Moon closest to Earth in 19 years (Page 2)

StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: You already made that point earlier, and I addressed it earlier.

Go ahead and just continue to believe that silly shit ...

Or actually look stuff up and see what the real deal is. It's up to you.
13 years ago Report
0
hairytoes
hairytoes: go on sits, tell'em, extra water that indirectly influenced and affected yo brain mama
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Lol it was an analogy 60- and clearly a false one. Oh well, I knew that the Moon wasn't causing global warming...thats just...yea..
13 years ago Report
0
Coastwind
Coastwind: Oh oh if it's in Wikipedia it gotta be right, right. Riiiggghhhhtttt.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Hey Coast!

Got any more silly shit for us to ridicule? You know ... stuff like "the moon is hollow"? (but not a light bulb ... ...)
13 years ago Report
0
Coastwind
Coastwind: Looks like you pretty well have that handled.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Tell me where/what.

Quote my silly shit, please.
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Moons closest orbit in years,NASA set to save a few bucks by staging another fake landing on the rising fuel costs.PMSL this thread just gets better.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: OK Sits you asked for this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

Look at "Earth rotation related driving forces" on the list number one "Tidal drag" this is a direct affect by the moon on the earths crust.

Only took me 10 seconds on Google to find it in Wikipedia and do not dismiss the findings either.

Clearly explains why we have tectonic plates because of the moon and why Venus and Mars do not have tectonic plates because of the lack of gravitational influence.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: It was a very interesting article. It prompted me to do some more digging, and to my surprise, there is actually far more creedence to the idea of the moon's tidal forces (gravity) being a possible factor for earthquakes than I had given credit for.

However ...

The vast majority of those proposing this idea consider it anything but conclusive. It's thought of as a possible cause, not as a cause.

Note that nowhere in the article will you find a mention of moon-caused earthquakes.

While that article doesn't mention that, there are other sources credible sources, far more than I would have thought, that do consider it a possibility. Frankly, that surprises me.

One thing that really seems to suggest that there is NOT a relationship is that despite a great deal of analysis, no one has been able to find a statistical relationship between the moon's relative motion and the onset of earthquakes. There are a LOT of earthquakes. Zillions of them, all the time. And for years, the time, location, amplitude, etc. have been accurately recorded. Given the huge numbers involved, were there a significant relationship, there should be statistical evidence for it.

But there isn't.
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: I'm certain you have set out your stall mate and can't back down anymore and admit some sort of defeat,because you have constantly denied my attempts to enlighten the uneducated that the moon is the main cause of why we have tectonic plates and they cause earthquakes.No matter the time scale we a talking about the moon is the reason why we have tectonic plates and the moon actually directly influences the magma under the crust PERIOD like it moves water and why we have tidal activity.I'm not trying to score brownie points here,it's the principal of the debate !,it's nice to bang heads with someone with knowledge.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says:
"I'm certain you have set out your stall mate and can't back down anymore and admit some sort of defeat"

In my last post, did I not conceed that there is more creedence being given to the moon as a factor for earthquakes that I had given credit for?

hellbhoy says:
"because you have constantly denied my attempts to enlighten the uneducated that the moon is the main cause of why we have tectonic plates and they cause earthquakes.No matter the time scale we a talking about the moon is the reason why we have tectonic plates and the moon actually directly influences the magma under the crust PERIOD like it moves water and why we have tidal activity."

This prompts a couple of responses. First, you unearth a decent piece of information, and now you're trying to say that all of your arguments have been based on it. Up to your posting of that Wiki link for Plate Tectonics, your arguments have all been based on the idea that the moon's causing tides, shifting the water in the oceans, were the cause of earthquakes. Now that you've found a source of information that says that the moon is the reason for Earth having tectonic plates, you've changed your argument to something much simpler: The moon is the cause for Earth to have tectonic plates. Earthquakes take place when tectonic plates shift. Therefore, the moon "causes" earthquakes. This argument is far more general in nature then what you have been saying up to now. It's kind of like saying, "We have oceans. Water from the oceans evaporated into water vapor, which condenses into rain. Therefore, flooding in rainstorms are "caused" by the ocean." Both of those concepts are true, but misleading.

Secondly, the moon does not affect magma in Earth's mantle like it affects the water of the oceans. The only similarity is that there is an affect. With tides, the water rises up and down roughly twice a day by a matter of a perhaps a yard/meter or even as much, in some circumstances and places, as 10 or even 20 meters/yards. The influence over magma works within a time frame that is exponentially greater, and the amount of movement is exponentially lesser. The moon doesn't move magma tidally like water. It moves magma tidally like magma.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Third, take another look at the Wiki article you refer to:

On one hand, it says (in the section titled "Earth rotation related driving forces," :

"It has also been suggested recently in Lovett (2006)[26] that this observation [of lunar tidal influence] may also explain why Venus and Mars have no plate tectonics, since Venus has no moon and Mars' moons are too small to have significant tidal effects on Mars."

On the other hand, it says (in the section titled " Plate tectonics on other celestial bodies (planets, moons) " - subsection "Venus" :

"While the mechanism of such an impressive thermal event remains a debated issue in Venusian geosciences, some scientists are advocates of processes involving plate motion to some extent.

One explanation for Venus' lack of plate tectonics is that on Venus temperatures are too high for significant water to be present (Kasting 1988)[72]. [73] The Earth's crust is soaked with water, and water plays an important role in the development of shear zones. Plate tectonics requires weak surfaces in the crust along which crustal slices can move, and it may well be that such weakening never took place on Venus because of the absence of water. However, some researchers remain convinced that plate tectonics is or was once active on this planet."

Also note the subsection "Mars":

"In the 1990s, it was proposed that Martian Crustal Dichotomy was created by plate tectonic processes (Sleep 1994)[74]. Scientists today disagree, and believe that it was created either by upwelling within the Martian mantle that thickened the crust of the Southern Highlands and formed Tharsis (Zhong & Zuber 2001)[75] or by a giant impact that excavated the Northern Lowlands (Andrews-Hanna, Zuber & Banerdt 2008)[76].

Observations made of the magnetic field of Mars by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft in 1999 showed patterns of magnetic striping discovered on this planet. Some scientists interpreted these as requiring plate tectonic processes, such as seafloor spreading (Connerney et al. 1999[77], Connerney et al. 2005)[78]). However, their data fail a "magnetic reversal test", which is used to see if they were formed by flipping polarities of a global magnetic field (Harrison 2000)[79].

There, in the same article you've provided, are reference to scientists beliveing that both Venus and Mars do, or did at one time, have tectonic activity ... WITH NO MOON. This directly contradicts your statement:

"Clearly explains why we have tectonic plates because of the moon and why Venus and Mars do not have tectonic plates because of the lack of gravitational influence" (stated in the same post as the Wiki link).
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Long story short whilst trolling on the web researching compiling through all the shit like nuclear bombs America dropped,the hand of GOD,prayer,aliens and blah blah.

Whilst actually not being the primary cause of the earthquake in Japan we should not rule out that the smallest of gravitational influence the moon had when entering into maximal pedigree whilst not actually being in closest proximity.This may have had the tipping effect in triggering the earthquake earlier than it would have otherwise have happened through the sum total of every other additional exertions on the mantles fissure,fracture or fault.

My apologies to for being a shit as well but above explains what I really mean't to begin with and disregard all my other rantings as barking at the moon .

P.S. found loads of other useless crap as well about the Earth,Moon and the Sun not connected to the original posting we may discuss on another thread sometime.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says:
"Whilst actually not being the primary cause of the earthquake in Japan we should not rule out that the smallest of gravitational influence the moon had when entering into maximal pedigree whilst not actually being in closest proximity.This may have had the tipping effect in triggering the earthquake earlier than it would have otherwise have happened through the sum total of every other additional exertions on the mantles fissure,fracture or fault."

For the umpteenth time ...

The moon being that close was not all that unusual of an event. It's been close like that many, many times. If being close like that was a cause of earthquakes, there would be many other times when that happened. Big earthquakes are unusual events. There is, of course, records of when they happen. And the moon has a very predictable motion. All of those close perigees are a routine matter of record. But there is no statistical evidence to support that idea of the two being related. If they were related, the evidence would be there. But it's not.
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Sits you obviously did not read last reply carefully before deciding to shoot me down out the sky.

I was tempted to type in large print "F**K YOU" but I'm better than that and will wait to such a time to ram what you kept dismissing right up your old wrinkly kyber SIDEWAYS.

Peace out.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Likewise.
13 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: I remember when the planetary line up was supposed to cause all sorts of earthquakes. I was under the impression that earths core was the cause, the upwelling of heat forcing the continents to drift into each other.
6 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Remember, our planet was hit by another in its early history, creating the moon and doubling the radioactive, heavymetal core content. This is the primary reason we still have a living planet with upwelling heat that makes earthquakes and volcanoes and keeps the carbon cycle refreshed that allows for large living creatures. The more volcanoes the larger the life (dinosaurs)
6 years ago Report
0
briansmythe
briansmythe: There are moons around other planets , Did they all get hit by other planets , I thought it was the Tectonic plates moving that creates the heat , and earth quakes ,wish they would make up there minds
6 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: It's the radioactive core, that generates most of the heat, some from the moon and tidal drag. The heat upwelling causes the tectonic plate movement, and the iron core rotation gives us the magnetic field that protects the planet. Mars had a small core that solidified, so no carbon cycle and no magnetic field.
6 years ago Report
0
briansmythe
briansmythe: Does any one ever read all thearticles tthat people post to prove there. theroy . I see you got labled as a this or that . All I know is the moon affects the tide
(Edited by briansmythe)
6 years ago Report
0
briansmythe
briansmythe: Seems to me these days if its not on google or u tube it didnr happen
lol
6 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: I agree with you on that,
6 years ago Report
0