Earths Axis?... Does it effect the moon?

So this chili earth quake threw the earths axis off.

One of the questions i've been pondering is, would that somewhat throw the rotation of the moon off as well, if our axis is shifted shouldn't there be some effect to path of the moon?




or does the earth just move and the moons like woooow buddy.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by sv_gravity 800]

[edit on 2-3-2010 by sv_gravity 800]

because i'm pretty sure the earths axis has been shifted and bunch of times in history yet the moon stays the same.



and shouldn't the moon eventually crash into earth?

I guess not. we still have the same mass don't we ?

Gravity would be the same. I think

Interesting question.

In short, No.

Its the Sun and the Moon that tilts the Earth on its wobble over 26,000 years.

A game of tug of war between The Sun and the Moon.

The Earthqauke that affected Earths axis was vey insignificant really and slowed the rotation down for less than a second in 24 hours.

thank you


i've almost heard having the axis thrown off even by the smallest amounts can still have big problems

but shouldn 't the moon eventually crash into earth like all the other moons of different planets?


but yet this mooon seems to be making a perfect eclipse for the last century


just questions i have

[edit on 2-3-2010 by sv_gravity 800]

reply to post by sv_gravity 800


no it's actually the opposite,the moon gets further from the earth by a few inches a year

I think the roughly 25,920 precession of the equinoxes is not caused by the Earth's tilt or wobble - astronomers have allegedly measured that Jupiter and Saturn were also following the same precession rate against the background of the stars of the Milky Way. Indian records of astrology also point to that.
You can read more about this argument on Walter Crittenden's page and elsewhere. (You'll find articles and videos by this interesting scientist if you Google him.)

I know science teachers teach that precession is caused by the Earth's wobble, probably unaware of these measurements.
It is worthwhile to consider that Mr. Crittenden is an ardent supporter of Self-Realization Fellowship (Yogananda), whose guru, the magical astrologer Sri Yukteshwar wrote about the Hindu theory of precession in his late-19th-century book "the Holy Science." He said it is 24,000 years according to Hindu sacred scriptures.

Precession has been measured for over a hundred years, and its rate has been growing steadily. Whether this is a cycle fragment or a straight line is too early to tell, but the former seems to be more probable. Otherwise the poles of the Earth's rotation (the physical poles, not the magnetic ones) would have slowly changed their places, which, even within one hundred thousand years (where a straight derivation would lead us) would have caused major catastrophes and extinctions. Indeed, the life sciences would be put to a hard place to explain fossils of several hundred million years.

The thing is, if 1. the cause of precession would really be the gravitation of the Earth and the Moon and the Sun, and 2. the measurements of its growth are correct, one would have to assume a straight derivation - which would mean there was no precession in the past, and some sort of catastrophe happened involving the Moon about a few hundred thousand years back (I did not calculate the straight derivative.) A cyclical explanation of the growth of precession caused by the gravity fields of the Moon and the Sun and the Earth would set Kepler's laws on their heads without adding an extra celestial body (the Black Sun, maybe the fateful Nibiru).

Crittenden supposes a double star system - with a black hole (or a red dwarf) as the companion of the Sun. This he does strictly on Sri Yukteshwar's basis, but Yukteshwar was on the correct track, even if wrong in some details.

It is the magnetic poles of the planet that have shifted according to measurements of hard science and not the axis of the Earth's rotation - that would have led to a total breakup of the planet's structure. Even in a slow rate, life would have been impossible.

I am sure the magnetic field is not strong enough to produce effects on the Moon, except for the measurement of very sensitive instruments.

Correct me if I am wrong.

reply to post by sunspot0


The Earth and the solar system are long gone before the moon breaks away from orbit.

Reply to post Kokatsi.

For giving an answer which does not bring up a ne question but a bucket load full of them

Thank you.

I don´t think it´s going to make a big difference, we haven´t decreased in mass.

Plus, it´s true the moon is getting farther and farther away from us each year instead of going nearer us.

We have nothing to worry about really, except those 1.26 milliseconds of our lives we lost.

Originally posted by sv_gravity 800
So this chili earth quake threw the earths axis off.

One of the questions i've been pondering is, would that somewhat throw the rotation of the moon off as well, if our axis is shifted shouldn't there be some effect to path of the moon?




or does the earth just move and the moons like woooow buddy.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by sv_gravity 800]

[edit on 2-3-2010 by sv_gravity 800]

absolutely the earth changes affect the moon

we have a symbiotic relationship

our gravity and our "tugs" affect the moon, by changing our axis and all this stuff that was caused by the earthquake, the earths rotation is now different, the moon rotates from the energy and gravity from the earth, now that the earth has changed, the moon will be changed also

if we are to believe science is correct in its earth-moon theories, there is no way a change in earths rotation can Not affect the moon


to simplify

the earth rotates around the sun, the moon rotates around the earth, if the earths rotation changes, our rotation around the sun changes slightly and so does the moons

how significant? i have no clue, but to think it has no affect, it seems one would have to throw out all scientific knowledge of the earth moon and sun

[edit on 2-3-2010 by Dramey]

Other way around! The moon stabilizes Earth's axis.It' keeps it steady. If you don't believe me follow this link...
www.history.com...-8

Click on the one that says "The Day The Moon Was Gone"

What about this?

If the earth is what is holding the moon in place, by way of it's gravity, then how does the moon only have 1/6th gravity of earth, seeing as how it's held in earths gravity?

Also, why is there a full moon in the day sometime and only half on other days, that is the days you can see the moon. If i stand facing south and on my left is the moon and on my right is the sun, It seams to me that If I can see the sun and I can see the moon, then the moon should always be full when they appear in the sky together on opposite ends of the sky. 238857 miles between us should always give me a fully lit moon anytime it appears with the sun, yet this is not so.

Also, the moon should be spinning so that we see the other side given the rotational speed of our planet. Go fill up a tub with water and set a ping pong ball on the water then pull the plug. The ball will end up at the drain every time, so how is it that the moon is getting farther away.

Peace

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand




see thats how i look at it which got me confused.

because i also remember learning all other moons at least get closer to their planet every year because of the gravitational pull

the fact we can never see the other side of the moon alone leaves you with enough questions that can't be answered.


since every other moon in the universe that has been cataloged (you can research this i'm not making it up) spins





and just think about this if we had no moon, but we decided, we need something to move the tides! create solor and lunar eclipeses.

it would take years of painfull and precises messurements, calculations just to put a object such as the moon in the postion its in.... and we think it happened naturlly?

you know how much #en work would go into keeping the moon in a perfect orbt the way it does like it freaks me out

reply to post by sv_gravity 800

the fact we can never see the other side of the moon alone leaves you with enough questions that can't be answered.

But that can be and is answered easily.
Its the speed of rotation of the moon, as it orbits the Earth, the rotation of the moon is at a speed where as it rotates and orbiting, its faces the same way to the Earth as it does this.

Easier way to explain is, get a chair, now walk round that chair but face the chair as you do it, you are rotating your body as you walk around the chair to always face the chair head on.
so in effect, your body that replicates the moon is not only orbiting around the earth, but its also spinning in rotation.

Get what I mean?

[edit on 2-3-2010 by Sparkey76]

What he means is that the same time it takes the moon to rotate around it's axis once is the same time it takes to revolve around the earth. (In English: You can't see the other side of the moon.) The reason that there are different phases is because that the side that we see rotates so the light only hits a certain area at one while it is orbiting us.( In English ,again, also why we can't see the other side of the moon.)

reply to post by sv_gravity 800

As has been pointed out, our Moon does rotate (spin) at the same rate that it revolves around the Earth.

This is due to something called tidal locking and it is not at all unique. In fact, all of the larger moons and most of the smaller ones in the Solar System do the same thing with their own planets.

Locked to the Sun

* Mercury (in a 3:2 rotation/orbit resonance)

Locked to the Earth

* Moon

Locked to Mars

* Phobos
* Deimos

Locked to Jupiter

* Metis
* Adrastea
* Amalthea
* Thebe
* Io
* Europa
* Ganymede
* Callisto

Locked to Saturn

* Pan
* Atlas
* Prometheus
* Pandora
* Epimetheus
* Janus
* Mimas
* Enceladus
* Telesto
* Tethys
* Calypso
* Dione
* Rhea
* Titan
* Iapetus

Locked to Uranus

* Miranda
* Ariel
* Umbriel
* Titania

Locked to Neptune

* Proteus
* Triton

Locked to Pluto

* Charon (Pluto is itself locked to Charon)

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 3/2/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Sparkey76


yeah i'm just saying how hard that would be to produce, you would have to be perfect.