Either our moon is losing it's orbital velocity as it's gradually
leaving us in it's salty moon dust, as perhaps for the same interactive
tidal related reason as to why Earth's rotation is winding down, or else
the holy grail of perpetual cosmic energy has been identified without
such ever being noticed until now.

If our moon is going away from us at supposedly 38 mm/year, then it's
taking longer upon each subsequent orbit by roughly 0.0193 meter, of
which that unavoidably takes extra time unluess it's somehow made to
travel a wee bit faster per orbit.

According to my dyslexic encrypted math (that's not always correct);
If that moon of ours was in fact moving off by nearly 38 mm/year, and as
such not even slowing down one iota, whereas per year as based upon an
initial orbital radius of 384,400 km and making an average velocity of
1.023 km/s, whereas by the numbers it should have been taking an extra
2.334e-4 second longer for getting that horrifically big old and massive
sucker another .23877 meter around us on just the last orbit of each
successive year, especially if we're using the lunar year worth of
12.3685 lunar orbits.

Obviously, if the tidal forced analogy were somehow all inclusive, as to
representing what's causing our moon's recession, and that's without my
having included whatever the subsequent velocity loss of what that
recession amounts to, along with my not having taken into account
whatever's the Vt/slug factor of our moon's orbital environment, whereas
it should if anything have caused the orbital velocity as having been
somewhat diminished, as measurably trekking along at a slower rate from
that of each previous year.

Therefore, if anything fits neatly into this argument, the extra amount
of orbital time required by rights should have become much greater than
attributed by way of my having imposed the fixed velocity factor of
1.023 km/s, that's taking 2.334e-4 second longer to get around Earth
upon it's final annual orbit. However, just because Earth's rotation is
slowing down is not a valid excuse as for suggesting the moon's velocity
is increasing, because it may simply not be the case. Perhaps even in
spite of tidal forces, our moon's orbital velocity could still be losing
some of it's relative velocity, that is unless there's an amount of mass
that's exiting away from the moon.

Of course, as for adding those eleven previous orbits, at their having
contributed .0193 meter extra per orbit, as collectively piled onto the
final orbit of that extra .23877 + .2123 meter = .45107 meter.

..45107/1023 = 4.441e-4 sec longer for just 12 of those receding orbits

Call it good at 4.53e-4 sec extra for the 12.3685 of lunar orbits/year

Too bad we're still not quite smart enough for having established any
viable form of interactive science platform within our moon's L1.
Perhaps China or India can help us out, although Germany should be right
next in line as to taking over some station-keeping control, as to their
squatting within a portion of our moon's L1, and for holding on to it
(with force if need be).

Besides all my usual spelling, syntax and a few pesky math corrections,
how am I doing?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG