If someone standing on the merry-go-round gives someone walking next to it a push every time they pass them, the merry-go-round will loose angular momentum while the person being pushed gains linear momentum.
The Asteroid belt didn't coalesce into a single planet because of the effect of Jupiter. Even very small dust particles coalesce, first by electrostatic attraction and then by Gravity. This has been proven by observation of dust in either the Space Staton or Zero G experiments You need to read more of the latest theories on solar system formation.
The Earth has 2 measurable bulges. It's not really from the pull of the Moon per say, but the tidal forces contributed by the mass . If it was just from the pull there wouldn't be 2 bulges. We have tides every 12 hours approximately, not 24. Yes the tidal forces cause tectonic stress, even today. If the Moon were much closer it would obviously cause more tectonic stress and cause the problems you stated.
I think the question is how did it become a satellite? To be called a satellite it has to be in orbit in the first place. How did that happen? It certainly didn't break off the Earth and reach orbit at ~4cm per year. If there was a collision, the distance between the Earth and Moon was at one point zero, so how did it get to where is? If the Moon was captured, at what distance was it captured and how did its orbit change to be stable around the Earth? If it formed at the same time the Earth did, already in orbit, at what distance was that?
A spinning object (turntable) with another object on it is thrown off, doesn't the object ejected spin in the same direction of rotation?
We can infer the Moon's beginning distance at any distance we want, which is somewhat to the point of the OP. With the Moon closer by 4.5 b.y. life on Earth would not have been possible until recent age.
It appears you may not understand either the terms "Expert", or the concept of an individual believing they have more knowledge than yourself. Upon active review of your postings and opinions it seems clear to me that your understanding of many things does not work well when placed against verified data in the sciences. I am most certainly not an expert in the field (any really), but I do know enough from personal research to feel comfortable stating you are not either. The difference I see here would be the ways in which your commentary is presented, as it comes off in a way that conveys seemingly undeserved confidence.
Considering I was amongst the first to answer it....it is "Likely", I did not miss it. "Likely our moon had incredible effect on the Earth during the fist billion years of it's existence. It is also likely the planet had far less liquid at that time and was relatively molten. This probably meant a fluid surface that shifted regularly before solidifying somewhat. As the crust cooled and the moon moved further away in orbit, the combination of Cometary impact and water vapor allowed for ocean formation which furthered the cooling to an extent. Over another couple billion years the surface became cooled enough to allow for a solid crust and tectonic plate formation which created basins for the liquid water to settle and begin erosion of the crust. This began the process of soil development which eventually created a base for organic material to develop complexity...the rest is pretty strait forward. " Please note the use of the words "Likely, and "Probably", which would indicate opinion formed by the data within it.. Also...you seriously need to work on sarcastic attempts at debasement, should you continue I would be happy to show you how it is done.
Not to my mind, it isn't. Too much room for wild speculation. I will say, however, that the puny eccentricity of the Moon's orbit suggests that its initial trajectory, if it resulted from a collision, was similar to that of man-launched satellites. Yes, but there is no transfer of momentum. The object has the same internal angular momentum as it did before it was ejected, and the angular momentum of the turntable is unchanged - assuming the ejection is wholly a consequence of relieving the centripetal force on the ejected object.
You have shown no such thing. 4.5 billion years ago, the Moon was only about half the distance it is today, making tidal forces stronger, but nowhere near the 1,000 stronger forces you've suggested.
I was about to write a response that it's almost the right formula. You can derive it from differentiating Newton's gravity formula across the radius of the body and get the correct answer. I can work it out if you want. That answer is just an estimate assuming a point source, but works pretty well if the distance between the objects is much greater than the radius of the object.
The whole point here is the Moon could not have been inside what is termed the Roche limit. Wiki says that is the radius that a planetary object will disintegrate. The Moon travels a distance of 1.4 million miles per lunar month at 2,288 m.p,h. At that velocity, it certainly should regress more than 4 cm/yr if the Moon was touching (collided with) the Earth at one time. If the Moon was captured, it would seem it would need to be within the maximum gravitational forces to keep it within the Earth' orbit. How much more I don't know, the calculation earlier of the angular momentum caused by tidal and gravitational forces. Is that correct? My point is, by extrapolating the regression from the Earth's surface or just outside of the Roche limit of the Moon and going back 4.5 b.y.a. the numbers do not seem to compute.
However the Moon was formed, it certainly didn't get into a stable orbit solely from pulling on the Earth like it does today. If it was formed from a collision, it obviously had enough momentum to put itself (or its pieces) in a stable orbit and not destroy both bodies in the process. I'm not sure what you mean by the trajectory of man-launched satellites. We have man made satellites in all sorts of orbits.
This is a reference in the research I am doing on this: "Robert C. Humes in his book Introduction to Space Science (John Wiley, 1971) acknowledges the problem and states that "The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative." Dr. Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology treats this problem in great detail and concludes that "the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem.""
In the past it didn't recede as fast. I believe the average over several billion years is estimated at around 2.2 cm/year. That would move the Moon around 100,000 km over 4.5 billion years, or an orbit of 285,000 km compared to 385,000 km today. Not even half, about 3/4. The Roche Limit for the Moon is about 18,000 km from the center of the Earth. Not even close.
It also says that radius is not more than 20,000 Km for the Earth-Moon system. Who ever theorized that the Moon ever orbited that close? What does one have to do with the other? What does that have to do with the Moon's current velocity or recession? Looks "not even wrong" from here. 4.5 * 10^9 yr * 4 cm/yr = 180,000 km. Subtract that from 350,000 km at perigee and you have the Moon orbiting at 170,000 km minimum, which is over 8 times the Roche limit. So I don't see the problem. I doubt we have many orbiting Earth with large eccentricities. Anyway, it was off the top of my head, probably not worth messing around with too much.
You may be right with the math, it just seems if the velocity is equal (it seems it should be greater) and closer to the Earth, it would pull away quicker.
The velocity would be greater closer to the Earth. Keep in mind though that the velocity or an orbiting body is considered the tangential velocity, that is to say parallel to the surface of the Earth if you will. As long as that velocity remains constant the Moon will not move further or closer (thinking about a circular orbit only). What's counter-intuitive and hard to understand (I think) about orbital mechanics is that if you increase the tangential speed, you move to a higher orbit but as you transition to the orbit you lose kinetic energy and slow down below your initial speed. It's even more odd with highly eccentric elliptical orbits. For instance, spacecraft will apply thrust at perigee to change the apogee and apply thrust at apogee to change perigee.
I believe the predominant theory relates to how tidal forces react with the oceans. Shallow oceans provide more torque to slow down the Earth's rotation than deep oceans in reaction to tidal forces. In the past the continents were together in one super continent and the ocean statistically deeper, but as the continents spread out there were more shallow continental shelves and shorelines over the Earth's surface.
