Moons tidal effect on earth

We all know the water tides go up and down. But does the Moon also exhibit a
deforming effect on the shape of the earth's crust?

And I know this is probably a complicated calculus exercise, but why
wouldn't the deforming effect of the moon on the earths crust be comparable
in size to that on the oceans (which it clearly isn't), given that at large
sizes gravity will always prevail over structural strength - that's why the
earths a spheroid.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
We all know the water tides go up and down. But does the Moon also exhibit a
deforming effect on the shape of the earth's crust?

And I know this is probably a complicated calculus exercise, but why
wouldn't the deforming effect of the moon on the earths crust be comparable
in size to that on the oceans (which it clearly isn't), given that at large
sizes gravity will always prevail over structural strength - that's why the
earths a spheroid.

Water flows much more easily than does the much stiffer
crust material.

Land tides are on the order of 1 meter peak to peak. Average
ocean tides are about 2.4 meters p-p. Subtract the land
p-p from the ocean p-p to give the net observed ocean tide
height.

http://home.earthlink.net/~mrob/pub/tides.html

Ocean basin geometry has large effects on local dynamics,
giving us, for example, the extreme tides of the Bay of
Fundy.

"Peter Webb" wrote...
in message ...

We all know the water tides go up and down. But does the Moon also exhibit a
deforming effect on the shape of the earth's crust?

The fast answer, Peter, is "yes." We can conclude that since
Earth has a deforming effect on the Moon's crust, the same must
also be true of the Moon. The significance of this Moon's effect
upon the Earth's crust must be less, of course, due to the Moon's
much smaller gravitational influence.

I have believed for some time now that the effect of the Moon's
gravity may be large enough to warrant a study on the Moon's
contribution to earthquakes.

And I know this is probably a complicated calculus exercise, but why
wouldn't the deforming effect of the moon on the earths crust be comparable
in size to that on the oceans (which it clearly isn't), given that at large
sizes gravity will always prevail over structural strength - that's why the
earths a spheroid.

Since the Earth's crust is less "giving" than water, this largely
accounts for the different effect sizes. The reverse situation,
where the Earth affects the Moon's crust, confirms what you
say since the density of the half of the Moon that faces Earth
is believed to be significantly greater than the density of the
other half that always faces outward into space.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
all we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Paine Ellsworth

Got to be kidding.... You are way behind times. They even study effect of
planet alignments on earth though it tend to be close to astology or to
counter such.
"Painius" wrote in message
...
"Peter Webb" wrote...
in message ...

We all know the water tides go up and down. But does the Moon also
exhibit a
deforming effect on the shape of the earth's crust?

The fast answer, Peter, is "yes." We can conclude that since
Earth has a deforming effect on the Moon's crust, the same must
also be true of the Moon. The significance of this Moon's effect
upon the Earth's crust must be less, of course, due to the Moon's
much smaller gravitational influence.

I have believed for some time now that the effect of the Moon's
gravity may be large enough to warrant a study on the Moon's
contribution to earthquakes.

And I know this is probably a complicated calculus exercise, but why
wouldn't the deforming effect of the moon on the earths crust be
comparable
in size to that on the oceans (which it clearly isn't), given that at
large
sizes gravity will always prevail over structural strength - that's why
the
earths a spheroid.

Since the Earth's crust is less "giving" than water, this largely
accounts for the different effect sizes. The reverse situation,
where the Earth affects the Moon's crust, confirms what you
say since the density of the half of the Moon that faces Earth
is believed to be significantly greater than the density of the
other half that always faces outward into space.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
all we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Paine Ellsworth

"onegod" wrote in message...
...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

I have believed for some time now that the effect of the Moon's
gravity may be large enough to warrant a study on the Moon's
contribution to earthquakes.

Got to be kidding.... You are way behind times. They even study effect of
planet alignments on earth though it tend to be close to astology or to
counter such.

You're right, onegod... i hadn't looked at this in a long while.
Recent research suggests that, while some scientists believe
that Moon gravity (as well as Sun and other planets, specially
when in alignment) may have an effect on Earth's crust which
can be associated with earthquakes, scientific study has yet to
confirm this.

The papers i've recently read show no correlation between
the occurence of earthquakes and the Moon's influence. I
have always thought the reverse, that the Moon played a
major role in earthquakes. While this is a very tricky study,
and not all the cards are in yet, it appears that we may have
to stick with more local issues in order to accurately predict
earthquakes.

Thanks for spurring me on, onegod!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Planets, stars and nebulae
Hold attention in the sky--
Lay in hay and squint your eye,
Lose your youth in moaning sigh
& find the truth in every lie!

Paine Ellsworth

The moon captured by the Earth and today locked in a very circular orbit
must have had lots of uncertainty in the beginning,for the probability
of this happening was not good. At the time of capture the
moon most likely was in a liquid state or a pile of rubble????
I will use the spectacular demise of Comet Shoemaker-Levy as a relative
scenario. On its pass around Jupiter the great tidal forces tore the
comet apart into more than 20 pieces. This altered the orbit enough that
the comet entered a collision course with the planet,and 15 months later
we saw these pieces(whole world saw it) meet their fiery end. Had this
object been a solid asteroid would it have had a better chance of
becoming another satellite of Jupiter? Why don't comets line up and
crash into the sun? They have plenty of time to lock into the sun's
center. Why all the lucky side stepping? Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
The moon captured by the Earth and today locked in a very circular orbit
must have had lots of uncertainty in the beginning,for the probability
of this happening was not good. At the time of capture the
moon most likely was in a liquid state or a pile of rubble????

From what i hear it wasen't a capture (for earth's moon). Early in the
earth's proto history, the earth was hit by an object the size of mars.
Earth wasen't a "planet" (mostly condensed magma) yet but the debris
from it created the moon. Computer simulations have verified this.

And what's really interesting is that the impactor had to hit the proto-earth at
just the right angle. A half a degree either way and there either wouldn't be a
moon or an earth.

"Yoyoma_2" wrote in message
news:8xDhc.201623$oR5.29002@pd7tw3no...
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
The moon captured by the Earth and today locked in a very circular orbit
must have had lots of uncertainty in the beginning,for the probability
of this happening was not good. At the time of capture the
moon most likely was in a liquid state or a pile of rubble????

From what i hear it wasen't a capture (for earth's moon). Early in the
earth's proto history, the earth was hit by an object the size of mars.
Earth wasen't a "planet" (mostly condensed magma) yet but the debris
from it created the moon. Computer simulations have verified this.

Bill Oertell wrote:
And what's really interesting is that the impactor had to hit the proto-earth at
just the right angle. A half a degree either way and there either wouldn't be a
moon or an earth.

"Yoyoma_2" wrote in message
news:8xDhc.201623$oR5.29002@pd7tw3no...

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

The moon captured by the Earth and today locked in a very circular orbit
must have had lots of uncertainty in the beginning,for the probability
of this happening was not good. At the time of capture the
moon most likely was in a liquid state or a pile of rubble????

From what i hear it wasen't a capture (for earth's moon). Early in the
earth's proto history, the earth was hit by an object the size of mars.
Earth wasen't a "planet" (mostly condensed magma) yet but the debris
from it created the moon. Computer simulations have verified this.



What I find unbelievable are the many so-called coincidences that exist
in the universe. The ideal location of the planet Earth. The current
orbit of it's moon being such that it almost precisely eclipses the sun.
The very fact that the moon exists. The fact that water expands when it
crystallizes into ice when virtually every other liquid contracts.
There must be a plan somewhere and someone or something governing it.
Someday I may know.

Dave Nagel

Dave What you say is reality. They are the features to see to it the
Earth had the right stuff for life,and most important complex
intelligent life. Still Dave we have to keep in mind we have a sister
planet Venus,and water expands there as well. Don't think the moon need
be necessary for life(it helps) Water is the key for creating complex
life,and it has to be in a liquid phase. Venus is to hot,and Mars is to
cold.About 65% of Earth's water is liquid I love the ocean. Bert