The Moon and Design

[Bobber90]

I was recently looking at the moon and marveling at the beauty of its phases. I became curious about how our predecessors would have explained the fact that they could always see the same features throughout the phases, whether there was more or less visible. No doubt at various times people had the idea that the moon was a sphere whose rotation just happened to match the earth’s, as well as alternative notions too. My sketchy knowledge of the formation of the moon, plus wikipedia, goes that something large hit the earth very early on in its formation, ejecting material which created the moon.

This quaint musing about the moon prompted more serious questions:

1. What are the chances that the resulting moon had a stable orbit and rotation around the earth? Wouldn’t it be more likely that a collision of 2 large bodies would throw out a moon that rolls erratically around, rather than a moon which stayed in quite a fixed relationship with us? That seems like fine-tuning.
2. Something that is precise, stable, improbable etc must have been designed.
3. If something is designed, it must have a purpose.
4. So what is the purpose of the synchronicity of the moon’s rotation with ours? Or indeed the rough match of the 28-day lunar and menstrual cycles?

 

[Gertabelle]

1. So what is the purpose of the synchronicity of the moon’s rotation with ours? Or indeed the rough match of the 28-day lunar and menstrual cycles?

I’m woefully ignorant of philosophy, but I do know a tiny bit about science.

The moon’s orbit and gravtity actually help regulate the rotation of the earth. If I remember correctly, it has something to do with the moon’s pull on the oceans – creating the tides. Without the moon, the earth’s rotation would be erratic – a day could last 12 hours, or 12 months. Life as we know it would be all but impossible.

I’m not taking the time to look this up right now, so take it with a grain of salt. But a quick google search should give you some authoritative sources who can confirm or correct what I’ve written here.

Gertie

 

[cerad2]

1. What are the chances that the resulting moon had a stable orbit and rotation around the earth? Wouldn’t it be more likely that a collision of 2 large bodies would throw out a moon that rolls erratically around, rather than a moon which stayed in quite a fixed relationship with us? That seems like fine-tuning.

At this point we simply don’t know enough to calculate a reasonable secular probability. Wait a few thousand years and once we have the results from our interstellar probes then we should have a better idea.

But I think your question as stated makes no sense. Once you introduce the notion of invisible sky creatures “fine-tuning” reality then probability goes out the window. You really can’t calculate the probability of anything once you introduce some active consciousness force which can intervene whenever it feels like it.

 

[empther]

The moon always shows the same side to earth because the earth’s gravity causes a drag on the moon’s mountains that tend to slow its rotation. Or at least it did millions of years ago. Now, there is no gravitational drag because the moon always shows the same face.

There’s earth’s rotation would not vary radically if it had not moon. It’s rotation would always stay the same.
But the moon’s gravity also acts as a drag on the earth and slows down the earth’s rotation. When the earth first formed, its day was about six hours long. Now it’s 24. In the future it will be 30 etc.

 

[DaveBj]

If you have access top Netflix streaming, I recommend going to the series “The Universe” and finding the episode that talks about the scientific theory on how the moon was formed. In the immortal words of the pointy-eared one, “Fascinating.”

 

[Gertabelle]

There’s earth’s rotation would not vary radically if it had not moon. It’s rotation would always stay the same.
But the moon’s gravity also acts as a drag on the earth and slows down the earth’s rotation. When the earth first formed, its day was about six hours long. Now it’s 24. In the future it will be 30 etc.

Thanks for the clarification. I took a few minutes and found this article. Seems I had mixed up in my memory the earth’s rotation with the earth’s tilt. It’s the seasons that some scientists think could be drastically affected.

From the short article:

It is considered likely by many authors that the current circa 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation is a relic of the oblique collision which produced the Moon. Furthermore it is argued that the presence of the orbiting Moon has, through a large part of geological time, stabilised this axial tilt or obliquity of the Earth. This has had important ramifications for life on the Earth as major and frequent shifts in this obliquity would have led to significant and rapid changes in the Earth’s climate due to changes in insolation values at the poles and equator. A similar mechanism has been suggested to explain the apparent contradictions in the climate record of Mars.

The current relatively moderate axial tilt of the Earth ensures that the difference in heating between the poles and equator is sufficient to promote a healthy and diverse range of climatic zones without veering from one extreme to another (e.g. Snowball Earth hypothesis). In particular the stability of the Earth’s axial tilt produced by the Moon, coupled with the break up of the Pangean supercontinent in the late Mesozoic produced a diverse set of climate zones (with their associated ecological niches) compared with what had gone before during the time of the dinosaurs. This helped set the stage for the rise of the mammals, including Man.

Gertie
(and I know that Astronomy Today may not be the most authoritative source, but I didn’t want to spend the entire morning looking reading about this)

 

[seagal]

You really can’t calculate the probability of anything once you introduce some active consciousness force which can intervene whenever it feels like it.

I do believe you’re wrong about that. In fact there’s a whole branch of mathematics called Probabilty Theory which does exactly that, calculates the probabilty of random events. The study of statistics, including statistics of human behaviour, would be an off-shoot of that. I don’t know if there’s anything more random than what some random people may or may not do because of what other random people did or didn’t do.

But back to the moon. I recently read Lee Strobel’s book “Case for a Creator” in which he talks about the the unique positions of planet Earth and her satellite. Here’s a summary of what he says about the moon.

The moon actually stabilizes the tilt of the Earth’s axis. If the moon were not there, our tilt could swing wildly over a large range, resulting in major temperature swings. If our tilt were more like ninety degrees, the north pole would be exposed to the sun for six months while the south pole would be in darkness, then vice-versa. Instead, it varies by only about one and a half degrees – just a tiny variation, because the gravity from the moon’s orbit keeps it stabilized.

The moon’s large size compared to its host planet is unique in the inner solar system. Mercury and Venus have no moons. Mars has two tiny moons – probably captured asteroids – and they don’t do anything to stabilize the axis of Mars. Its axis is pretty close to Earth’s right now, but that’s only by coincidence. It actually varies over a huge range. In fact, all three of these planets have chaotic variations in their tilt.

The moon also helps in another crucial way, which is to increase our tides. The moon contributes sixty percent to the tides; the sun accounts for the other forty percent. Tides serve an important role by flushing out nutrients from the continents to the oceans, which keeps them more nutrient-rich than they otherwise would be. Scientists discovered just a few years ago that the lunar tides also help to keep large-scale ocean circulation going. That’s important because the oceans carry a lot of heat, which is necessary to keep the temperature of the higher latitudes relatively mild.
If the moon were more massive and in the same place, the tides would be much too strong, which would create serious difficulties.

The moon is slowing down the Earth’s rotation. The tides pull on the Earth and slow it down a little bit, while at the same time the moon moves out in its orbit. We can actually measure this. Astronauts left mirrors on the moon and astronomers have been bouncing lasers off them since the early 1970s. They’ve documented that the moon is moving out in its orbit at 3.82 cm a year. If the moon were more massive, it would slow down the Earth much more. That would be a problem because if the days became too long, then you could have large temperature differences between day and night. The Earth’s climatic stability is dependent to a large extent on the existence of the moon. Without the moon, the Earth’s tilt could vary chaotically from zero to eighty-five degrees with devastating results. It is amazing that the moon “just happens” to be the right size and in the right place to help create a habitable environment for Earth.

angelfire.com/realm3/creation1/

 

[cerad2]

I do believe you’re wrong about that. In fact there’s a whole branch of mathematics called Probabilty[sic] Theory which does exactly that, calculates the probabilty[sic] of random events.

But how do you know they are actually random?. Consider the ever popular coin toss. If the coin is properly balanced then we would expect to see a 50/50 chance of any particular side being up and indeed that is what we see. But what if the only reason we see that is because some angel in charge of coin flipping is actually adjusting every toss to ensure we see the expected results? We have no way to remove the angel from the process so it makes no sense to actually assign a probability. If the angel ever gets bored then the results might suddenly change.

Likewise it’s impossible to calculate the possibility of a collusion if, at any point, Loki decides to give one of the objects a bit of a push.

 

[Bobber90]

Thanks to those who’ve pointed out that the moon stabilises the earth’s movements, it is obviously very important that the earth’s axis doesn’t constantly move and at least important to us that day/night are regular.

However, is it necessary that the moon’s rotation matches the earth’s in order to achieve this? Without being able to model it, I would assume that the moon could rotate some measure more quickly (or indeed at any speed) without affecting its gravitational influence over the earth’s movement.

This still leaves the crux of the issue for me, which is the inference of design from the fact that there is such a low probability that the moon would present the same side of itself to humanity for millennia. If this seems like a minor point, which I can appreciate it would, I am still keen to see the implications followed through when we accept that the situation of the moon is: 1) improbable, which means 2) it was designed; hence 3) what is its purpose?

 

[seagal]

But how do you know they are actually random?. Consider the ever popular coin toss. If the coin is properly balanced then we would expect to see a 50/50 chance of any particular side being up and indeed that is what we see. But what if the only reason we see that is because some angel in charge of coin flipping is actually adjusting every toss to ensure we see the expected results? We have no way to remove the angel from the process so it makes no sense to actually assign a probability. If the angel ever gets bored then the results might suddenly change.

Likewise it’s impossible to calculate the possibility of a collusion if, at any point, Loki decides to give one of the objects a bit of a push.

I don’t know any Christian who would assume angelic interference if a tossed coin consistently landed the way the law of probability predicted it would. On the other hand, if it consistently landed on heads or always landed on its edge I’m sure most people who would credit divine intervention.

 

[Gertabelle]

Thanks to those who’ve pointed out that the moon stabilises the earth’s movements, it is obviously very important that the earth’s axis doesn’t constantly move and at least important to us that day/night are regular.

However, is it necessary that the moon’s rotation matches the earth’s in order to achieve this? Without being able to model it, I would assume that the moon could rotate some measure more quickly (or indeed at any speed) without affecting its gravitational influence over the earth’s movement.

This still leaves the crux of the issue for me, which is the inference of design from the fact that there is such a low probability that the moon would present the same side of itself to humanity for millennia. If this seems like a minor point, which I can appreciate it would, I am still keen to see the implications followed through when we accept that the situation of the moon is: 1) improbable, which means 2) it was designed; hence 3) what is its purpose?

Forgive my muddled brain – haven’t had my coffee yet :yawn: – but I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you trying to have us defend intelligent design? Or are you seeking “proof” of God’s hand in creation.

As a Catholic Christian, I believe that God set this whole universe into motion. To me, the improbability of physical reality doesn’t matter much. I think that science can show how the moon was formed, how the earth and the moon came into our present alignment over the passage of billions of years, and how the laws of physics are evident in the present relationship of these two space objects.

I can tell you I see the “hand of God” in the beauty of it all, but to someone who doesn’t have fiath, those words just sound like poetry, not Truth.

Inference of design? As a Catholic, I believe all things are designed and set in motion. We have the intelligence and skills to manipulate that design in some things, but not others. Science, for example, has not found a way (yet) to put out the fire on the sun, or reverse the rotation of the earth. But the design and setting it into motion I accredit to God.

Are we getting closer?

Gertie (time for COFFEE!)

 

[Bobber90]

Forgive my muddled brain – haven’t had my coffee yet :yawn: – but I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you trying to have us defend intelligent design? Or are you seeking “proof” of God’s hand in creation.

As a Catholic Christian, I believe that God set this whole universe into motion. To me, the improbability of physical reality doesn’t matter much. I think that science can show how the moon was formed, how the earth and the moon came into our present alignment over the passage of billions of years, and how the laws of physics are evident in the present relationship of these two space objects.

I can tell you I see the “hand of God” in the beauty of it all, but to someone who doesn’t have fiath, those words just sound like poetry, not Truth.

Inference of design? As a Catholic, I believe all things are designed and set in motion. We have the intelligence and skills to manipulate that design in some things, but not others. Science, for example, has not found a way (yet) to put out the fire on the sun, or reverse the rotation of the earth. But the design and setting it into motion I accredit to God.

Are we getting closer?

Gertie (time for COFFEE!)

Ok, if perhaps we might see the hand of God at work in the universe, I was trying to understand what meaning we could draw from some of the more improbable and beautiful features of the universe - eg the moon. I could see the moon as simply accounted for by the relevant physical facts, but intelligent design theories say that highly improbable and remarkable situations call for the explanation that they were designed to be that way. It must be less than 1 in a million that the moon turned out to rotate in synchronicity with the earth, showing that it is a remarkable configuration! If we apply intelligent design reasoning to this, I was wondering what meaning we can glean from the singularly beautiful moon. Don’t even get me started on the double coincidence of the menstrual/lunar cycles!

 

[Micorhizea]

This quaint musing about the moon prompted more serious questions:

1. What are the chances that the resulting moon had a stable orbit and rotation around the earth? Wouldn’t it be more likely that a collision of 2 large bodies would throw out a moon that rolls erratically around, rather than a moon which stayed in quite a fixed relationship with us? That seems like fine-tuning.
2. Something that is precise, stable, improbable etc must have been designed.
3. If something is designed, it must have a purpose.
4. So what is the purpose of the synchronicity of the moon’s rotation with ours? Or indeed the rough match of the 28-day lunar and menstrual cycles?

You are placing in the realm of chance/no chance something that is simply a case of matter obeying the laws of physics, which does not exclude that God IS. I am not an atheist by a long shot, but the rubbish presented in the “defense” of “design” is embarrassing. We all would be better of, I think, if we recognized anthropomorphism relative to our ideas about God when we saw it, yes?

 

[Bobber90]

You are placing in the realm of chance/no chance something that is simply a case of matter obeying the laws of physics, which does not exclude that God IS. I am not an atheist by a long shot, but the rubbish presented in the “defense” of “design” is embarrassing. We all would be better of, I think, if we recognized anthropomorphism relative to our ideas about God when we saw it, yes?

Are you saying that we shouldn’t presume the precise rotation of the moon (for all its beauty and improbability) implies or requires design as an explanation? If that is true, why should we think that the precise, life-enabling conditions of the universe are also designed?

 

[Gertabelle]

Ok, if perhaps we might see the hand of God at work in the universe, I was trying to understand what meaning we could draw from some of the more improbable and beautiful features of the universe - eg the moon.

Well, I’m not much into the meaning of beauty. I just enjoy it. Like I said, I’m no philosopher.

The question that comes to my mind, however, from your questions is this: Why do humans have an appreciation for beauty in the first place? My dog doesn’t seem to care one whit whether her food dish is pink ceraminc, blue plastic, or stainless steal; nor does she indicate an appreciation for flowers in bloom, a flaming sunset, or even the melodious tones of my piano playing

So why do humans seek beauty? Why are we enthralled by that which we call beautiful? Why do we arrange our environment so as to enhance beauty? Why do we study that which we call beautiful (visual art, music, dance, drama, poetry, architecture, etc.)?

If you are looking for meaning, perhaps the meaning of humanity’s love of beauty could occupy your thoughts for awhile

Gertie

 

[Bobber90]

Well, I’m not much into the meaning of beauty. I just enjoy it. Like I said, I’m no philosopher.

The question that comes to my mind, however, from your questions is this: Why do humans have an appreciation for beauty in the first place? My dog doesn’t seem to care one whit whether her food dish is pink ceraminc, blue plastic, or stainless steal; nor does she indicate an appreciation for flowers in bloom, a flaming sunset, or even the melodious tones of my piano playing

So why do humans seek beauty? Why are we enthralled by that which we call beautiful? Why do we arrange our environment so as to enhance beauty? Why do we study that which we call beautiful (visual art, music, dance, drama, poetry, architecture, etc.)?

If you are looking for meaning, perhaps the meaning of humanity’s love of beauty could occupy your thoughts for awhile

Gertie

Yes, I agree beauty is an interesting question, but I find that as well as not being a philosopher myself either, I am also not a connoisseur of intellectual sorts of beauty and I don’t find it that mysterious. Well, I don’t find the question of why we sense beauty any more mysterious than how we find a person physically attractive or a food nice-tasting. For example, rather than thinking about the beauty of a sunset or even a mathematical solution, I am stumped by the magical hold certain proportions/shapes of fleshy appendages have over typical men. That is not a complex sort of beauty, either, but very powerful I think we can agree!

 

[exnihilo]

Another interesting aspect related to an eclipse:

The Sun’s distance from the Earth is about 400 times the Moon’s distance, and the Sun’s diameter is about 400 times the Moon’s diameter. Because these ratios are approximately the same, the Sun and the Moon as seen from Earth appear to be approximately the same size: about 0.5 degree of arc in angular measure.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

 

[Bobber90]

Another interesting aspect related to an eclipse:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

 

[Gertabelle]

Another interesting aspect related to an eclipse:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

Awesome “coincidence”

Thanks for sharing that!

Gertie

 

[ThinkingSapien]

However, is it necessary that the moon’s rotation matches the earth’s in order to achieve this? Without being able to model it, I would assume that the moon could rotate some measure more quickly (or indeed at any speed) without affecting its gravitational influence over the earth’s movement.

The moon is in a tidal lock with earth. Forget about any associations you have with the rising and lowering of the oceans with the word “tidal.” While it’s related, the association doesn’t help much in understanding this.

The summary explanation is that when two bodies are under gravitational influence with each other one of the bodies might form a bulge becoming slightly elongated towards the other body. This bulge is under more gravitational influence from the other body and this results in a torque and an influence on its rotation speed. There are several bodies in our solar system in which something like this influences the ratio between it’s revolution and rotation time. For the earth-moon system the ratio is 1:1. For the Sun-mercury system the ratio is 3:2 (orbital resonance). There’s a few other bodies that have a 1:1 ratio with Jupiter and Saturn. Titania has a 1:1 with Uranus. Charon and Pluto have a 1:1 ratio (so they are tidally locked). While the same side of Charon always faces Pluto, the same side of Pluto always faces Charon. So these two bodies are also said to be gravitationally locked.

You can find more detailed and better explanations in books on orbital mechanics. Though the math in the books is a little more demanding that what we encounter in usual day-to-day life.