.3271244x1020

T = 2 x 3.141592654 x 3.347928976x1033

            1.3271244x1020

T = 3.635532124x1017

        1.152008854x1010

T = 31558196.03 seconds.

Now to add the calculated annual sidereal year increase due to big bang expansion of 11.3 metres over a thousand year period to allow easier calculation of the period increase:

   Earth/Sun mean distance r = 149,597,870,700 metres.

11.3m increase x 1000years =                  11,300 metres

Sum now for substitution     =  149,597,882,000 metres. For clarity this will give T2

T2 = 2 x 3.141592654 (1.49597882x1011)3/2

            1.3271244x1020

T2 = 2 x 3.141592654 x 3.347929734x1033

            1.3271244x1020

T2 = 3.635532536x1017

        1.152008854x1010

T2 = 31558199.60 seconds.

T   = 31558196.03 seconds

Diff =             3.57 seconds increase/ 1,000years, 3.57 thousandths of a second per year.  

Note: The actual sidereal year = 31558149.76seconds. The equation used is ideal for satellites in circular orbit, but slightly out for Earth’s only nearly circular orbit, hence the difference from actual sidereal year, however, this does not alter the result of 0.00357s.  

Having gone through all the details we now have the difficult task of finding a way of fitting the big bang expansion into the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that the solar wind is hiding the effect of big bang expansion?

The diagram below shows the Earth’s magnetic field interacting with the solar wind creating ‘bow shock’. Bow shocks are described as similar to the waves that form at the bow of a ship and occur around all magnetic planets.

This diagram was inspired after visiting the DTU Space research into Mars’ magnetic field web pages – very interesting reading.

The diagram shows the Moon and Earth orbital velocity could be reduced by the solar wind. Indeed the best evidence of this probably comes from the Echo 1, Echo 2, and Pageos balloon satellites.

Echo 1 mass = 66kg, r = 15.25m, Alt = 1,600km, re-entry 8years, decay 0.5km per day

Echo 2 mass = 68kg, r = 20.5m, Alt = 1,200km, re-entry 5 years, decay 0.5km per day

Pageos mass = 57kg, r = 15.25m, Alt = 4,000km, re-entry 9 years, decay 1.2km per day

(Decay rate assumes re-entry occurs below 200km)

The figures above show how quickly the satellite orbits decayed. It is well documented how the solar wind pushed these balloon satellites around during their life in space. Pageos had a near polar orbit unlike Echo 1 and 2 and this may be the reason the Pageos orbit decayed the quickest.

Volume Echo 1 = 4πr3 = 14856m3    Density Echo 1 = m = 66kg         = 4.443x10-3kg/m3

                             3                                                         V   14856m3

ρ Echo 1    4.443x10-3kg/m3  x decay per year of 175,000m = 0.232m at Moon’s density

ρ Moon      3344kg/m3 

Velocity Echo 1 at 700km = 7.5km/s. Velocity of Moon at 378,000km = 1 km/s

Unfortunately what follows is only a guess but here goes. The extra drag at 7.5 times the velocity of the Moon’s orbit and a higher field strength nearer the Earth on Echo1 reduces the annual rate of decay of the Moon’s orbit  as follows 0.232m /7.5 = 0.031m x 0.61 of field strength = 0.019m. Big b exp of 0.029m – 0.019 m = 0.01m p/a resultant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The accepted theory is that the Earth/Moon distance increase of 3.78cm per year is due to the tidal bulge towards the Moon being pushed ahead by the Earth’s spin, so causing the bulge’s gravity to pull the Moon into higher orbit. The energy gained by the Moon in this action is a cause of the Earth’s daily spin rate slowing by around 1.4x10-5seconds per year. So let’s test this mathematically.

First, to find the energy lost by the Earth: Over the course of one year the increase in the length of a day is about 1.4x10-5seconds.

M               (Earth Mass) = 5.9726x1024kg

R     (Earth mean radius) = 6.371x106meters

T (Earth rotation period) = 86,400sec (24hrs)

 

 

I      (Moment of inertia) = 2/5 MR2 (for a solid sphere)

                                      I = 2/5 (5.9726x1024kg)(6.371x106m)2

                                      I = 9.697027593x1037kg/m2

 

W         (Angular speed) = 2π radians / Rotational Period (T)

                                   W = 2π/86,400sec

                                   W = 2 x 3.141592654radians/86,400sec

                                    W = 7.272205217x10-5 rad/sec

KE       (Kinetic Energy) = ½ IW2

KE = ½ (9.697027593x1037kg/m2) (7.272205217x10-5 rad/sec)2

KE = ½ (9.697027593x1037kg/m2) (5.288496871x10-9rad/sec)

KE = ½ (5.128270009x1029J

KE = 2.564135004x1029 Joules (Earth’s total KE)

Now applying Earth’s angular speed decrease:

First, annual-day time increase of 1.4x10-5 s is magnified by 10 for ease of calculation giving 1.4x10-4seconds:

W2 = 2π radians / Rotational Period (T) + (1.4x10-4seconds)

W2 = 2 x 3.141592654radians / 86,400.00014s

W2 = 6.283185307radians / 86,400.00014s

W2 = 7.272205205x10-5 rad/sec (change still at 10 magnification)

KE2 = ½ (9.697027593x1037kg/m2) (7.272205205x10-5 rad/sec)2

KE2 = (4.848513797x1037kg/m2) (5.288496854x10-9rad/sec)

KE2 = 2.564134996x1029Joules (Earth’s KE reduced by 1 year’s spin speed reduction)

KE – KE2 = (2.564135004x1029J) – (2.564134996x1029J) = 8x1020 J The change is still at 10 magnification, so, undoing this gives the energy lost by Earth per year due to spin speed reduction as 8x1019Joules.

 

 

Second, to calculate the energy required to change the Moon’s orbit to an increased height of 3.78cm (the yearly increase)

The equation to find the total energy of a satellite in orbit around an object is best written as:  E = - ½ (G x Mass of centre object x Mass of satellite) / R   (where E= satellite total orbital energy in Joules, G = 6.6738428x10-11N-m2/kg2 which is the gravitational constant, M= mass of centre object x mass of satellite in kg, R= distance from centre of main body to centre of satellite in metres. The equation works for any satellite (in a circular or near circular orbit), such as Hubble ST, ISS, and in this case, the Moon.

Using E = - ½ (GMCOMSAT) / R and substituting in Earth and Moon:

Earth Mass = 5.9726x1024kg, Moon Mass = 7.3242x1022kg

Total energy of the Moon’s orbit :

E = - ½ (GMEMM) / R  

E = - ½ (6.6738428x10-11N-m2/kg2) (5.9726x1024kg) (7.3242x1022kg) / 378,000,000m

E = (1.459720146x1037 N-m2/kg2) / 378,000,000m

E = 3.861693509x1028 Joules

 

Total energy Moon orbit 2 with year increase of 3.78cm, (3.78x10-2m),  magnified by 10,000, (1x104), for calculation ease giving 378m, changing R from 378,000,000m to 378,000,378m:

E2 = - ½ (6.6738428x10-11N-m2/kg2) (5.9726x1024kg) (7.3242x1022kg) / 378,000,000m

E2 = (1.459720146x1037 N-m2/kg2) / 378,000,378m

E2 = 3.861689646x1028 Joules

 

E – E2 = 3.86275x1022 Joules. Undoing the magnification by multiply this answer by 1x10-4 gives:

(3.86275x1022) (1x10-4) = 3.86275x1018Joules p.a. required to boost Moon’s orbit.

 

3.86275x1018J is the energy needed to increase Moon orbit by 3.78cm in one year.

8.0x1019J is the energy lost by slowing Earth’s daily spin by 1.4x10-5s over one year.

Conclusion is that about 4.8 per cent of Earth’s yearly axis spin energy loss is needed to annually increase the Moon’s orbit by 3.78cm. Given this information it is still difficult to establish how much, if any, big bang expansion is playing a part in the 3.78cm yearly Moon orbit increase. Shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yowser! I'm dizzy. Did your cat just walk over your keyboard? :happy7:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I see it. The distance to the moon will not change due to cosmological expansion.  The space expands but the moon stays in the same orbit relative to the earth because it is gravitationally bound to it and they continue to obey Kepler's/Newton's laws which define the orbit. If the orbital distance  changed this would break various physical laws including conservation of energy.

Robin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover we would also see the same changes in relative position of Earth/Sun and the other planets and their moons.  Or are we to understand that the expansion effect is localised - now that is a big ask. Just can't see this one standing up to scrutiny; whereas the effect of tidal bulge is more than very convincing and fully describable under Newtonian mechanics.

 

Jim

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.