Outer earth Speeding over Core

[FrostySnow]

Why doesn't the moon revolve (dark side away)? I believe that the earths core also "holds its position" in lock step with the moon. That is the core revolves once every 28 days and continually faces its same face toward the moon. The earths crust, is in motion over it. There are “magma currents” much like the ocean currents and jet streams, yet inner core. This explains more the lay of mountains in their relative lines. When in the "right" position the lava can burst through weak spots as the rivers of lava flow under-crustal plates in very organized and constant flow. The temperature changes can be noted by the varying intensities.. and are cause by solar emissions flowing into the earth. So if you relate the solar influx with the heat increase, and know the under locations of these flows/rivers in relation to the crust, predictions can come a week in advance or more..

Here is a proof of this theory! The core of the earth is in lock step with the moon, both constantly facing the same face to each other. It is the reason ocean currents have the power and force and directions they do. Both north and south circumpolar currents flow to the west, it better explains the coriolis effects. The ocean floor has horizontal vortex currents, this would explain them. REally think .. If it were the moons influence without this concept, the polar currents would be flowing in the opposite direction. Think of the dynamics of it.. The sun rotates about 28 days..

I think there are other better proofs that can confirm this. your thoughts...?

[Greg H.]

I will simply say this:

 

Your post is, for the most part, word salad, and largely unintelligible. This sentence in particular:

 

There are “magma currents” much like the ocean currents and jet streams, yet inner core.

 

isn't even a complete thought. I had to read it three times to realize I wasn't skipping a line of text.

 

What are you trying to explain?

 

Also, speculation forum is where this belongs.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Since this is not a mainstream concept and we don't want to confuse students who count on us for better grades, I'm moving this thread to Speculations. Please read the special rules of this section. Thanks for understanding and good luck supporting your hypothesis!

[Ophiolite]

I've addressed your speculation in the thread on the EM field, also in the Earth Science sub-forum. I've included a few references that demonstrate physically and theoretically that the differential rotation of inner core to the rest of the planet is at most a couple of degrees per year. Your hypothesis, like many in the past, is skewered by reality.

 

Here is a link to that other thread.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Ophiolite

[EquisDeXD]

As far as my understanding goes, the moon didn't form and then just lock into place, it took millions and millions of years for the relative rotation of the moon to stop, but the moon from the frame of reference of someone not on Earth, the moon does in fact rotate, it's just that over time Earth has created a sort of "land tide" on the moon that has taken away a lot of the relative angular momentum over these millions of years that created a sync so that no further angular momentum could be lost. Matter naturally tends to naturally do the lowest energy thing, or go the the lowest possible energy state, and with the relative angular momentum at 0, it can't get any lower, so it appears stopped on Earth.

Edited October 20, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[FrostySnow]

I was also of that understanding, but there are many things that do not make sense..but when i read this one and some others...

 

http://www.history.com/news/moon-created-by-giant-collision-studies-confirm?cmpid=Social_Twitter_HITH_10182012_1

and you put it through "simulation" and i use my own brain for this, flawed maybe but tides locking the moon through tidal friction doesn't work.. the face would have to change out of subtle differences and either rock back and forth or small jutters one way or another.. However if you imagine the forces involved in a collision such as this would have to have been, spin would have been delivered to an earth that had just developed a new core, setting the outer core on a much higher speed and by attraction to the inner core was glanced off and then "reigned" into the orbit we now share!

http://sn136w.snt136.mail.live.com/default.aspx#!/mail/InboxLight.aspx?n=657400239!n=238075073&fid=1&mid=77c94625-198c-11e2-86b5-00215ad965ac&fv=1

The reason the measurements are innaccurate is the core has a superconductive outer layer, making it invisible and all seismic measurements would possibly render it undetectable.? not enough known about these effects.

 

you know what you know and what you don't know, but you don't know what you don't know.. so once the earth was flat. Just saying that something in this does not make sense under the current knowledge.

 

Thanks for your reply, and reading my ponderings.. all in the search of the unknown.

 

Brian

 

As far as my understanding goes, the moon didn't form and then just lock into place, it took millions and millions of years for the relative rotation of the moon to stop, but the moon from the frame of reference of someone not on Earth, the moon does in fact rotate, it's just that over time Earth has created a sort of "land tide" on the moon that has taken away a lot of the relative angular momentum over these millions of years that created a sync so that no further angular momentum could be lost. Matter naturally tends to naturally do the lowest energy thing, or go the the lowest possible energy state, and with the relative angular momentum at 0, it can't get any lower, so it appears stopped on Earth.

 

I was also of that understanding, but there are many things that do not make sense..but when i read this one and some others...

 

http://www.history.c...HITH_10182012_1

and you put it through "simulation" and i use my own brain for this, flawed maybe but tides locking the moon through tidal friction doesn't work.. the face would have to change out of subtle differences and either rock back and forth or small jutters one way or another.. However if you imagine the forces involved in a collision such as this would have to have been, spin would have been delivered to an earth that had just developed a new core, setting the outer core on a much higher speed and by attraction to the inner core was glanced off and then "reigned" into the orbit we now share! The moment of initial attraction drew the bodies together and then lock as the orbits reached a balance, the distance which now separates us! The period of the suns rotation and the earth moon rotation is then in sinc!

 

 

http://sn136w.snt136...215ad965ac&fv=1

The reason the measurements are innaccurate is the core has a superconductive outer layer, making it invisible and all seismic measurements would possibly render it undetectable.? not enough known about these effects.

 

you know what you know and what you don't know, but you don't know what you don't know.. so once the earth was flat. Just saying that something in this does not make sense under the current knowledge.

 

Thanks for your reply, and reading my ponderings.. all in the search of the unknown.

 

Brian

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.history.com/news/moon-created-by-giant-collision-studies-confirm?cmpid=Social_Twitter_HITH_10182012_1

 

 

 

tp://sn136w.snt136.mail.live.com/default.aspx#!/mail/InboxLight.aspx?n=647684456!n=278533322&fid=1&fav=1&mid=77c94625-198c-11e2-86b5-00215ad965ac&fv=1The reason the /quote]

 

don't know why these cut off?!

[Ophiolite]

I was also of that understanding, but there are many things that do not make sense..but when i read this one and some others...

 

http://www.history.com/news/moon-created-by-giant-collision-studies-confirm?cmpid=Social_Twitter_HITH_10182012_1

and you put it through "simulation" and i use my own brain for this, flawed maybe but tides locking the moon through tidal friction doesn't work.. the face would have to change out of subtle differences and either rock back and forth or small jutters one way or another..

I am faced with two possibilities.

1. We have an excellent undertsanding of the tidal locking mechanism which is wholly consistent with basic physics. Moreover the mechanism leads, after locking, to a progressive outward movement of the moon, something confirmed by observation.

2. A 'simulation' carried out in the mind of one individual who cannot make sense of the basic physics involved is, in fact, a more accurate representation of the truth.

 

I would be crazy to go with option 2.

 

By the way the face of the moon does change with more than subtle differences as it rocks back and forth. As a consequence we are able, over time, to see about 59% of its surface from the Earth. Given that you did not know this elementary point do you still feel qualified to challenge current understanding in these matters?

[FrostySnow]

If "tidal locking" is holding our moon in place, then what is causing synchronus orbit of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn, and it would appear that these moons follow the core. Where are the extrateresstrial oceans doing the same thing! Can some one answer that?

[Ringer]

If "tidal locking" is holding our moon in place, then what is causing synchronus orbit of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn, and it would appear that these moons follow the core. Where are the extrateresstrial oceans doing the same thing! Can some one answer that?

 

Are you really asking if gas giants have oceans?

[Ophiolite]

If "tidal locking" is holding our moon in place, then what is causing synchronus orbit of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn, and it would appear that these moons follow the core. Where are the extrateresstrial oceans doing the same thing! Can some one answer that?

Your post is ambiguous and self contradictory. Please clear it up if you wish it to be answered.

 

What I will say is that, yes, many of the moons of Jupiter are tidally locked. This is well established. I don't understand what you mean by "following the core", or by your reference to "extrateresstrial (sic) oceans".

[FrostySnow]

Yes that is my point, there are no oceans on either of these planets so where is the "tide" to lock these moons, and with so many how can this theory hold up? What I is see is superconductor pinning effect, and it would point to the cores of planets being superconductive and this is what is holding them in place.

The earth is a very special case as we have "life". I would like to say that the collision with the earth by the moon was the beginning of life. By this I say that the moon struck the earth under attraction and then its velocity carried it until gravitational forces took over leaving these two planets coupled. This collision accelerated the outer core of the earth to a high rate of speed over the core, both cores being attracted, locked on to each others field and into the dance we still have today. Without this spin life on earth would not have occurred.(and the proximity to a sun)

 

http://www.history.com/news/moon-created-by-giant-collision-studies-confirm?cmpid=Social_Twitter_HITH_10182012_1

 

Thoughts?

 

Your post is ambiguous and self contradictory. Please clear it up if you wish it to be answered.

 

What I will say is that, yes, many of the moons of Jupiter are tidally locked. This is well established. I don't understand what you mean by "following the core", or by your reference to "extrateresstrial (sic) oceans".

[Ophiolite]

Yes that is my point, there are no oceans on either of these planets so where is the "tide" to lock these moons, and with so many how can this theory hold up?

The tides, as is well understood, are in the solid portion of the planet or moon. The ocean tides are comparatively unimportant in causing the locking. With respect, if you didn't understand that then you really don't have any business thinking up alternative explanations.

 

The earth is a very special case as we have "life". I would like to say that the collision with the earth by the moon was the beginning of life. By this I say that the moon struck the earth under attraction and then its velocity carried it until gravitational forces took over leaving these two planets coupled.

The Earth was not struck by the moon. A Mars sized planet struck the proto-Earth. The moon formed from a small percentage of the material thrown into orbit by the collision. There is plenty of evidence for this from the chemistry and mineralogy of the lunar rocks and from sopihisticated simulations of the collision.

 

Thoughts?

I think you should be complimented on your imagination and interest in science, but you should be encourage to do more study of the basics.