BS: Do we need the moon?

Subject: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 03:50 AM

Interesting question. What would happen if our moon went bye. If our moon was blasted by an astroid? If we no longer had a moon.
Personal feeling on the subject?
Maybe our oceans would come to a stand. Our gravitational pull would be redirected. The moon debris would be suspended in our outer atomosphere.I can't begin to really imagine, but I personally don't feel like we would have any earth shattering event .
Any one care to conjecture?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:07 AM

"Earth's rotation rate is still slowing down -- our days are getting longer and longer. Eventually, our planet's tidal bulges will be assemble along that imaginary line running through the centers of both Earth and the Moon, and our planetary rotational change will pretty much cease. Earth's day will be a month long. When this happens, billions of years from now, the terrestrial month will be longer -- about 40 of our current days -- because during all this time the Moon will continue moving away.

In this future picture, any lunar colonists would then henceforth see just one face of Earth. You can imagine this setup by stretching your arm out and looking at your palm. Now twirl around. You're face and your palm stare at each other the whole time. If the United States happens to be on the back of your head, well, just think what people there do not see."
Garnered from this site

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 04:26 AM

What would we rhyme with June & spoon?
John

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 05:03 AM

Some theories conjecture that our moon was created from a large asteroid colliding with the Earth and that is composed of the lighter parts of the Earth's outer mantle. Since its creation, it is obvious by the impact craters that the moon has continued to run interferance (a sweeper?) for a lot of other nasty big rocks that may have otherwise impacted the Earth.
Also, it has saved millions of drunks by lighting their way home from the pub who might otherwise have tumbled into a ditch and drowned.
It also makes tides and gets young women in the mood for lovemaking.
Lets just leave it up there.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: GUEST,A wolf
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 05:32 AM

What would we howl at?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 07:00 AM

bloon.
eric

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 08:48 AM

It would seriously chill the course of true love.

Dogs wold wonder what the fuss was about.

And night-wanderers would get bored and go back to bed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: s6k
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 08:59 AM

there would be no tides

also we would spin off into a crazy orbit, probably into the sun

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:11 AM

I suppose then, that time and tide will not be subject to the same constraints as heretofore?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:14 AM

Nightime would be really, really dark. Poetry would change:

"The road was a ribbon of somethingorother light
Over the purple moor...."

and so would drama:

"Swear not by the inconstant whatchamacallit, you know, that thing that used to be up there...."

And book titles would be in big trouble:

Jules Verne's "From the Earth To the Place Where Somethig Used To Be, And a Trip Around It"

and movies, too:

"Destination, Well, Where Ever...."

and, of course, song:

"By the light, of the silvery whatever...."

and Beethoven's great piano work "The Gaslight Sonata"?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:16 AM

maybe we don't 'need' the moon, but if there were no tides, many ocean & biological processes would be changed , and it would take thousands of years to adjust. There are a LOT of things on Earth based on the moon and its influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:26 AM

I've read that without the moon, the Earth wouldn't have a magnetic field (caused tides in the Earth's iron core) and, being swept by various solar storms and cosmic radiation would never have developed larger forms of life. I understand losing the magnetic field and the resulting radiation would put quite a damper on civilization even now.

No volcanos either, but that seems less important.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:21 AM

Shouldn't the title of this be "Do we need the moon in its present form?" A major impact on the moon may destroy its present form, but the pieces would still be subject to (primarily) Earth's gravity, and would still orbit the Earth. Maybe we'd look like a tiny Saturn.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: HuwG
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:44 AM

Tidal effects are not related to the magnetic field. The earth's core is mainly liquid iron and nickel, with a solid iron-nickel inner core. There will be convection and rotation, and therefore dynamo effects even without the moon.

Ditto vulcanity. There would still be lithospheric plates grinding around, and plumes (heat convection) in the mantle, without any help from the moon. (Though when the moon first formed, it was a lot closer to earth, and the tidal rise and fall of the land was of the order of several metres. That must have had a lot to do with cracking up the earth's original proto-crust.)



I can't really accept the theory that the moon has been sweeping up rocks that would otherwise hit earth. Earth's mass is ten times that of the moon and would attract the majority of whatever came the way of the earth-moon binary system.

Also, the moon has two distinct surface types. The lighter is anorthosite, which is over 4 billion years old, and very heavily cratered. The darker is basalt, 2.5 billion years old, and much less heavily cratered (or at least, has much fewer large craters. The surface is pretty well pulverised, by impacts from micrometeorites which earth's atmosphere stops). The inference is that there was a very intense phase of bombardment which accompanied the moon's formation, but since then, there has been a lower rate of random impacts.

Other than micrometeorite impacts, there are no processes on the moon which obliterate surface features. On earth, even a crater on land is slowly worn down by wind, frost and especially rain, and eventually buried to survive only as a trace on a gravimetric survey. (The one at Meteor Crater in Arizona has survived remarkably intact because it is in an area with low rainfall.)



Smashing the moon to pieces would probably lead to a lot of the rubble falling on earth, with overall effects similar to the impact which wiped out the dinosaurs. The remaining debris would probably form a ring system; not as spectacular or as long-lived as that of Saturn, but pretty enough when observed from north or south polar regions.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 11:31 AM

Earth's moon is somewhat of a puzzle. It's size (3476km dia) is way out of proportion to that of the planet, and in fact the only larger planetary satellites in the solar system are those of the gas giants - Jupiter (Io: 3630, Ganymede: 5262, Callisto: 4800) and Saturn (Titan: 5150) which makes our moon 5th in size. The next largest moon orbiting one of the inner planets is Mars' Phobos which is only 22km in dia. In fact the moon is larger than the planet Pluto, and omly about 2/3 of the diameter of Venus.

I seem to remember at sometime that without the moon, Earth's atmosphere would be much smaller - does anyone have any ideas about that ?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 05:09 PM

"Tidal effects are not related to the magnetic field. The earth's core is mainly liquid iron and nickel, with a solid iron-nickel inner core. There will be convection and rotation, and therefore dynamo effects even without the moon."

It is outside my field. The report I read said that the moon's gravitational field is responsible for keep the Earth's core molten, at least the outer edge of it now that they say the core itself is actually a single iron crystal.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 05:16 PM

Nobody's even mentioned the green cheese!
John

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 05:32 PM

It would mean I no longer have to shave my body once a month. Neither would I need to go on a liquid diet of sorts for that one day.

Expressions like "once in a blue moon" would change to something like "once in a blue ring of debris", which is a mouthful.

Michael Jackson's moonwalk would become "asteroid hop".

Menstruation cycles would go to pot - bang goes the monthly excuse.

And the expression "moonstruck" would get a real, and more painful, meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 05:33 PM

We do need it in order to maintain this pleasant Earthly realm in its present state of corporeal splendour.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 05:50 PM

It would confuse the bejesus out of werewolves. They wouldn't know when to do their thing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 05:55 PM

As for dropping you trousers and flashing your bum! Well what will football supporters do instead?
John

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: GUEST,earthling
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 06:13 PM

And where would I go on holiday?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 07:41 PM

Loosing it would certainly bugger up the astrologers. Instead they'd have to come up with names for all the bits that would still be rotating around the Earth and work out what influence they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Joe_F
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 07:51 PM

If the moon were removed, there would still be tides (due to the sun), but they would be a good deal smaller. That the sun's contribution to the tides is significant is shown by the fact that tides are smaller at first & last quarter (when the sun is working against the moon) than at new & full moon (when the two are working together).

A *very* big favor that the moon does for the earth's inhabitants is that it stabilizes the inclination of the axis of rotation. I do not know what the mechanism for this effect is, but I have read & heard about it from reliable sources. I gather that the axis of Mars (whose moons are too tiny to be of any effect) nutates (wobbles) extravagantly & irregularly on times scales of thousands of years. The axis of the earth does slowly precess, but in such a way that its inclination is a steady 22.5 deg (I think it is) to the perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. Thus, the polar circles & the tropics stay put on the globe. Imagine what it would be like if, say, that angle doubled, to 45 deg. The polar circles would coincide with the tropics, and the temperate zones would disappear. In Ottawa, at the summer solstice, the sun would be overhead at noon and barely skim the horizon at midnight. At the winter solstice there would be no sunrise. Not many existing life forms could make it thru the summer *and* the winter during such a climatic episode.

Have you thanked your moon today?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Strick
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 08:08 PM

TRAVELLERS' PRAYER

Praise to the moon, bright queen of the skies,
Jewel of the black night, the light of our eyes,
Brighter than starlight, whiter than snow,
Look down on us in the darkness below.

If well you should find us then well let us stay,
Be it seven times better when you make your way,
Be it seven times better when we greet the dawn,
So light up our way and keep us from all harm.

Give strength to the weary, give alms to the poor,
To the tainted and needy five senses restore,
Give song to our voices, give sight to our eyes,
To see the sun bow as the new moon shall rise.

Cast your eyes downwards to our dwelling place,
Three times for favour and three times for grace,
Over the dark clouds your face for to see,
To banish misfortune and keep trinity.

In the name of our lady, bright maiden of grace,
In the name of the king of the city of peace,
In the name of our saviour, who hung on the tree,
All praise to the moon, for eternity.

As originally posted by delphinium 09 Mar 04

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:51 PM

If we didn't have the moon, the number of things we could tell someone to take a flying fuck at would be greatly reduced.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:52 PM

Yeah, what he said!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:26 PM

I've never suggested the moon, but rolling doughnuts have often been mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 11:51 PM

Like, make fir some crappy surfin'

Cowabunga..

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 02:17 AM

There would be one helluva bundle of "new" traditional songs!

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 11:52 AM

Hey diddle diddle the cat and the fiddle
The cow jumped over the particulate ring orbiting our planet since the explosion of the moon.
The little dog laughed to see such fun
And they're coming to get me soon.
John

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Johnny in OKC
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 05:33 PM

Civil chaos, political panic, and nuclear war.
There will be religious fanatics claiming The End is Here.
Governments will blame each other for a Moon Gap.

The world's people are STUPID ENOUGH to begin killing
each other with less provocation than this.

Total, suicidal LUNACY ensues.
Let's hope it doesn't happen.

Love, Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 05:35 PM

Without the moon, what would a moon pie be?

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 06:46 PM

Thank you all for your input so far.
Jim M., that was an interesting article just for the idea of the moon pulling away from earth. What wasn't mentioned was the sun will then become the dominant tidal influence as Joe mentioned.
Tidal friction would cause the earth's rotational period to become longer and our system would readjust to the change. The moon will then move back toward earth, and this could create strong tidal forces in the moon which could cause stresses on the moon and break it up into small particles. These particles could orbit the earth as a ring cloud.
This is a prediction of what is happening, and our days are getting longer, but I'm talking billions of years from now.
Joe F. I like your input. Very interesting also. I can understand what you mean about it stabalizing our axis rotation. I don't think if something happened to the moon that we would go spinning out to orbit, but what you said Joe makes sense that it could likely change the seasons.
Thanks for your thoughts- Keep them coming! Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 08:40 PM

We need a tide in the affairs of men that can be taken at the flood, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: HuwG
Date: 14 Apr 04 - 10:08 PM

Joe F's post is entirely correct, save in one piffling detail. In addition to precessing, the angle of inclination of the earth's axis does indeed change regularly from a maximum of about 25 degrees to perpendicular to the orbital plane, to a minimum of about 21 degrees. (It is currently about 22.5 degrees and decreasing). The period of this oscillation is about 40,000 years.

This is one of the Milankovitch Cycles (the other two being precession and changes in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit), which have periodic effects on the earth's climate over a time scale of thousands of years.

A greater inclination of axis produces colder winters and hotter summers. (Precession determines which hemisphere gets the more extreme weather. Eccentricity of orbit determines the total amount of radiation the Earth receives from the Sun.)


Joe is quite correct; the presence of the moon is the major factor which stabilises the earth's rotation. The cause of instability in a planet's rotation is its unequal balance of masses. Neither Earth nor Mars is a perfect sphere. Mars has a bulged northern hemisphere and slightly flattened southern hemisphere. Earth isn't quite so skewed, but there is a slight preponderance of mass in the northern hemisphere.

Not strictly fact; but, science-fiction author, Kim Stanley Robinson has written a trilogy of novels (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars)which concern the colonisation of Mars in the coming decades, and these give good descriptions of how the eccentric orbit and rotation of Mars affect the seasons and weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 01:04 AM

I have been a gardener for many, many years. At times I was completely overwhelmed and didn't know what to do first. And then I discovered planting according to the cycles of the moon.

A condensed schedule would be:

Green leafies - 1st quarter

Flowers and vines - 2nd quarter

Root crops - 3rd quarter

Cultivate, weed and destroy - 4th quarter

I go even further and plant according to the different astrological phases of the moon but won't go into the lengthy details.

Without the moon I wouldn't have a timetable. I would also be deprived of some of my most meaningful observations about the the interdependency of the animate and inanimate.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 01:18 AM

Seems to me that one of the useful effects of the moon is that is keeps the sea stirred up. Without the major tidal effect it provides, the ocean would probably contain less life and would be closer to the stagnant mess we seem to be doing our best to create. I do not believe that solar tides would not be significant enough to overcome the inertial effects. consider the conditions in the Med and Caspian Seas, where there is already relatively little exchange except that caused by the tides.

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Apr 04 - 05:23 AM

Many of the likely effects of no moon, or a destroyed moon are mentiond in Jack McDevitt's "Moonfall"
A book I can highly recommend

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: Gorgeous Gary
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 04:14 PM

I'm reminded of Christine Lavin's song "What If We Had No Moon?" which is her take on the topic. Now available on the National Space Society-sponsored album of space songs titled TO TOUCH A STAR. Probably on one of her own albums too.

Nigel: I have Moonfall lurking in my massive to-be-read piles.

-- Gary

Subject: RE: BS: Do we need the moon?
From: CapriUni
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 06:45 PM

I don't know from atoms on the science behind all this, but this discussion needs a link to this: "The Moon Song" (from the same guy who did the viking kittens video)