88

Why doesn't the Moon fall onto the Earth? For that matter, why doesn't anything rotating a larger body ever fall onto the larger body?

knzhou
  • 101,976
Adir Peretz
  • 1,023
  • 70
    It is falling. That is why it moves. – Dr. belisarius Apr 24 '11 at 05:40
  • 6
    http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/5905/ – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 24 '11 at 14:42
  • 4
    @belisarius - the fall is not the reason it moves. But it is the reason for it constantly making the turn... – ysap May 17 '11 at 23:11
  • I don't know why, but how is easier to explain. Initial conditions ! a perpendicular component on the x axis that joins the earth and the moon centres. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation. – Alex Jan 22 '14 at 12:06
  • 9
  • What's the curved space-time/general relativity explanation for this? – Hamman Samuel Feb 14 '16 at 10:04
  • 2
    @HammanSamuel In GR, the Moon isn't being accelerated at all. It just goes in a "straight line". On the other hand, you aren't falling through the Earth because you're being accelerated - you're not moving "in a straight line". It's not something very easy to understand, I'm afraid - it requires accepting that spacetime isn't just a some mix of space and time; it's the spacetime as a whole that's being curved, and the curvature means that the "direct" path between two points is curved as well (far more than the curvature of space on its own, if you tried to separate it). – Luaan Jun 16 '16 at 15:12
  • Once you get past the basic physics of orbits (either viewed from a newtonian or general relativistic perspective), the moon is actually moving away from the Earth. The tidal bulge in the Earth, caused by the moon's gravity, is slowing down the spin of the Earth (due to friction). This bulge is slightly ahead of the moon's orbit and transfers energy to the moon's "orbital energy". There is a good article explaining this here http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12311119. – Jack R. Woods Mar 03 '17 at 16:24
  • I fully realise the attraction in the simplistic notion, proposed by Newton, that an orbiting body is falling. It is a superficially plausible and attractively simple idea. But the truth is very different, and does not involve a fall. An orbiting body must possess sufficient momentum (read: velocity), and sufficient outwards motion/direction (read: angular momentum), to prevent it falling. Its direction of motion is always away from the central mass, such that if gravity failed (e.g. the planet exploded!) the satellite's momentum would carry it away (never down). – Ed999 May 23 '19 at 15:43
  • I think that. although the moon's perceptibly in what we'd call "free fall", its orbit might decay through the resistance to its mass that occurs because of its passage thru a nearly imperceptible medium of stray protons & electrons: That resistance might be countered by some of the particles in that medium pushing the moon in the opposite direction, but the net effect would take a duration of time that our observations aren't capable of detecting. Opinions to the contrary would be much appreciated, and harmless to those providing them, as "comments" on PSE do not affect "reputation". – Edouard Sep 06 '22 at 23:21

9 Answers9

129

The moon does not fall to Earth because it is in an orbit.

One of the most difficult things to learn about physics is the concept of force. Just because there is a force on something does not mean it will be moving in the direction of the force. Instead, the force influences the motion to be a bit more in the direction of the force than it was before.

For example, if you roll a bowling ball straight down a lane, then run up beside it and kick it towards the gutter, you apply a force towards the gutter, but the ball doesn't go straight into the gutter. Instead it keeps going down the lane, but picks up a little bit of diagonal motion as well.

Imagine you're standing at the edge of a cliff 100m tall. If you drop a rock off, it will fall straight down because it had no velocity to begin with, so the only velocity it picks up is downward from the downward force.

If you throw the rock out horizontally, it will still fall, but it will keep moving out horizontally as it does so, and falls at an angle. (The angle isn't constant - the shape is a curve called a parabola, but that's relatively unimportant here.) The the force is straight down, but that force doesn't stop the rock from moving horizontally.

If you throw the rock harder, it goes further, and falls at a shallower angle. The force on it from gravity is the same, but the original velocity was much bigger and so the deflection is less.

Now imagine throwing the rock so hard it travels one kilometer horizontally before it hits the ground. If you do that, something slightly new happens. The rock still falls, but it has to fall more than just 100m before it hits the ground. The reason is that the Earth is curved, and so as the rock traveled out that kilometer, the Earth was actually curving away underneath of it. In one kilometer, it turns out the Earth curves away by about 10 centimeters - a small difference, but a real one.

As you throw the rock even harder than that, the curving away of the Earth underneath becomes more significant. If you could throw the rock 10 kilometers, the Earth would now curve away by 10 meters, and for a 100 km throw the Earth curves away by an entire kilometer. Now the stone has to fall a very long way down compared to the 100m cliff it was dropped from.

Check out the following drawing. It was made by Isaac Newton, the first person to understand orbits. IMHO it is one of the greatest diagrams ever made.

enter image description here

What it shows is that if you could throw the rock hard enough, the Earth would curve away from underneath the rock so much that the rock actually never gets any closer to the ground. It goes all the way around in the circle and might hit you in the back of the head!

This is an orbit. It's what satellites and the moon are doing. We can't actually do it here close to the surface of the Earth due to wind resistance, but on the surface of the moon, where there's no atmosphere, you could indeed have a very low orbit.

This is the mechanism by which things "stay up" in space.

Gravity gets weaker as you go further out. The Earth's gravity is much weaker at the moon than at a low-earth orbit satellite. Because gravity is so much weaker at the moon, the moon orbits much more slowly than the International Space Station, for example. The moon takes one month to go around. The ISS takes a few hours. An interesting consequence is that if you go out just the right amount in between, about six Earth radii, you reach a point where gravity is weakened enough that an orbit around the Earth takes 24 hours. There, you could have a "geosynchronous orbit", a satellite that orbits so that it stays above the same spot on Earth's equator as Earth spins.

Although gravity gets weaker as you go further out, there is no cut-off distance. In theory, gravity extends forever. However, if you went towards the sun, eventually the sun's gravity would be stronger than the Earth's, and then you wouldn't fall back to Earth any more, even lacking the speed to orbit. That would happen if you went about .1% of the distance to the sun, or about 250,000 km, or 40 Earth radii. (This is actually less than the distance to the moon, but the moon doesn't fall into the Sun because it's orbiting the sun, just like the Earth itself is.)

So the moon "falls" toward Earth due to gravity, but doesn't get any closer to Earth because its motion is an orbit, and the dynamics of the orbit are determined by the strength of gravity at that distance and by Newton's laws of motion.

note: adapted from an answer I wrote to a similar question on quora

Mark Eichenlaub
  • 52,955
  • 15
  • 140
  • 238
  • 2
    The first sentence contradicts itself in that orbital motion is a state of free fall toward the center of attraction. Then, in the final paragraph, the first sentence contradicts the very first sentence. A beginner would have a difficult time with this logic. –  Jan 14 '13 at 17:05
  • 10
    No, it doesn't contradict itself. "Fall to Earth" means, to any cognizant reader, the same as "crash into Earth" in that sentence. Further, this phrasing mimics the language of the question. Words like "fall" can mean different things in contexts. Most people are able to understand this. – Mark Eichenlaub Jan 14 '13 at 20:45
  • It is indeed contradictory. "Falling to Earth" and "crashing into Earth" are two entirely different things. A ball can fall without crashing into Earth, but it cannot crash into Earth without first falling. Words, especially in physics, must be as unambiguous as possible. And by the way, I'm quite cognizant thank you. –  Jan 15 '13 at 14:09
  • 1
    Indeed, most illuminating answer. That rise another question to me, why does not the moon (or another large body) lost the speed needed to be in orbit (other than resistances forces). Or does she, the moon lost speed? – sabotero Feb 25 '15 at 09:25
  • 2
    @sabotero, why would the moon lose speed? There's no air friction to slow it down. – Joe Apr 28 '15 at 17:39
  • @Joe, well, i don't know, doesn't she? There are others forces like earth gravity. I was seeking for an explanation for why actually she does not lost speed, is she accelerated at each turn around the earth? – sabotero Apr 29 '15 at 07:08
  • If the earth suddenly disappeared, the moon would continue in a straight line. The earth's gravity pulls the moon's straight path into a curved arc. – Joe Apr 29 '15 at 07:41
  • @sabotero In newtonian physics, Earth's gravity is exactly the thing that keeps the Moon in orbit - that's what curves its path. Tidal forces do slow down the Moon, but at the same time, it moves on a wider orbit, so it stays in a circular orbit. In fact, that's how Moon's rotation got synchronized to Earth's in the first place (that's why you can only see the near side of the Moon, give or take 5% of surface area). Eventually, this would cause the Earth to also become locked to the Moon's rotation if we could ignore a few things that mess this up. – Luaan Jun 16 '16 at 15:27
  • The answer contains a flaw (not in the logic borrowed from Newton!), in that paragraph 4 talks about "dropping" the rock. But this subsequently becomes a (mysterious) "downward force". If the rock is hurled downwards, I can see a force; but not if it is merely dropped. The rock, logically, merely follows the path of least resistance (when released). Gravity might superficially resemble a force, but really no force in the usual sense is being applied. Only a reduction (at the quantum level) in the resistance of the medium in a specific direction, caused by the presence of mass. – Ed999 Sep 30 '19 at 19:32
  • Newton theorised that an object in motion (e.g. a particle) will continue that motion unless acted upon by a force, known as "conservation of momentum". That theory nevertheless conflicted with his theory of gravitation, in which a particle accelerates in a gravitational field without any application of force (if by force we understand him to mean an injection of energy). It is the medium's response to that momentum which changes. – Ed999 Sep 30 '19 at 19:41
  • Einstein rejected Newton's theory as too simplistic, and we should be wary of rejecting Einstein's deeper insight into the principles of gravitation. – Ed999 Sep 30 '19 at 19:53
  • Momentum ceases to be a simplistic matter of mass multiplied by velocity, because, in a gravitational field, velocity is a variable factor, dependent upon the particle's location within the field. It is only mass which is genuinely invariant. The field's response is varying with distance from the centre of the mass generating it, and with the angular motion of the particle. Momentum is a variable factor, varying with velocity, which in turn is varying with the condition (the "response") of the field. – Ed999 Sep 30 '19 at 20:07
  • I think the answer is very comprehensive. However I’m still unsure whether it answers the essence of the question. Which is really about the equilibrium of the forces. Why are they so balanced and surely they were in a less balanced state and therefore one would override the other. It’s the pure equilibrium that baffles me – Harvey Jan 21 '22 at 23:31
27

Moon is continuously falling towards earth but missing all the time! Same with other planets too.

In general, in an inverse square central force field one can calculate the trajectory of a particle and verify that the trajectory is either a parabola or ellipse or hyperbola (conic sections) depending upon the initial position and initial momentum of the particle. For a two body system with certain initial conditions, it is a stable elliptical orbit. In case of the sun and the earth it is an ellipse (ignoring gravitation of other objects and also ignoring the relativistic precision of orbit).

This page has a nice video.

10

The truth is that the moon IS constantly trying to fall upon the earth, due to the force of gravity; but it is constantly missing, due to its tangential velocity.

To understand this, think of whirling a rock, tied to the end of a string, around and around, with your hand just above your head. As the rock travels in circles it is constantly being pulled toward you by the force on the string (which is like Earth's pull of gravity on the moon). Why doesn't the rock come bonk you on the head, if you are constantly pulling it toward your head? The answer is that the rock is always trying to change its velocity vector to come do just that; but the change is only enough to just keep it in a circular path, like the pull on the Moon is just enough to keep it in a circular orbit around Earth.

Vintage
  • 4,991
  • 2
  • 16
  • 15
7

Another way to look at it: In the frame of reference of earth, the moon has angular momentum. Angular momentum is preserved if no torque is applied ($\tau=dL/dt$).

The gravity forces between earth and the moon are in the direction of the center of mass, so they produce no torque ($\tau=mv\times R$), so the angular momentum ($L$) cannot change.

Gravity is perpendicular to the moon's speed, so it changes the direction and not the magnitude of the speed itself. $L=mv\times R$ and if $L$, $m$ and $v$ are constant, $R$ must remain constant as well, so the radius doesn't change.

Uri
  • 2,060
  • 2
  • 21
  • 22
  • 5
    I agree, but there is some sleight of hand going on in the phrase "gravity is perpendicular to the moon's speed", which itself essentially assumes a circular orbit. – Mark Eichenlaub Apr 24 '11 at 19:39
  • Angular momentum around the center of mass has to be conserved and it is the original angular momentum that the creation of the solar system gave to the moon earth system, the orbitswould be steady, except though tide transfer angular momentum to the moon the moon is slowly receding. – anna v Apr 05 '17 at 08:08
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Tidal_effects: This "drains" angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy from Earth's spin, slowing the Earth's rotation.[138][140] That angular momentum, lost from the Earth, is transferred to the Moon in a process (confusingly known as tidal acceleration), which lifts the Moon into a higher orbit and results in its lower orbital speed about the Earth. Thus the distance between Earth and Moon is increasing, and the Earth's spin is slowing in reaction. – anna v Apr 05 '17 at 08:10
5

The best simple answer I can think of are this: An orbit of one body of an another is essentially a degree of balance among forces, real and fictitious. These would include centripetal force (gravity) attracting the orbiting body ("the fall") and centrifugal force which arises out of the orbiting body's inertia (the orbiting body's tendency to remain in a constant linear motion away from the body it is orbiting). In General Relativistic terms, the orbit is the result of a body moving in a straight line through the curved space that exists around the more massive body. If the lesser body moves with the sufficient combination of momentum and distance it will continue to pass the more massive body onto other regions of space. If that combination is not sufficient to overcome the curvature of space in the region around the more massive body then the lesser body will continue it's tendency to travel in a straight line but it must it do so in a curved space that it cannot "escape". If it has a sufficient minimum momentum, it's tendency to move in a straight line away from the more massive body will overcome the downward curvature. These two conditions will cause the lesser body, per Newton, to become the perpetual satellite of the more massive body because the lesser body must stay in motion unless an equal and opposite force is applied to it's motion. The lesser body doesn't experience resistance from friction or air in space and the gravitational force is perpendicular, not opposite to the motion of the lesser body so absent an equal and opposite force, the lesser body continues its trek about the more massive body indefinitely while it's momentum is in balance with the massive body's gravity.

Jaleel
  • 51
1

The original question is:

Why doesn't the Moon, or for that matter anything rotating another larger body, ever fall into the larger body?

Others have answered that the centrifugal forces equal the centripetal forces, so the moon stays in an orbit of the earth.

Satellites orbit the earth for the same reason. However, satellite orbits sometimes decay, so the satellite "orbit" changes to a collapsing spiral, and eventually the satellites do come back down to earth (normally burning up from atmospheric friction). Orbits can end in the other direction too, where the satellite moves away from earth in an enlarging spiral, eventually escaping earth's gravity entirely.

Charles
  • 81
1

The Moon does not fall towards Earth right now because Earth rotates itself. The energy from the Earth's own rotation around its axis is gradually tranferred into energy of the Moon's orbital motion. That's why the Earth's rotating speed decreases but the distance to the Moon increases.

This process will continue until Earth's proper rotation will slow to the point where it has the same angular velocity as the Moon's orbital motion. From that moment on the Moon will start to gradually approach Earth.

Anixx
  • 11,159
  • 4
    This is not an answer to the question. The Moon's orbit would be virtually unchanged, even if the Earth weren't rotating about its axis. – Ted Bunn Apr 24 '11 at 13:10
  • If the Earth weren't rotating about its axis, the Moon would start to fall on Earth. – Anixx Apr 24 '11 at 13:21
  • 1
    But it'd never get there ... the Earth would start rotating faster until it was in lunasyncronous rotation (always keeping the same face to the moon), at which point the Moon would stop falling. – Peter Shor Apr 24 '11 at 15:37
  • To become lunasynchrous the Earth should rotate slower, not faster. After the rotation becomes lunasynchrous, the Moon will start approach Earth. – Anixx Apr 24 '11 at 18:21
  • @Anixx: Would you be so kind as to explain what mechanism you believe would be responsible for that? – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 26 '11 at 17:24
  • @dmckee For what? – Anixx Apr 27 '11 at 09:53
  • @Anixx: For the approach after reaching mutual tidal lock. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 27 '11 at 15:15
  • 4
    Well 1) there will still be tidal friction due the librations. Thus the Moon's orbit will gradually approach the form of circle father than ellipse 2) There will be tidal influence of the Sun which will slower the rotation of Earth-Moon system (and the rotation of the Earth alone) 3) There will be interaction with interplanetary medium (gas and dust) which will slower the rotation 4) The Earth-Moon system will emit gravitational waves and thus part or rotational energy will be emitted. – Anixx Apr 27 '11 at 16:56
  • @Anixx Thanks. The obviously intentional lack of maturity of this forum is disconcerting. – babou Jul 02 '13 at 09:44
0

as we know that the moon is revolving around the earth in circular path where centripetal force is developed by the gravitation and then outward force the outcome of the circular motion "centrifugal force is balancing the centripetal force.

-3

One point which these answers miss concerns frame dragging.

The planet Earth is a massive body, therefore it generates (or causes) gravity; but it is also a rotating body. The Moon, being close enough to the Earth to be captured by the Earth's gravity, so that it is in orbit, is nonetheless not so close that its orbital motion is retarded by contact with atmospheric molecules (which cause a drag - a deceleration - on objects in low Earth orbit).

Because the Moon is in a prograde orbit (i.e. it is orbiting in the same direction as the Earth is rotating), the Earth's (rotating) gravity is continuously accelerating the Moon (because the Earth rotates 28 times in the time the Moon takes to rotate once: i.e. 28 days); so that, over time, the Moon's momentum is increasing -- such that it is getting further away from the Earth: a phenomenon historically termed frame dragging or rotation dragging.

This type of acceleration was identified by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity, and is fairly well understood. The Moon becomes a few inches further from the Earth over the course of a hundred years, so gradually is moving towards escaping from its orbit, but theory predicts that because the effect is so slow the solar system will cease to exist before sufficient time can pass for the effect to cause the Moon to actually escape from Earth orbit.

This acceleration applies to any natural or artificial body in a (prograde) orbit about a planetary mass which is rotating (and if the orbit is retrograde the same effect will decelerate it).

So the real answer to the original question is that it is impossible for a satellite in a stable orbit about a body of planetary mass to fall out of the sky, unless (a) the planet is not rotating, or (b) the planetary atmosphere causes drag effects on the satellite, or (c) the satellite is in a retrograde orbit. Where none of these things occur, it is impossible for the distance between the satellite and the planet to decrease, because the satellite's momentum cannot decrease, so its outward motion (i.e. its angular momentum) cannot lessen.

Ed999
  • 157
  • Frame dragging is real, but it is an incredibly tiny effect near the Earth and is not responsible for the changes in the Moon's orbit that you describe. Those are due to the tides and may be derived in Newtonian gravity. – Eric Smith Mar 04 '24 at 21:58