Why the moon is receding from Earth

... Because the Sun's gravity is pulling it away.

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/why-moon-receding-from-earth.htm



download the free app
(you just have to trust this one)

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/orbit-game-5.exe

In this model the moon moves away from the Earth due to the Sun's gravity
and then drops into a lower orbit.
As the Earth comes closer on its next orbit it re-captures the moon again.
After it is recaptured, the moon's orbit is much closer than before.
The odds of this occurrence are extremely remote.


more here:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/why-moon-receding-from-earth.htm

might i add
physics that had yet to be explained

requires one to solve the many-body-problem
by calculating quantum gravity
which entails
quantum time

the program, maths, and philosophy are intact,
still requires
some exactitude
but

the principles are intact
requiring precisely newton, some planck and some xeno too

*another flash on the shoulder required, star-commander*

http://newtonsrival.hubpages.com/hub/Gravity-is-Magnetism


flash on the shoulder?

chip is more likely. but since when?


http://books.google.de/books?id=ZY4PAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Marin+Mersenne%22&hl=de&sa=X&ei=u7ssUvSYLsXX4ASW44GADQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/surprising.htm

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/prime_numbers_get_hitched/

Can someone explain the Riemann hypothesis in English?
That article was distinctly klingon.

http://qntm.org/riemann (4 dummies)

this information is supplied without liability ....

anyone who thinks they can take the square root of a negative number
deserves to locked away in a nice happy asylum
with lots of flowers and happy things
and not be allowed loose in society
they should be denied a drivers license
the right to vote
or any other position of responsibility

now

EPR paradox demonstrates a faster than light signal
which when placed into a formula such as the Lorentz transformation
results in a sqr(-1) error

which just proves the lorentz transformation is not applicable,
or inaccurate, or totally wrong

i am going with the latter
but the jury is still out as i am trying to reformulate relativity
by trying to preserve as much of it as possible
and its going pretty well,
actually,
i am just having to do a crash course in electromagnetics
which is both interesting and worrying
as relativity is all over the damned place

still
technology leads science 90% of the time
not the other way
as many believe

ps
when i take sqr(-1) on my computer
it says:
error

in other words .........................................................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-JHj09Ig78&hd=1


thinking seems to create plenty haze in addition to limited clarity, so much should be understood by anyone.





can spherical aggravation not be avoided altogether?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics

sorry, sqr(-1) = error

a long-winded video cannot change that

http://newtonsrival.hubpages.com/hub/Gravity-is-Magnetism

gravity is not magnetism
despite much needless verbosity in that article

bcos

gravity attracts
whereas magnetism attracts and repels

there are many other reasons, of course

The principle of crap-artistry:

the more verbosity the exponentially greater chance that the thesis is BUMPKLAAT

http://www.whatisdifferencebetween.com/science/what-is-the-difference-between-electric-force-electricity-magnetism-gravity.html#

Quote :

Every object in the universe has some distinct boundary and there are some attractive forces associated with it. Some of these attractive forces are generated artificially, while some have natural existence. Electric Force, Electricity, Magnetism and Gravity are the examples of such forces. To know about these forces and the difference between them, let’s take a brief look on the following lines.

Electric Force

Electric force is the power or force that is produced by an electric charge in the electric field. The equation for Electric Force is F=qE. In this equation, F is Electric Force, q is the Electric Charge and E is the Electric filed.

Electricity

Electricity is the form of energy that is produced by flow of electric particles like electron and proton in the form of dynamic electricity or simply by existence of electric particles that is called static electricity. In fact, lots of sources are responsible for generation of electricity like electric charge, electric current, electric field etc.

Magnetism

Magnetism is strictly related to such attractive or repulsive force between the objects that is the result of movement of electric charges within a definite boundary. Basically, two opposite charged objects create the force of magnetism.

Gravity

Gravity is the force that is equal to the mass of an object and attracts the objects towards center of object. This is the force that is responsible for moving the objects on the earth.

Electric Force vs Electricity vs Magnetism vs Gravity

Except gravity, all the three terms i.e. Electric Force, Electricity and Magnetism are inter-related terms. However, there are some differences between these inter-related terms. Electric force is the attractive force that a charged particle produces in its surrounding area celled electric field. However, electricity is simply the terms that is associated with behavior of charged particles like electron and proton and this is responsible for generating power in the form of static electricity, lightning, electromagnetic induction etc. On the other hand, magnetism is the force that is produced by movement of oppositely charged particles and generates attractive forces between them. Gravity or gravitation is also attractive force of earth, but it has natural existence and is equal to mass of objects moving on the earth.

\!!



wow, seems i've just learned to excuse your french and forgive your rants ....

http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bumbklaatt


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_man_o%27_war

Well, its not French, but a scots inclination towards ranting.
My apologies, but its a compulsive genetic manifestation to have a rant
from time to time. I try to save it for special occasions.

Incidentally, the whole question of dark energy comes from the notion
that the universe should collapse into itself due to gravity as it has no
opposing repelling force.

on gravity
http://flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity.htm

but specifically
dark energy
http://flight-light-and-spin.com/dark-energy.htm

Due to my studies on solar system formation,
dark energy must be spin,
or else a solar system could not form,
because a solar system like ours can only form due to systematic spin,
most likely due to the sun's dead twin going nova.

The math unravels the missing math of the big bang
which must have been a big unwind.

The singularity at the start of the universe can only have
separated due to spin, or else spiral galaxies and binary stars
could never form. without spin as a force, the singularity, if it
exploded would end in entropy or another singularity,
not (as it does) a universe full of uniform spinning bodies.

etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

was there just another term concealing 'spin' (like mood swings and their relatedness to a choleric temperament?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter


http://darkenergy.narod.ru/4rotat.html




http://darkenergy.narod.ru/4rotat.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon




\!!  did those ominous creators speak only math? that must have been an early curse, imho.



https://2img.net/h/i1173.photobucket.com/albums/r588/mypixelstory/Nogordola-Ditiyo---mypixelstory.gif

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/4rotat.html

well its good to see corroboration
however obtuse the website is

but yes,
4-d rotation is precisely
what i reckon debunks relativity
and all its horrid contradictions

but i get that independently of any recent sources
just by deconstructing 100 year old theory

and playing with my solar system simulators

The moon is not receding, it just might appear to be that way at the moment, it's an illusion.

If you pour gasoline onto burning incense, it doesn't explode, the gas extinguishes the ember.

If the moon were any smaller or bigger, or closer or farther, then it wouldn't fit the exact same size as our Sun for perfect eclipses.
And that is the true order of the nature of things.

The moon is not receding.

strange topic this though .....
or am i the only one here noticing a highly unusual "radiation"

\!!?

http://www.sott.net/article/244819-The-Cs-Hit-List-07-Sun-Star-Companion-Singing-Stones-and-Smoking-Visions

Fludgers wrote:

The moon is not receding, it just might appear to be that way at the moment, it's an illusion.

If you pour gasoline onto burning incense, it doesn't explode, the gas extinguishes the ember.

If the moon were any smaller or bigger, or closer or farther, then it wouldn't fit the exact same size as our Sun for perfect eclipses.
And that is the true order of the nature of things.

The moon is not receding.

If the moon and earth were the only objects in the solar system, they would have a certain precise orbit.

If we introduce the Sun into this equation, it will drag on the moon more than it will the earth.

The net result can only be that the moon must recede from the earth due to the sun.

The application
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/orbit-game-5.exe
on this page
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/why-moon-receding-from-earth.htm
proves this in purely mathematical terms


!

Fludgers wrote:

The moon is not receding, it just might appear to be that way at the moment, it's an illusion.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

If the moon and earth were the only objects in the solar system, they would have a certain precise orbit.

If we introduce the Sun into this equation, it will drag on the moon more than it will the earth.

The net result can only be that the moon must recede from the earth due to the sun.

I understand the technical term for both these positions is poppycock.

Measurements made with lasers, reflecting off the targets left by Apollo astronauts, have confirmed and quantified the slow recession of the moon.

The cause of this recession is well established as tidal flexing of the Earth leading to the transfer of angular momentum to the moon, thus requiring it to increase its orbital distance. There is a small, but finite increase in the length of the Earth's day as a consequence.

Sarcasm is normally a sign from your subconscious that you have missed something.
It is also a sign of a personality fixated on an infantile need for
name-calling in order to try and 'win' the argument as a result of nothing more
than ego-bashing.

All you have done is repeat what others have told you
with no algorithm in real-time to prove what you have parroted.

This image was generated with g=m/r^2


Can you explain how g=m/r^2 can NOT give this answer?

The tide affects the moon at a constant rate.
Thus the force of g on the moon from Earth and tide will be constant.
Thus it will not result in a decrease of force on the moon.

What is the effect of the Sun's gravity on the Earth moon system?

How can you NOT see that when the moon is closest to the Sun
that it will have a greater force on the moon than when the moon is furthest?

This diagram explains this explicitly.
This application demonstrates this is purely computational terms:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/orbit-game-5.exe

according to the fundamental law of Newtons gravitational theorem.

I was able to build that algorithm
as i am the first (that i can ascertain)
to answer the many-body-problem:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/many-body-problem.htm

Which was unsolved by Newton, Einstein, Planck, Hawking, et al

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

Sarcasm is normally a sign from your subconscious that you have missed something.

I was trying to be gentle, Jonathan, and lightly humorous. If you prefer a more direct approach, what you have written is incorrect. It runs counter to very well established science and to direct observation. It is, frankly, absurd. I suspect you may know this, but what is more important is that casual readers should be made aware of this.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

It is also a sign of a personality fixated on an infantile need for
name-calling in order to try and 'win' the argument as a result of nothing more
than ego-bashing.

Jonathan, I have not done any name-calling, I have not bashed your ego, I have not attacked you in any way. I have simply stated that your proposal, one that contradicts well-established science, is poppycock. That is a factual observation. Please don't avoid addressing the weaknesses in your proposal by trying to turn this into an argument about personalities. It isn't.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

All you have done is repeat what others have told you
with no algorithm in real-time to prove what you have parroted.

The phrase "no algorithm in real-time to prove what you have parroted" does not parse. More to the point, you have no idea the extent or source of my knowledge, so please heed your own advice and avoid the personal attacks. Let's focus on the issue, not what you imagine you know about me.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

This image was generated with g=m/r^2


Can you explain how g=m/r^2 can NOT give this answer?

Will you explain why you think that approach is the correct one to the solution of the problem?

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

The tide affects the moon at a constant rate.
Thus the force of G on the moon from Earth and tide will be constant.
Thus it will not result in a decrease of force on the moon.

We are interested in the affect of the tides on the Earth, as noted in my post. Casual readers may wish to refer to the wikipedia article on Tidal Acceleration for an informed treatment of the issue. (As a new member I am unable to post the direct link to the article and trust this will not prove overly inconvenient for anyone.)

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

Thus the force of G on the moon from Earth and tide will be constant.

How can it be constant when the distance between the moon and the Earth is variable? (You might wish to avoid using G as an abbreviation for gravity, since in physics G is the gravitational constant. Loose usage may create the impression you don't know what you are talking about.)

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

How can you NOT see that when the moon is closest to the Sun
that it will have a greater force on the moon than when the moon is furthest?

Of course that is the case. It does not, however, support the conclusions you make by - seemingly - misapplying the fact.

And still you have failed to address the point that we have measured and continue to measure the rate of recession of the moon. Will you do so now?

The measurement of the Moon's recession is not the same as the reason for it!
Obviously i have acknowledged the recession, that is what the question is all about.
How can I possibly be answering why the moon recedes unless I have accepted
that it is doing so?

(You do not need to supply links, just answer in your own words - that way it can be established more readily that you have applied analytical reasoning - and not just by rote memory)

But answer this, if you can:
What effect does the Sun's gravity have on the Moon?

" />

ok,
so this image defines the answer

G3 is a stronger force than G4

the algorithm shows this in real time calculation

as for the 'tidal' answer: the magma tides are much greater than the oceanic tides
but it makes no difference as the mass and force and position of earth and magma and ocean
is always the same in relation to the moon