It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shrinking moon causing high tides?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I once heard from my science teacher that the moon, ever since it was created, has started eroding, not sure what the causes are, ill try and research all the facts, but I came to the conclusion that if this is true, and that the moon is shrinking ever so slowly, that if it got to a level, it could not control the ocean tides as well as it could, causing high tides and vast flooding.

I want to hear opinions on this, even if it is not true.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Opulisum]




posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Just off the top of my head here......but, since the tides are actually caused by the moon and its gravitational affect.....a smaller moon may mean less severe tides.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Perhaps, im not really sure how much the moon affects the ocean, but I do know that if theres no moon, that theres no control over the oceans tides, causing immense flooding, probably ending most land life.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
As far as i know the moon is not shrinking, but the distance between the moon & earth is growing 3.8 centimeter (1,5 inch) a year. And in a lot of years..his power to wave the oceans is becoming weaker and weaker.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Based on what I've read and heard, it is NOT that the moon is shrinking (I'm not sure what mechanism would cause a satellite to shrink anyway:puz
but that IT IS increasing it's distance from earth at a little over an inch a year. So, in 11 years it will be about a foot further away from the Earth. I would surmise that as the moon moves away from the Earth it will a.) appear smaller and b.) have a reduced effect on tidal pattersn on the Earth. I recall reading that many scientists familiar with this feel that the loss of the moon as an influential satellite on the Earth could have catastrophic effects on the planet as a whole.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
the two main problems with that idea are that the moon causes tides, if there was no moon there'ld be no tides at all, and the secound is, your teachers an idiot, there is practically no errosion on the moon, thats why you can see all the craters.

seriously, if you heard that from a teacher he should probably be sacked!!!!



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Lol I guess so, still, an inch a year?

Does'nt seem like much, does it?



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Opulisum
 


It's moving AWAY from the Earth at a rate of slightly more than an inch a year - not eroding. Sure, sounds insignificant now but what does that mean in 1,000 years? A little more than 108 feet further. In 10,000 years that's 1,090 feet. In 100,000 years it's 10,900 or almost two miles further away. As with anything, time is relative. In human years it means nothing to us or our progeny. In galatic terms that's pretty damned fast and significant.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Opulisum
but I do know that if theres no moon, that theres no control over the oceans tides,


Once more, with feeling...

The moon causes the tides. I'd highly recommend a bit of reading into the ocean tides.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Its the same thing, causing.. controling.. it all means the same to me.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
There was a documentary the other night on the Science Channel i think. It was saying that the moon is indeed moving away like previously posted. Some scientists believe that during the early stages of the planet the Moon was so close to Earth that it caused 1000ft food tidal floodes and assisted in the perfect circulation of elements to create the very first life forms.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Opulisum
 


I don't think you're getting my point. No moon....no tides. Smaller moon....smaller tides. The height (and severity) of tides is directly caused by the moon.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


Thats what ive been going by the whole topic, i know.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Opulisum
if theres no moon, that theres no control over the oceans tides, causing immense flooding, probably ending most land life.


Okay.....this statement is a bit confusing. If you understand the moon is causing the tides.....how does this jibe? Remember, no moon.....no tide.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


Erm... Like I said, the moon affects the tides, without a moon, there will be flooding, because there will be no gravitational affect on the tide. Understand yet?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Opulisum
Erm... Like I said, the moon affects the tides, without a moon, there will be flooding, because there will be no gravitational affect on the tide. Understand yet?


May be try:

Without a moon, will be no gravitational affects caused by the moon on the ocean's waters.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
This is an interesting topic w/ little debate/info to go by... does anyone have some links for reference material? Moon readings tend to be strict science or conspiracy...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join