If the Earth didn't have the moon, would it spin?

1. 84

   ii3rittlesposted 13 years ago

   I ask because this was brought to my attention...
   
   The moon does not spin, as it simply orbits around the Earth. There is nothing pulling on its axis to cause it to spin.
   
   So say we did not have a moon, would the Earth then not spin?
   
   Wouldn't this cause steady climate all over the world and no storms?
   
   Could God have sent the moon after Adam and Eve bit the apple to destroy the Garden of Eden? (by means of climate change and storms)

   replyreport
   1. 60

      mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Duh...

      replyreport
   2. 72

      jacharlessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting notation.
      
      According to some Hebrew scholars, the layer of crystallized atmosphere, defined as firmament, was hit by a meteor storm. This meteor storm was from a moon that once orbited the planet. The fragments hit the atmosphere and cause the layer dome to break/melt, which resulted in the flood. As a result of the loss of this layer, the atmosphere was heavily subjected to more light (radioactivity) and space debris. At the loss of this barrier, and massive bombardment of radiation & meteorites, caused earthquakes, that forced pressured water upwards.
      
      At one point, they believe, the planet had one singular temperature, which would explain the "large" animals, vegetation, etc. Again, the loss of this shield, resulted in massive natural changes.
      
      There is also new suggestion that Earth has a "jumping" moon, or asteroid, left over from a passing comet. While other "probable" moons are considered near-earth objects.
      
      James.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, some suggest this scenario, but it doesn't pan out.  Even a thin layer of ice crystals blocks sunlight.  Enough to create a flood of biblical proportions would block so much light it would allow very little life to exist on the planet.
         
         We see this example in very high clouds made of ice crystals.  Even these thin clouds block a fair amount of light.
         
                                                    

         replyreport
         1. 60

            vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You mean the flood being the explanation for the ice-age..
            
            Yeah. We already put that together.
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Which ice age?  There have been more than just one, you know.  We are always in an advancing or retreating ice age.  So which one are you referring to? 
               
               
               
                                                  

               replyreport
         2. 72

            jacharlessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, because the brute force of light was blocked, the earth maintained said temperature and enabled excessive vegetation growth -as in tropical environment. The tropics require little in the way of mass illumination to thrive -even in this present environment. they merely require lateral sunlight and moisture (mist; vapor). Enough vapor density and photosynthesis for such a tropical environment to thrive. Botanists have already proven this and today's 'indoor' greenhouses further prove it. It also would constitute a "taller, "giant" Neanderthal species, likened to the larger animal population of reptiles (dinosaurs) and such, described in the Zohar and Torah.
            
            According to the account of the Flood, in both Torah and Zohar, the earth spewed forth water AND the heavens/sky also, meaning it both rained excessive water (from the dissolved layer) and said compressed water below the surface, which was released due to impact of said meteorite storm. This is a simultaneous event. This would also coincide with the massive levels of water and continental changes (formation of present land masses. Remembering all land masses on earth -including islands- rest upon the tops of huge underwater mountain chains. Prime examples include the archipelago of Indonesia, Dutch Antilles, etc.).
            
            The recession of excess liquid is acceptable as water returning to the lower levels between giant sedimentary layers and volcanoes, while the remainder applies the oceans and seas.
            
            The gravitational effect also changed, as the moon effected tidal sequences of a new and much different environment.
            
            James.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I simply cannot see an ice layer thick enough to produce the oceans if melted floating in the sky.  No light would be allowed to strike the earth at all.  An what would hold this enormous ice cloud up in the sky?  As far as I am aware, there is no example to be found in outer space which makes this even feasible.
               
               Because ice crystals are merely expanded water vapor, the clouds would be  thicker than the depths of the oceans in your scenario.  You'll notice how dark it is when underwater explorations are being done by submarine miles below the surface.  And this is beneath clear water, not ice.
               
                                                    

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  jacharlessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  A crystalline layer, even 1 mile thick is not inconceivable. It could have been 3 mile thick. Again, it was NOT solid block of "ice".
                  A cloud can be vaporized water at the lower level of atmosphere and crystalline at higher elevations.
                  Crystallized water can also be defined as snowflakes.
                  
                  One hectare of "snowflakes" could certainly produce a lot of liquid when melted.
                  As for being 'held up', snowflakes are pretty lightweight. But even further, if located toward the upper atmosphere, the gravity being much lower, temperature extremely cold (allowing for suspension and clarity) certainly could explain stability.
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  "Fueled by vigorous convective updrafts (sometimes in excess 50 knots), the tops of cumulonimbus clouds can easily reach 39,000 feet (12,000 meters) or higher.
                  
                  Updrafts (of wind), even in a small tornado form, can suspend 1 ton of dirt; 100 tractor trailers, etc.
                  
                  "Lower levels of cumulonimbus clouds consist mostly of water droplets, while at higher elevations, where temperatures are well below 0 degrees Celsius, ice crystals dominate." [source: University of Illinois]
                  
                  James

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     It would have to be considerably more than 3 miles thick to provide the water for the flood, more on the order of 6 miles.  Calculations show that it would take around one Billion cubic miles of water to produce that flood.  If, as you seem to indicate, the flood was what produced the oceans as well, you would have to double the amount of water.
                     
                     What holds that weight up in the atmosphere?  A super duper force field that is now gone?  Have you any idea of what would happen to the spin of the earth when a planetary sized mass is suddenly lowered several miles to the surface (the rain comes down).  Think of a spinning ice skater lowering her arms here - the same thing would happen to the earth.  Massive storms with winds hundreds of miles per hour as the spin increases.  What happens to the temperature as a billion cubic miles of ice suddenly hit the surface?
                     
                     And what happened to the water (ice) that fell?  It didn't go into the earth into volcanoes - a thousand Ogallala reservoirs (the largest underground aquifer on earth) would hardly make a dent in that volume of water.  Were there that much empty space under the crust the crust of the earth would immediately collapse into a world wide sinkhole.
                     
                     No, Jacharless, there was never a miles thick layer of water, whether it be ice, liquid, vapor or shaved ice, magically floating around miles above the earth that fell to make a worldwide flood.

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        jacharlessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Wilder, sometimes you really make no sense.
                        
                        
                        First, how did you come up with 6 mile of solid ice?
                        Second, Cubic and Hectare are not the same measures.
                        Third, who is to say the water level of the ocean was not much lower than it is today, which would certainly explain the increase of ocean and decrease of land;
                        it would also explain the increased level of water pressure forming massive mineral clusters, even fossilizing creatures.
                        
                        Also noted is it rained for just under 2 months (Judiac Calendar) yet took over a year or to fully recede. Sagarmatha is 29,029 feet above present sea level. As noted by meteorologists, a cumulonimbus cloud can easily reach 39,000 feet. That is nearly 10,000 higher than "Mount Everest".
                        
                        As for what holds it up, wind & lack of lower-level gravity.
                        If a single 1/4 mile updraft can suspend 1 metric ton of earth, effortlessly, I am certain an atmospheric updraft, just above the Troposphere, could easily suspend the snowflake layer. But again, the 'height' does not matter, nor the density. A layer, surrounding the entire planet (25,0000 miles circumference, melting slowly, could cause the sea level to rise; not forgetting rain melting the snow on the mountains, etc.
                        
                        As for "where did it go", I already explained this: the sea level increased, reducing visible land -which would suggest the formation of present day land masses.
                        
                        Again, you are assuming it was "solid ice", like most tire kicker theists.
                        A Crystalline layer could exist in our outer atmosphere, as "high" and "free flowing as it liked". One to 10 miles in height x 25,000 miles in circumference. Indeed, it is more than possible. Very little upwind is needed to keep those clouds from falling down even today. And If heated -as by a meteor storm- would cause the entire layer to melt.
                        
                        As for empty space, it is believed greatly that the lower layers of earth might be resembling "sponge" with large pockets of compressed air, gases, water, crude petroleum, tar, etc sit as shock absorbers.
                        
                        
                        James.
                        
                        fyi: The Troposphere is merely 6 miles in height. LOTS more layers to the atmosphere than that. The depth of the oceans is 6 miles also.
                        
                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Your physics is a little lacking.  The flood covered the entire earth, including Mt. Everest, which is roughly 5 miles above current sea level.  Assuming a guess for your snowflakes (less dense than water) OR solid ice (again, less dense than water) the layer must be over 5 miles thick - I chose 6 miles as a compromise.  If you think it is even less dense, then pick your own figure, but make sure it is over 5 miles plus whatever you are proposing for a lowered sea level.
                           
                           An updraft can hold up something heavier than air (such as small ice crystals) in the location of the updraft only.  Are you proposing that all the air in the world was constantly flowing up with no down?  We'll be out of air in short order.
                           
                           The density of your water, whether it be water, solid ice or small crystalline flakes like snow, certainly does matter.  It must be either lighter density than air (at the same altitude) or be held up by some mechanism. Neither Brownian motion nor updrafts is capable of holding up a billion cubic miles (where ever did hectares come into this?) of water - there must be some other mechanism.  I don't know what "lower level" gravity is, but it can only pull toward the center of the earth, not away from it.  Unless you refer to tides?
                           
                           The layers of rock do indeed consist of many "holes", but just as you indicate they are already full.  They can neither yield up that much water nor absorb it.
                           
                           Increasing sea level doesn't provide more land, it makes for less land.  In addition, if the sea level used to be lower that water (ice, snow, whatever) must also have been floating up in the sky in your ice layer.  MORE volume and weight to hold up. 
                           
                           As someone else mentioned that much water in the sky will prevent nearly all sunlight from entering.  Temperatures drop, the air won't hold as much water (ice) and everything falls down millions of years ago.
                           
                           The bottom line is that there isn't that much water on earth and if there were it could not float in the air as ice, whether solid or small crystals.  Our atmosphere holds a lot of water, but not a billion cubic miles of it.

                           replyreport
                     2. 60

                        Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Thanks for explaining it so well, Wilderness.  I've gone over this same scenario before on the religious threads when someone tries to make the Bible true in Genesis.  I did not feel like repeating the many reason why the ice crystal theory doesn't work at all. 
                        
                        The bottom line is the flood story is not true and is only a stolen version of The Epic of Gigamesh.  Which anyone who had read this ancient saga-- which is far older than Genesis-- knows already.
                        
                                                               

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           The physical reasons for the impossibility of the great flood are many and varied.  They range from conservation of angular momentum to where did a Pluto sized volume of water come from and go away to.
                           
                           Calculate how fast the water must come down to reach 5 miles thick in 40 days and it isn't a rain - it's a waterfall, creating flash floods digging out grand canyons all over earth and scouring the earth of all topsoil and vegetation.  Oceans go brackish, as do lakes and rivers, killing all marine life.  After months of being far, far underwater there is nothing growing to eat (and won't be for years and years, if ever) and certainly no meat for carnivores.
                           
                           The response is to either ignore such things, declare that "goddunit" or invent new and impossible "science" to explain it.  I've seen this one before; that all that water was a "crystalline" shield floating near the top of the atmosphere, but it just can't happen.  Back to "goddunit".

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Certainly!  It must be terrible to be so caught up in old myths to have to make up impossible scenarios in order to keep the faith.  Yes, this simply garners pity for the proposer from those who truly understand the laws of nature and physics on our planet. 
                              
                              CJ is a good guy and I do realize he is simply giving his view of a possible explanation for the great flood.  I wish it could be this simple so it wouldn't be so hard to believe in the old novel.  This causes much more stress and worry to the believer than it does from those who rely on common sense and knowledge.  More's the pity. 
                              
                              I always welcome such theories, though.  It strengthens my own belief in man's  willingness to learn and not simply accept myths and conjecture and without having to throw a god or gods into the mix.
                              
                                                                         

                              replyreport
   3. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, the moon rotates on it's axis, that's why we are able to see the same side of it all the time.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      NathanielZhuposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Of course the moon spins. The Earth spins. The sun Spins. Venus spins. Mars spins. They all spin.
      This all just another unsuccessful plot to bring religion into science topics.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 13 years ago

   Yes. I'm sure the earth would spin. Not at a constant rate, because god would probably forget to flick it with his finger occasionally.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      ecogginsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Cool...yet another way in which I am made in the image of God. For like God, I can keep a ball spinning with the flick of my finger. either that or God is the original globe trotter. .

      replyreport
3. 79

   ecogginsposted 13 years ago

   it seems to me that the moon helps to regulate the speed at which the earth rotates. I would think that it provides a small drag on the earth keeping gravity in check. if the earth spun too fast then gravity would be more intense and we would not be able to move like we do.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Eric Newlandposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Erm, if the earth spun faster then perceived gravity would actually be reduced. And it would have to spin pretty darn fast before it would create a detectable difference.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You sure is would reduce gravity?
         
         And if so, how sure?  [or why I guess.]
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Eric Newlandposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Theoretically, if the earth spun really, really (like, unreasonably and probably impossibly) fast perceived gravity would be reduced due to centripetal force. Of course, now that I think about it the effect would also be most noticeable at the equator and diminish to nothing at the poles.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Apologies. The obvious direction of centripetal force flipped in my mind for some reason.
               
               It just slapped me.. ahem.
               
               Well explained though. It would vary from the pole to equator. 0-max
               
               A rotation that fast would probably shape it a slight bit flatter.. [pole to pole]

               replyreport
   2. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No, it doesn't. There is a transfer of tidal energy between the earth and the moon that has caused the moon to be tidal locked with the earth and as a result of the conservation of energy, the moon is slowly moving away from us and the earth's rotation is slowing.
      
      
      
      Gravity is a result of mass, not rotation.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Correct!!  Eventually the moon will break free of the earth's gravitational pull and float away.  Not exactly float but.....!
         
         
                                                    

         replyreport
         1. 60

            mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Then the earth will begin to degrade from it's axis, as the moon creates a level of stabillity...

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               True, perhaps it may wobble a bit more after the moon is gone.
               
                                          

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Also we would have no lunar tides and our oceans would stagnate.

                  replyreport
4. 60

   Eric Newlandposted 13 years ago

   I'm not sure if the moon affects the earth's rotation, but I have read in multiple sources that without tidal activity virtually all life on earth would die out. So in a real sense we're dependent on the moon for our survival.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Verified.
      
      We would all die without tides.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      lobobrandonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes that's true. But the sun too does cause some tidal activity. I wonder if that would be enough to sustain life.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The sun's gravitational pull is much stronger than the moon, it would probably, totally destabilize the earth's rotation.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            lobobrandonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            No it isn't the tides caused by the moon are far greater. The moon maybe smaller but the distance makes it stronger.

            replyreport
5. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 13 years ago

   The moon was once 16 times(I think this is the multiplier) closer to the earth and exerted so much pull on the earth and vice versa that the moon eventually stopped spinning on its axis, other than one rotation for every orbit.  So naturally the moon slows the earth's rotation somewhat. 
   
   
                                          

   replyreport
6. 0

   klarawieckposted 13 years ago

   Well, my "full-moons" don't necessarily have any effect on the tides. But they certainly get the neighbors' attention.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Shhhhhh...
      
      

      replyreport
7. 60

   Eric Newlandposted 13 years ago

   Actually, I believe that eventually lunar drag will STOP the earth's rotation.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      We do slow down at a fraction of a centimeter a year... Who could honestly tell, at our current rate of deceleration?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I googled it for fun~looks like the sun will turn red giant and burn up the earth way befor the earth ever gets a chance to slow down very much

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps if we hadn't had the great flood already, the theorized self sustaining ice bergs floating in the atmosphere would have kept the earth from burning up!    But then, no sun!  What's to do?
            
            
                                                       

            replyreport
8. 84

   ii3rittlesposted 13 years ago

   Very, different and various answers.
   
   Not many touched on God placing the moon next to the Earth though. Or about the Garden of Eden. I have even thought that it is possible the flood rid the Earth of Eden and this is where that whole "lost city of Atlantis" thing comes from.
   
   I have had dreams since I was a little girl where the moon gets closer and closer to the Earth then hits it.
   
   Thinking about the way God said the Earth will end, is not by it being destroyed, but all that is on it. What would destroy everything... Fire, right? Well, lets think for a moment, if the moon were to start to come at the Earth... But the time it reached here, it would be smaller, yes, but I believe it would hold flame to it, and if hit at the right area of the Earth, it could not only cause fire to be spread but oceans to engulf land.
   
   Now I am not saying this is fact, or necessarily a belief, but more of a thought that I have had. I have very weird, out there thoughts.. lol

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I suppose you are unaware that the moon is a result of a collision between a comet or asteroid and the earth.  Long before any mythical great flood or imaginary garden of Eden, this happened.
      
                                                 

      replyreport
   2. 61

      janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think this is a bit overly dramatic, even for god

      replyreport
   3. 60

      vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think that your thought is that far out there. Or maybe mine are just out there with ya.. lol
      
      Seems plausible to me actually.
      
      As far as Eden goes, there is no telling what God done to it. But you can be sure that when God hides something, man isn't going to find it.
      
      Though considering the desciptions, if it does do some destroying, I think it's only going to be part of it due to the army Christ leads to finish off the anit-Christ..
      
      Then I could be misplacing things in time.. (Revelation isn't exactly easy to depict.)

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Which Ice Age? 
         
                                          

         replyreport
         1. 60

            vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You are on some goodies aren't you Randy???
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, Vector.  I like to refer to it as anti-ignorance pills.  Here, you better take at least 5 of them to start off with!
               
                                                  

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  
                  Ahem.. Nawww.. You keep'em buddyyyy..
                  
                  You need'em more.
                  
                  lol...........

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Ah, you enjoy bliss, I see.  Very well! 
                     
                     
                                                                  

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Na. I just don't need them.
                        
                        Pills are a replacement.
                        
                        My intelligence is au naturel..
                        
                        ahem.. buddyyy
                        
                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Your intelligence is naked?    I can't argue with you there, chum! 
                           
                                                                        

                           replyreport
   4. 78

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If the moon ever hit the earth it would not bring mere fire with it.
      
      First it will break up into smaller pieces due to the massive tidal pull from earth.  Those pieces will nevertheless be large enough and carry enough kinetic energy to instantly vaporize cubic miles of rock; the entire surface of earth will become molten to a depth of miles and miles if not to the very center.
      
      Oceans won't cover the land; all the water will be converted into water vapor within minutes of any truly large piece hitting the earth, such as a mile across.
      
      The energy of even a cubic mile of mass (of which the moon has many, many such) hitting the earth from orbit is beyond imagination.

      replyreport
   5. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This is the Education and Science forum in which fantasies about gods and mythical gardens are not usually incited into explanations about how the moon works.

      replyreport
9. 61

   janesixposted 13 years ago

   At the moment, the sun and the moon are the same apparent size in the sky, and this is no coincidence. God created them this way to remind us of our dual spiritual and material nature.
   
   As above, so below

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      BS!  The moon has been much bigger in the sky and once was so close it pulled the tides of the oceans around the earth as it orbited it.  Geez Jane, do you just make this stuff up in your head? 
      
                                                     

      replyreport
      1. 61

         janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Sure, i know that. Why are you here in this day and age, to see something so rare as the moon and sun lining up so perfectly?
         
         Coincidence?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Because if I weren't, I wouldn't see it.  And who says it's rare?  Can you see all of the billions of other other planets and moons in just our galaxy?  There are plenty more galaxies too.  If not, how can you say it is rare?
            
            
                                                     

            replyreport
      2. 84

         ii3rittlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Shame on you Jane! WHATS WRONG WITH YOU! You were taught to never think outside the f'n box! Go back to school and relearn how to be a follower and drone for the wealthy Satan worshipers!
         ... LOL
         
         God created everything with meaning and purpose, that includes all of us

         replyreport
         1. 61

            janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            We have different concepts of god, but yes, EVERYthing that exists has meaning
            
            A roadmap back to the creator after our time here

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's right, you guys don't need science to further your knowledge.  Why heck, I'm surprised you trust science enough to even use those computers to converse with other people of your ilk.  You don't need them at all, simple pray to each other in your heads and stop using the tools of the devil (knowledgeable well educated scientists) to communicate. 
            
            After all, they lie about evolution, so don't trust any  machine the preacher at your church hasn't personally built himself.  And medicine?  Nah, banish is out, because science developed that too.  Just pray your illness away!  Let's see how well that works out for you. 
            
            
            
                                                 

            replyreport
            1. 61

               janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               When it's your time to wake up, you will see things as they really are. Until then, enjoy your material existance.after all, thats why youre here.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Unfortunately for you, you will never wake up.  Answer the question concerning  why you use science only for what you choose, and deny it when you disagree with it.  Evolution, real history=science bad.  Computers, telephones, automobiles, and medicine=science good.    Hypocritical a bit, are you? 
                  
                  
                                                         

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     What makes you think i dissagree with science? God has to use rules to create our universe.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Which god is that?  I am a Stoogist.  Moe is my chosen God. 
                        
                        Whoop, Whoop, whoop, my sister! 
                        
                                                                           

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Im glad you are having so much fun with this.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Psstt..  Tell'em to share..
                              
                              I know he's hiding it.....
                              
                              [ edit: disclaimer - I'm kidding. I don't want a hit ]
                              
                              

                              replyreport
                           2. 60

                              Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Why not?  Everyone has their own gods, don't they?  Moe doesn't require 13 year old betrothed virgins to procreate.  He had kids by his own wife. 
                              
                              
                                                                     

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 I can see that your god created you in his own image

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yours too!  But during your larvae stage, I'm sure!   Next insult? 
                                    
                                    
                                                                         

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       I have to admit rhat one was pretty good

                                       report
                                       1. 60

                                          Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          Thanks!  I do get a zinger off once in a while! 
                                          
                                                                                                 

                                          report
   2. 78

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Randy is right; in the past the moon has filled half the sky and in the future it will be a pinprick.  We just happen to live at the right time so that crude observations make the two seem exactly the same size.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I know randy is right.

         replyreport
   3. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
10. 79

    Greekgeekposted 13 years ago

    Good heavens. This thread. My eyes are crossing!
    
    1) Planets without moons spin: see Mercury, Venus. In fact, it would be pretty impossible for a planet NOT to rotate: it's orbiting the sun, so it would have to magically have some mysterious force keeping it from spinning as it went around in a big circle (ellipse). I can't quite imagine how that would work. The Earth is not a tetherball!
    
    2) The earth didn't always have the moon. Luckily, a fairly major collision early in Earth's history gave it a moon. The moon has stabilized the Earth's tilt, somewhat, so it doesn't wobble too much. Even a slight wobble causes ice ages and heat phases, so we're lucky to have the moon holding us steady. Also, early in Earth's career, it spun much faster and the moon was much closer, causing TREMENDOUS tides... which were actually useful in creating a lot of tidal estuaries allowing life to take hold in the oxygen and nutrient rich shallows. I'm not convinced that the oceans would stagnate without tides, since there's heat from the Earth's interior plus ocean currents and wind patterns caused by the planet's rotation, but there would be a little less mixing.
    
    3) The moon is moving away, bit by bit. It's silly to pretend the Moon and the Sun are miraculously the same size in the sky... they weren't always, and won't be later.
    
    
    See the "If We Had No Moon" video on my hub about Earth, the Moon and Mars for a fascinating planetarium show on this topic narrated by Captain Pic-- er, Patrick Stewart.
    
    (My grandma ran Hudnall Planetarium, so I'm kinda hooked on this stuff.)

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks, GG! We covered most of that trying to eddicate these here ignert stone age goat herder myth fanciers.  But you may have better luck getting through the cobwebs than we appear to be doing. 
       
                                              

       replyreport
       1. 60

          vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Jesus Christ was a carpenter Mr Godwin..
          
          Seems you are a very accurate source of information..
          
          

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             And apparently he could not not write either.  Otherwise he would have written something in his own words and not relied on hearsay from his minions to spread the word by writing fictional books long after he supposedly died. 
             
             But perhaps you may be able to point out the Gospel According To Jesus somewhere in the whole batch of former books which have been thrown out of the novel. 
             
                                                  

             replyreport
11. 61

    janesixposted 13 years ago

    Why does the sun rise in the same place on the horizon on the summer solstice as the moon rises on the winter solstice?
    
    Coincidence?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Because Moe wished it to be so.  Next question!   No seriously, to keep them from touching each other and burning up the moon.
       
       
                                              

       replyreport
    2. 61

       janesixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       There is no logical reason

       replyreport
12. 61

    janesixposted 13 years ago

    Another coincidence
    
    The diameter of the sun is 108 times the diameter of the earth
    
    The distance Of the earth to the moon is 108times the moons diameter
    
    The distance of the earth to the sun is 108 times the suns diameter

    replyreport
13. 60

    Druid Dudeposted 13 years ago

    There would be no tides, and most if not all of the life on earth would not exist.

    replyreport
14. 67

    NathanielZhuposted 13 years ago

    If you want to know why the Earth spins, it's explained by L = mwr^2 where L is Angular Momentum, m is mass, w is angular velocity, and r is the radius of the spinning object. The energy to fuel rotation came from how stars and planets we're born which is from hot clouds of dust in space.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Just so happens we are the perfect distance from the sun.. [no room for error / burn or freeze]
       
       Just so happens the moon keeps the waters of the ocean from being stagnant..
       
       Just so happens there is an ozone to protect us from the wrong solar rays..
       
       Just so happens our atmosphere is oxygen rich..
       
       Just so happens there is plant life to collect the suns energy for us to consume for all animal life to be sustained.
       
       Just so happens solid, liquid, and gas turned into walking, air breathing, liquid drinking, solid eating machines with state of the art cameras, grinding platforms with front cutters, two mics in the machines operation center to pick up sound signals, a dense inner frame structure for form and strength, a set of complex devices covering the frame systematically to convert stored energy into mechanical energy, a proctective casing with millions of sensors that tell the operation center where contact occurs - recognizes pressure at incriments - detects temperature and the quantity of heat or cold...
       
       The machines are equipped with billions of miniture factories that operate hundreds of thousands of complex tasks, and the miniture factories build specific devices for thousands upon thousands of functions that work in a systematic fashion and it communicates with it's entire mechanical unit through tubes carrying not only all the materials being transferred but also the chemical signals that regulate the entire function of the unit as a whole..
       
       [and that's just the tip, you should SEE the ICEBURG...]
       
       
       Yeah.. wonderful plot I came up with..
       
       And WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!
       
       Goodness! That is a LOT of amazing odds.. like in the IMPOSSIBLE range ya know..
       
       I WONDER how so many ACCURATE events happened by ACCIDENT to CREATE such powerfully complex machines...
       
       Oh yeah.. "lots of time"...
       
       lol
       
       paaaleeezze..

       replyreport
       1. 59

          A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          All you've accomplished is to show incredible ignorance of the world around you. There are billions of stars in a galaxy and there are billions of galaxies in the universe. Even today, scientists are discovering other solar systems within our own galaxy that have planets that are within the Habitable Zone, hence could support life.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Oh yeah.. Check mate.. lol
             
             If you done the math, you might realize just how many "coincidences" must happen in sequence before even a thousandth of a fraction of what is before you occurs.
             
             Maybe you should take up residence in those "Habitable Zone"s .. lol
             
             Then you wouldn't need to wine at me.
             
             

             replyreport
             1. 59

                A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                If I did the math? Your dishonesty knows no bounds. You make up this garbage as you go along with not an inkling of intelligence or understanding.

                replyreport
             2. 67

                NathanielZhuposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                We live in a perfect habitable region? Look at all the things that's trying to kill us!!! Tornado, hurricaines that kill millions, floods, volcanoes, SOLAR FKING FLARES and radiation. Don't give me that crap about living in a "perfect" zone. Look at all the disease that has killed countless people now and in the past. If not for modern technology, most of us would be dead.
                Go to a desert and TELL ME WE LIVE IN A PERFECT HABITABLE ZONE.
                
                Everything is trying to kill us, and because of evolution, we develop certain resistance to everything out there trying to kill us.
                The illusion that we live in a perfect zone is created by the work of many scientists and researchers making your life easy

                replyreport
                1. 78

                   wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Good point.  We need protection from daily elements we face in the vast majority of the "habitable regions" we live in.  Perhaps just warm clothing, sometimes far more, but we need protection provided by our own intelligence.
                   
                   Add in the odd natural occurrences like hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc. and the earth isn't particularly habitable at all without our sciences.

                   replyreport
       2. 62

          darklandposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Well said, you are perfectly right. evolution favors the simple.  Massively complex organisms make little sense in the practical model.
          
          As far as we know the moon doesn't effect the earths rotation. Whatever other effects it might have on life and so forth is conjecture.  The truth is we don't know.
          
          Science shows that we are very delicately balanced, which to me smacks of an intelligent design.  Science has helped me expand my concept of God in incredible ways.  I'm not threatened by it at all.  The only problem in both religion and science is humility. 
          
          The truth is we don't know and that's okay.  If God exists he isn't likely to depend on our opinion to do what he does.  The mindless universe certainly  doesn't.  So why argue?

          replyreport
          1. 60

             vector7posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Are you saying why search for truth?
             
             Why decipher reality?
             
             Why look for our purpose?
             
             You do agree we create things for a purpose don't you?
             
             I don't see any sense in saying "I made this bookshelf for nothing."
             
             It's for books..
             
             "I made this car for nothing."
             
             Transport
             
             Etc..
             
             Why?
             
             Purpose of course my friend. Debate isn't bad. It's progress of ideas and corrections of incorrect perceptions.
             
             Discussion leads to understanding, alternate perspectives, learning from another mind, and is good practice for organizing thoughts.
             
             

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                And no feasable way to reach landfall. Not in the next hundred years or more. We need a propulsion system.

                replyreport
             2. 62

                darklandposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Oh no, I'm not agnostic.  I believe that God is very much worth the search.
                  I'm just saying that we are probably like kids on the playground who argue and fight about something, until they finally bring to an adult only to find they were both wrong.
                Personally, I love to consider, discuss and even fight over concepts in  science and theology.  I just think it doesn't have to be personal and if we are honestly seeking the truth, whatever it may be, we will probably fare better, overall. 
                  It will take an infinite amount of time to discover the infinite.  I believe we  actually have it and if we don't than it really doesn't matter, so why not ask the questions anyway.

                replyreport