![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Antarctica Losing Mass! | Thomas Lee Elifritz | Policy | 131 | May 31st 06 05:22 AM |
The US is losing it! | OG | Misc | 0 | January 5th 06 08:53 PM |
U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences | Rudolph_X | Astronomy Misc | 7 | May 6th 04 06:02 AM |
Is USA Losing Its Predominance In Space? | Rudolph_X | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 9th 04 10:12 PM |