Thread: The Moon

There are some interesting facts about the Moon and I wonder if they have any scientific basis or if they are mere folklore or just coincidence?

1. The Moon perfectly covers the Sun in a Solar eclipse. (Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this? Would Phobos or Deimos do the same for an observer on Mars if the Martian moons were spherical?)

2. The Moon rotates on its axis at the perfect speed to always show one of its faces to the Earth. Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this?

3. The Moon's cycle seems to match that of a woman's ovulation cycle. This may well be a coincidence but has anyone studied any scientific connection?

4. The Moon makes people crazy (lunatics) and in rare cases turns them into werewolves.

I realize that the last two are more relevant to the Biology Forum but I thought I would put them in anyway. I am interested in the fact that, although these things are open to folkloric or New Age interpretations, there may be scientific explanations for these things.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

There are some interesting facts about the Moon and I wonder if they have any scientific basis or if they are mere folklore or just coincidence?

1. The Moon perfectly covers the Sun in a Solar eclipse. (Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this? Would Phobos or Deimos do the same for an observer on Mars if the Martian moons were spherical?)

2. The Moon rotates on its axis at the perfect speed to always show one of its faces to the Earth. Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this?

3. The Moon's cycle seems to match that of a woman's ovulation cycle. This may well be a coincidence but has anyone studied any scientific connection?

4. The Moon makes people crazy (lunatics) and in rare cases turns them into werewolves.

I realize that the last two are more relevant to the Biology Forum but I thought I would put them in anyway. I am interested in the fact that, although these things are open to folkloric or New Age interpretations, there may be scientific explanations for these things.

1...the moon revolves around earth on a precise schedule and occasionally
is located to block the suns view and on occasion the earth blocks the moon from the light reflections from the sun. these actions are events that can be schedule well in advance or given time and dates of past events. there is nothing coincidental about them....

2..it is my understanding the moon has no axis movement or rotation and as if held in position by an invisible stick from earth, shows the same face
with out an inch difference from year to year. the moons distance or obit from earth is not a circle which makes this a little strange and has given cause to some speculation, but borders on science fiction....

3...if all women were to ovulate at the same time and that was during a full moon or new moon, you could possibly link the events, but there are lots of things that happen in cycles of 26 days or any other period of time and without connection...

4..lots of studies have been done on this and indications seem to imply some effect on some people do exist. most any larger police department
would never argue against any theory, since they are busy and crime in general seems more common, during a full moon...but i don't think there is a confirmed biological reaction to a full moon...

Originally Posted by jackson33

1...the moon revolves around earth on a precise schedule and occasionally
is located to block the suns view and on occasion the earth blocks the moon from the light reflections from the sun. these actions are events that can be schedule well in advance or given time and dates of past events. there is nothing coincidental about them....

I think I may have not made myself clear. The coincidence I was referring to was that the "apparent" circumference of the Moon and the "apparent" circumference of the Sun are almost identical, making a total eclipse possible. If the Moon were larger or smaller than it is or the Sun were larger, or smaller, than it is a total eclipse could not be considered total. Is there any scientific reason for this or is it purely conincidental?

Originally Posted by jackson33

2..it is my understanding the moon has no axis movement or rotation and as if held in position by an invisible stick from earth, shows the same face
with out an inch difference from year to year. the moons distance or obit from earth is not a circle which makes this a little strange and has given cause to some speculation, but borders on science fiction....

Bordering on science fiction should not be an instant dismissal (plenty of science fiction writers, Arthur C Clarke for instance, have proposed things that have turned out to be true). The question is "what is this invisible stick and why does the Earth and the Moon have this relationship?" If you were to take the Earth out of the equation and saw a computerized model of the Moon's movement then it would indeed be seen to rotate.

Originally Posted by jackson33

3...if all women were to ovulate at the same time and that was during a full moon or new moon, you could possibly link the events, but there are lots of things that happen in cycles of 26 days or any other period of time and without connection...

I can accept that this is purely a coincidence. I wonder if any studies have been conducted, though, and if they were whether they would win an Ig Nobel Award.

Originally Posted by jackson33

4..lots of studies have been done on this and indications seem to imply some effect on some people do exist. most any larger police department
would never argue against any theory, since they are busy and crime in general seems more common, during a full moon...but i don't think there is a confirmed biological reaction to a full moon...

I'll stick my neck out and say that I am interested in the theory that the Moon acts on the human brain in a similar way to it acting on the tides. That the brain may move its postition relative to the fluid in which it is contained and therefore behave in a different or even more erratic way than it had.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

It would seem the size of the moon and sun as seen from the earth is a coincidence only. In fact the size of the eclipse varies - look up annular eclipse. Phobos and deimos? appear much smaller than the sun from the surface of mars and so eclipses (total) do not occur there.

The moon and earth are thought to have been one at some stage but split through some collision, there's a lot of mechanics involved but there is good scientific reason why the moon orbits showing a constant face to us, again look up 'origin of the moon' or something along those lines for a detailed explanation.

Can't comment your other observations, as I don't consider them too scientific.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Can't comment your other observations, as I don't consider them too scientific.

I'm not sure how scientific something should be before it is "too scientific" but I'm ready to concede that number 3 is probably nothing more than a coincidence.

Number 4, however, is an observation that there seems to be a correlation between irratic human behaviour and the Full Moon. If police stations do indeed find a higher level of crime or "deviant" behaviour at this time of the month then is it too great a leap to "investigate" a causal link?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Can't comment your other observations, as I don't consider them too scientific.

I'm not sure how scientific something should be before it is "too scientific" but I'm ready to concede that number 3 is probably nothing more than a coincidence.

Number 4, however, is an observation that there seems to be a correlation between irratic human behaviour and the Full Moon. If police stations do indeed find a higher level of crime or "deviant" behaviour at this time of the month then is it too great a leap to "investigate" a causal link?

Investigate if you like, but from a scientific point of view, I could argue that in a full moon there is more light to see by so perhaps more people go out, also you are more likely to see them because of the more light.
The point being you'll need to look at a whole lot more than just a full moon/lunacy link. Burglars may also prefer to 'work' during a full moon, when caught they are usually taken to the cells. So look also at the types of crime. People who have had too much too drink, seeing a full-moon also arse around. So you could be right and maybe I have pointed you to some of the reasons.

With women, if there are several in the same household of mesurating age they will often 'synchronise' (thought due to hormone transfer, odour etc) if this is coincident with a full moon it may last many months.

Werewolves? Not my province. Incidentally since you stated it as a fact in your original post, can you provide the/any evidence?

heres a link for you on question 4, i haven't read it all but may be useful


http://skepdic.com/fullmoon.html

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Investigate if you like, but from a scientific point of view, I could argue that in a full moon there is more light to see by so perhaps more people go out, also you are more likely to see them because of the more light.
The point being you'll need to look at a whole lot more than just a full moon/lunacy link. Burglars may also prefer to 'work' during a full moon, when caught they are usually taken to the cells. So look also at the types of crime. People who have had too much too drink, seeing a full-moon also arse around. So you could be right and maybe I have pointed you to some of the reasons.

Yes, good points there. The more light, the more human activity of all kinds - including crime, the greater likelihood that people will get banged up by the cops.

Werewolves? Not my province. Incidentally since you stated it as a fact in your original post, can you provide the/any evidence?

Yes, laid on a little too thick, but it was tongue-in-cheek.

1...i think if the moon is at its closest, during an eclipse, it does cover the sun 100%. that is interesting but still think coincidental. be a good way to explain, trig though.

2....my guess is, if earth was not there, but the moon continued its current orbit, you could make argument for a strange axis motion and revolution, but only in relation to where your observing. it is my understanding we see the same identical face, all 365 days and that is the same as the cave man would have seem.

i wonder if we don't try to follow the fiction writers in observation we make. maybe even if just a starting point or would you suppose to be believed, SC writers incorporate thoughts from science that seem plausible to them.

there are some that think the Moon was a space ship and that it carried
mankind to earth and/or is occupied by life from elsewhere and is keeping watch on us and is the reason for its apparent stable position. as i recall they also have reason to believe the moon is hollow. this is not my opinion.

4...i prefer not to agree or disagree. there is logic in both and as i said some credence is given to an affect. as so many things however, it seems a little to easy to blame things on something. by the way those crime rates do not go down, on full moon, but cloudy skies.



>>>>>>>>>>>>

depending on which form of solar system formation you prefer, the moon would have developed as earth and only because of size cooled faster and could be the cause for establishing its current orbit. if it were a split from the earth, it would have to have been is during its gaseous state with the same results. to me its just as likely to have been one of several dwarf planets around the solar system that gave into gravity at some point
and did not crash into something or float off into space.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

There are some interesting facts about the Moon and I wonder if they have any scientific basis or if they are mere folklore or just coincidence?

1. The Moon perfectly covers the Sun in a Solar eclipse. (Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this? Would Phobos or Deimos do the same for an observer on Mars if the Martian moons were spherical?)

2. The Moon rotates on its axis at the perfect speed to always show one of its faces to the Earth. Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this?

3. The Moon's cycle seems to match that of a woman's ovulation cycle. This may well be a coincidence but has anyone studied any scientific connection?

4. The Moon makes people crazy (lunatics) and in rare cases turns them into werewolves.

I realize that the last two are more relevant to the Biology Forum but I thought I would put them in anyway. I am interested in the fact that, although these things are open to folkloric or New Age interpretations, there may be scientific explanations for these things.

Here is my quick and dirty response:

1. I think this is coincidence. I cannot answer the questions about Mars' satellites without doing some math (which I may attempt...).

2. This has to do with how the moon was formed and conservation of angular momentum. I'll cite one such theory following the work of Cameron et al.
http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/moon/camerone.htm

3. My best guess would be that this is an evolutionary byproduct, akin to why our eyes see visible light (the Sun's peak intensity is in the visible, the earth's atmosphere is optically thin in the visible while opaque in the other wavelengths) etc. While off hand, I don't know the evolutionary advantage to a monthly menstrual cycle, it is still my best guess.

4. While I think werewolves are a work of fiction, during the time around a full moon, there is more light at night to aid in mischieviousness.


Cheers,
william

the Cameron- Impact Hypothesis is one of many and as i understand it would have to be before hardening of either to be factual. it would imply also that moon of other planets should have formed similarly and this would imply planets them selfs would have been the result a a solar impact. this could have been, but likely the implosion or formation of the sun, should have spit out a bunch of gaseous matter and form a good many objects, many of which, just kept on heading into space. this coincides incidentally, as to gaseous objects still in the system...

Originally Posted by jackson33

the Cameron- Impact Hypothesis is one of many and as i understand it would have to be before hardening of either to be factual.

Yes, there are a few moon formation hypotheses, but this one is the one I think is most likely correct. It doesn't need to happen before the earth "hardens".

it would imply also that moon of other planets should have formed similarly and this would imply planets them selfs would have been the result a a solar impact.

No. Mars' satellites were most likely "captured" as well as some other moons in the solar system. What works for one scenario does not require that it is universal to all others.

The sun, planets (and the solar system in general) most likely formed from gas and dust that condensed under the force of gravity. The planets would have condensed from the resulting disk under the influence of gravitational instabilities. A completely different mechanism from that which formed our moon.

this could have been, but likely the implosion or formation of the sun, should have spit out a bunch of gaseous matter and form a good many objects, many of which, just kept on heading into space. this coincides incidentally, as to gaseous objects still in the system...

With this statement, you are sort of on the right track....

Cheers,
william

it is my understanding the moon has no axis movement or rotation

Although it is easy to think otherwise, the Moon actually rotates on its axis in the same amount of time it orbits the Earth. Think of it this way: If you placed a chair in the center of a room and walked around it without rotating on your axis (always face the same wall) the chair would “see” all sides of you. Now, walk around the chair and always face it. To do that you would have to complete one rotation on your axis (you would eventually face all walls) and the chair would “see” only one side of you.

i am curious as to why our moon would need to form in a way other than the remaining solar system. the size, to my understanding is the only primary difference and it the original solar formation it would seem probable Mercury and Venus had moons, but lost them to the suns gravitational pull as the sun formed and increased its own gravity. our moon on the other hand has enough mass or weight to resist and maintain what could have been its original earth orbit. then you have to assume if the moon formed from a collision, turning earth and the future moon into dust to reform (if after gaseous state) then the sun must have turned off its gravity, or the substantially less weighty units of mass would be pulled into the sun. or that this is true and the moon and earth
were the largest units (singularly) and began there existence, one nearly round the other odd shaped and the evolving of both took on differing results.

i would rather think Titan was originally formed near its present orbit as a few of the larger Moons and i do concede or agree a good many other moons took orbit later by close contact, such as Galaxy are thought to do with larger ones. i also think in time, well after our great grand kids are gone, Pluto and its over sized moon will be moons of one of the other outer planets, the little ones part of the sun, but thats another story.

William, i think i have a problem, in general as to why so much has to differ from what is accepted to have happened to others, than to that of earths history. we know quite a bit, from our visits to the moon and of course whats on earth. it would seem the reverse should prevail for solar, galaxy and universal and this makes no sense. anyway thanks for the link, it is one i had not seen before.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

1. The Moon perfectly covers the Sun in a Solar eclipse. (Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this? Would Phobos or Deimos do the same for an observer on Mars if the Martian moons were spherical?)

This is coincidence. The moon is gradually moving away from the Earth. This is due to tidal interaction and the requirement to conserve angular momentum.
The tidal influence of the moon on the Earth causes the Earth to slow down. When formed the Earth's day was around six hours long. The angular momentum lost as the Earth slows is transferred to the moon, which moves further away.
In the past the moon would have completely obscured the sun, including the corona. In the future it will cover part, but not all, of the sun's disc. Indeed this already happens when the eclipse takes place with the moon at apoapsis (furthest from the Earth in its elliptical orbit).
Phobos and Deimos are tiny, so that they would simply be viewed in transit across the solar surface.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

2. The Moon rotates on its axis at the perfect speed to always show one of its faces to the Earth. Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this?

Two points.
It does not keep exaclty the same face turned towards the Earth. There is a sort of rocking back and forth, called libration. This allows us to see just under 60% of its surface from the Earth. There is an excellent animation of this effect on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

Originally Posted by angrysoba

3. The Moon's cycle seems to match that of a woman's ovulation cycle. This may well be a coincidence but has anyone studied any scientific connection?

There are cycles present in the sexual behaviour of marine life that are influenced by the moon. We might imagine that these reflect benefits of spawining at a particular state of the tide. For example:
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewreco...&setcookie=yes
It is not unreasonable to think that seeking a regular moderator of ovulation, nature would dip into ancestral genes and pull out that one.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by angrysoba

2. The Moon rotates on its axis at the perfect speed to always show one of its faces to the Earth. Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this?

Two points.
It does not keep exaclty the same face turned towards the Earth. There is a sort of rocking back and forth, called libration. This allows us to see just under 60% of its surface from the Earth. There is an excellent animation of this effect on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

It is well known that Earth's moon is not the only moon in a single-face presented to it's parent planet system. The obvious one is Pluto-Charon (ok Dwarf planets now :P ) who are tidally locked together and always show the same face to each other... imagine two beads locked together with a rod, the two objects always show the same face to each other. (This would be the equivilent of the earth day lasting a month).

In this case not only would the same face always be seen, but it would always be in the same place in the sky. For instance, if the moon was always over Southeast Asia and was never ever viewable from the USA and never seemed to "move" in the sky.

The usual configuration of moons in the solar system is for the moon to be tidally locked to the planet (Only shows one face to the planet such as our moon does) but the planet not being tidally locked to the moon (Dwarfplanet Pluto/Charon being an exception)

This is an effect of gravity, since gravity works via weight and distance. The same process which creates tides in our oceans, also influences rock, however unlike water, Rock is solid - and so the best way to reduce 'gravitational friction' as it were is to eventually stop with the 'heaviest part' facing toward the gravity source. It is partly the same mechanism which a car with the breaks off will increase speed while rolling down a hill and reduce speed when going up... if one left the system going it would go up one side, and back down a few times untill all of the energy was bled away and the car would become stopped at the bottom of the trough. For a planet, it will act similarly, with the heaviest part of the moon/satellite eventually facing toward the planet as the rotational momentum is bled away through gravity and friction (since not all parts of a planet/moon/etc weigh the same, Visualize, the Himilaya mountans versus the flatest parts of the australian desert you can think of, obviously these weigh differently)

A basic rundown on Tidal Locking (the effect that causes the rotation to be the same speed as the orbit) appears at Wikki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_lock#Mechanism

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by angrysoba

2. The Moon rotates on its axis at the perfect speed to always show one of its faces to the Earth. Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this?

Two points.
It does not keep exaclty the same face turned towards the Earth. There is a sort of rocking back and forth, called libration. This allows us to see just under 60% of its surface from the Earth. There is an excellent animation of this effect on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

Thanks for all the replies there have been some very interesting points here and thankyou also to Captain Caveman for the link to the Skeptics dictionary link. Thanks also to Professor Marvel as that was the point I was trying to make. Next time I will try to think of more concrete analogies than I managed before. Ophiolite, you also provided some very interesting ideas and I am grateful.

Although, Ophiolite, I only counted one point that you made regarding the axial rotation of the Moon. Would you care to explain the second?

Ah, yes. It must have been pulled off the screen by a passing gravity anomaly. 8)
Actually I was so pleased with the animation I found on wikipedia I quite forgot it.

The second point: the reason it has more or less one face turned towards the Earth is the gravitational interaction of the two planets. (I consider that the moon to be big enough and ugly enough to be a planet. Damn the IAU.) This is called tidal lock. I believe all the major satellites of all the planets are caught in a similar tidal lock with their parent.

Edit: I replied to you before noticing that Musicalaviator had provided a fuller discussion of tidal lock in the post before yours.
Edit 2: This is for Zelos. When I notice I have messed up my typing as in the originalMuscialaviator in the edit above, I go in and correct it. I do this to make things easier for readers of the post. It's a respect thing.

are you thinking the moon was 60k-80k out, at one point?

why do you think producers of seafood, increase tank temps to initiate
fertilization or breeding?


tidal lock, makes sense and would seem almost required for co-existence.
it could also be a natural result of long time co-existence and called this.
i would like a good opinion as to why so many objects can form an orbit around the sun and seem to fail or a direction is only altered when close contact with planets is made? or colision....

I think it is a coincidence that the sun and moon appear to be the same size in the sky.

1. What the Moon perfectly covers is a matter of perspective.
2. A side of the Moon is locked in to always face the Earth because it is circling the earth. The centrifigul force (extrapolated) produced by the Moons orbit slings the most massive portion away from the Earth. The side of the Moon that faces away from the Earth is the side where the most mass (mountains) exists. If a ball that had a buldge of it were put onto an orbit the buldge would shift to the outermost portion of the orbit. The kinetic energy would shift it in the axis of rotation.
3. Yes.
4. No, we are crazy with or without the moon. The moonlight just allows us to act it out in the absence of daylight.

Me too. But the Earths orbital speed does impact the orbital speed of the Moon.

The sun is in motion, in orbit around our Galaxy. That orbit sets an orbital plane for influence of any satilites entering. If the Son traveled in a straight line it wouldn't have that orbital plane, and satilites would possible enter into randome directions. Also, most satilites entering the Suns orbit are coming from the general direction of the Galctic plane. So that the Galactifc Plane is the traffic cop.

The moons motions are in no way a coincidence. It would not,but if we try to remove the influence of the Earth from consideration, and theMoon maintained a orbital travel, then the same area of the Moon that now facesan outwardly direction to that orbital plane. It is the kinetic energy thatinfluences the direction that the Moon faces. The Moons shape is such that oneside has more mass. This mass is slung out to the outer direction of the orbitalplane. Now stick any object, even a massless object, into the center of theorbital plane. That side that faces inward is the side that has less mass. Theside with more mass will pivot to the outward direction of the plane.


The gravitational interaction it what holds the moon in it orbit around the earth. It is the kinectis energy of the moons travel within that orbit that generates the force that causes the moon to pivot on its axis, swinging the side with the most mass towards an outward ditection of the orbit.


Jack: I (KALSTER) merged your posts. Can't make 5 or 6 posts on the trot in the same thread. Rather make use of the edit button. Thanks

Cause and effect are often hard to descern. Nut tidal lovk is a ficticious relationship. Gravity holds the moon in its orbit. The pivatol force that swings the moon on its axis is the kinetic energy.

Originally Posted by Jack1941

1. What the Moon perfectly covers is a matter of perspective.
2. A side of the Moon is locked in to always face the Earth because it is circling the earth. The centrifigul force (extrapolated) produced by the Moons orbit slings the most massive portion away from the Earth. The side of the Moon that faces away from the Earth is the side where the most mass (mountains) exists. If a ball that had a buldge of it were put onto an orbit the buldge would shift to the outermost portion of the orbit. The kinetic energy would shift it in the axis of rotation.

Wrong. For one, it is the most massive side of the Moon faces the Earth. For the other, it is the differential of Earth's gravity across the Moon that leads to tidal locking, this differential exists whether the Moon orbits the Earth or not.

Me too. But the Earths orbital speed does impact the orbital speed of the Moon.

The sun is in motion, in orbit around our Galaxy. That orbit sets an orbital plane for influence of any satilites entering. If the Son traveled in a straight line it wouldn't have that orbital plane, and satilites would possible enter into randome directions. Also, most satilites entering the Suns orbit are coming from the general direction of the Galctic plane. So that the Galactifc Plane is the traffic cop.

Did you ever bother to check the facts before you make your claims? The orbital plane of the Solar system sits at about a 60 degree angle to the Galactic plane, with the direction of the Sun's orbital path being about 30 degrees from the solar system's axis. This is almost the complete antithesis of your statement.

1. The Moon perfectly covers the Sun in a Solar eclipse. (Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this? Would Phobos or Deimos do the same for an observer on Mars if the Martian moons were spherical?)

That's a coincidence. The Moon is moving away from the Earth slowly (about 1 cm per year). So in some million years there will be no solar eclipses. For Martian moons: No they don't.

2. The Moon rotates on its axis at the perfect speed to always show one of its faces to the Earth. Is this a coincidence or is there some scientific reason for this?

No, that's not a coincidence. So does Mercury rotating around the Sun. From what I remember it's because of tidal forces.

3. The Moon's cycle seems to match that of a woman's ovulation cycle. This may well be a coincidence but has anyone studied any scientific connection?

Not a coincidence. In ancient times men were hunting when the Moon was in the sky and stayed in the settlements when it was dark at nights. So those women were more fertile, whose ovulation cycle was related to phases of the Moon. This way the Moon "set" ovulation cycle to cycle of its phases.

4. The Moon makes people crazy (lunatics) and in rare cases turns them into werewolves.

See explanation for 3. Werewolves exist only in fairytales.

Originally Posted by Jack1941

Nut tidal lovk is a ficticious relationship.

Mxyzptlk qurok plfut. Or meibi yoo nied to instoll a spilling chycker.

And why did you reply here when you have already started a thread on the same subject?

2. We always see the same face of the moon is true, due to synchonous rotation. But the face does wobble slightly back and forth (libration).
3. Just a coincidence.
4. No truth behind it.