What would be the positive and negative reprocussions of eliminating the moon?
478886
No tides (not true) \nNo intertidal zone (not true) \nNo eclipses \nDarker skies for astronomy \nSome animals affected (such as salmon and turtles) \nDifferent night creatures \nNo gravity (not true) \nMore impacts on Earth by space debris \nNo lunar calendar \nNo lunar phases \nWorse surfing \nDarker nights \nDifferent name for "lunatics'' \nNo lunar fables (werewolves and so on) \nNo nearby place for astronauts to go \nA lost vehicle for romance \nA lost theme for love songs \nNo Man in the Moon \nThe day would be eight hours long. \nThe winds would be much stronger.\nhttp://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/33/33.html\n\nFYI \nThe Moon is moving away from the earth which is why the question is in theory with scientists..The Moon is receding at 2 inches per year\n\nAs for your unintelligent insult on which you are trying to be supreme, you have no CLUE...\n\nIn 1897 George Darwin, son of Charles, suggested that tides are causing the Moon to spiral AWAY FROM US. His hypothesis was CONFIRMED in 1969 after the Apollo 12 astronauts placed corner reflectors (like the red and orange ones on a car) on the Moon. By firing lasers from Earth to the Moon, off the corner reflectors, and back again, astronomers measured the round-trip time and, hence, the distance to the Moon. Repeating the experiment over several years, they confirmed Darwin's prediction. The Moon is receding at 2 inches per year.\n\nSo instead of trying to sound politically correct find facts to the basis of your answer DORK..\nSo here is an explaination of why our days would be 8 hrs long.Earth loses angular momentum because the high tide closest to the Moon is trying to get back directly underneath the Moon, while the high tide farthest from the Moon is trying to get as far away from the Moon as possible. Consequently, the high tides flow westward, and in so doing, they encounter continents and islands. The water pushes against these land masses, which, because of rotation, are moving eastward. The net result is that the eastward rotation is retarded by the westward motion of the tides -- slowing down the rotation. The day is getting longer by about 0.002 seconds per century. It doesn't sound like much, but over billions of years it adds up. Not that you would understand..\n\nNone of your previous questions have been intelligent..
895439
Depends if china can make it there. I dont think any country can controll the moon.  The moon will end up being indepent of it self, just like the americas are today.
678509
I would guess that it would slow down as some water is redistributed toward the equator.  This slowing would be imperceptable without the use of atomic clocks.  It would also be affected in another way.\nThe effect of the moon's gravity on the oceans is causing the rotation of the earth to slow.  Kind of a drag.  One day, the earth and moon will be in locked step, with the moon in the same place in the sky 24 hours a day.
223766
It's sustainable as long as the Moon makes tides.  In fact it's being done - I think in France for one.  Google it and you'll find more.
1150339
It'd depend more on what forced the moon out of it's typical orbit.  If something slowed the moon then the moon would gradually fall to earth be a relatively smooth landing  probably destroying a lot of disruption where it lands and over most of the planet not to mention throwing off the equal libream of our axis causing the to rotate and wobble in random patterns until balanced again.  If it was forced very quickly it could shatter the planet, the planet would most likely pull back together but you could kiss all life goodbye, except very resilient bacteria. Refer to Mimas a moon that orbits around Saturn, also referred to as the death star moon.  Hope I helped
1150250
Well, if there were a zodiac sign for people born "in the house of MOON," I'd put my money on that one.\n\nThe moon has an affect on tides, and so could physically have an impact on organisms on earth (unlike constellations light-years away) and I've heard people who work in psych wards say that things get busy around the full moon.
1028524
The force would be 1/4 what it is now (since gravity follows an inverse-square of distance law). As it is, moon's gravity has next to no effect on our weight on earth, so weight change would be unnoticable. The main effect would be on the tides. Rather than being the primary determinant of tide height, as it is now, the moon would be a secondary influence and the sun would be the primary. This would reduce tidal heights by (very roughly) one half.
967927
No Moon: Very Very Dark at night, The oceans would to move.\n\n2 Moons: Bright, the oceans and weather would be in chaos\n\n3 Moons: Probably chaotic unhevels major differences from now\n\nThe Moon affects everything on earth: From when planets bloom, the when the seasons change, to tidal movements, to Animal behavior, to cosmic catcher(the moon traps: 80% of all meoters inbound for earth)\n\nThe list is profounding\n\nGood question\n\nI added a few links to put it in science terms
906377
The moon would eventually collide with the Earth if it weren't for the fact that both the Earth and the Moon will be incinerated by the expanding Sun before that happens, making this kind of question academic.
645192
No, there's nothing really to see on the moon, and the environment is a bit harsh to do much of anything without a spacesuit.\n\nMaybe in a few hundred years, we will have more advanced technology that lets us visit other places more easily.
78893
all the answers yet provided were all quite valid.\nhere's something else for y'all to consider though... and that is the amount of debris that our atmosphere shields us from.  you see, upon entering the atmosphere as high speeds, it creates friction, which begets heat, and that burns up the particle in question.\n\nso.. like.. uh..  the moon has no atmosphere.  that means any habitation is going to bear the full brunt of such debris...  it's not very pleasant at breakfast to have a meteor smash through your roof, especially when that roof was keeping all your oxygen inside......
469805
Not much.  The moon was not significantly that much closer to the Earth only 400 million years ago.  As such, while the tides would have been slightly higher and lower, there would not have been enough of a difference to make anything different for life.\n\nIn short four hundred million years ago the gravitational effects of the moon played the exact same roll they do today.
960677
Yeah, I was born just in time to see the last apollo mission fly there.\n\nWill they go back? I sure hope so.  Just because there's no oil doesn't mean it's a worthless rock.  That worthless rock can be built into electronics, and solar panels.  A band of bottom line quality solar panels of a kilometer in width made to span the equator of the moon would put out a third of the energy needs for the world today.  There's a lot of lunar surface out there, and microwave relay stations can send that power anywhere you want.\n\nThere's also the whole helium three thing, but I dunno if that's really going to work or not.\n\nAnd of course, there's space tourism.  The old folks are sure to love spending some time on the moon, what with the romance of a full earth in view, and one sixth gravity to help them get around (and get it on!)\n\nPlus, the earth is so close, that you could use remote controlled robots operated by people on earth to do the construction work, so lunar colonies could make for more jobs down here.
403604
it would probably cause widespread earthquakes and tsunamis, and it is possible that dust from the explosion ejected into the upper atmosphere could cause reduction in daylight . The physical effects could kill millions of people and destroy cities and towns. There could be extinctions of vulnerable plant and animal species. However in the long term, plant and animal life would recover, there would likely be a 'evolution explosion' as plants and animals move quickly to recolonise devastated areas.\n\n'Civilisation' as such would not be set back, as no knowledge would be lost, it would not be comparable to living in 1806, electricity, automobiles and so on, would not have to be discovered or reinvented, however human priorities would be altered in the short term with survival, food and shelter being most important
485410
There would still be some tides, but they would be much, much more calm, as the sun only has about 10% (if not less) of the effect on the waters that the moon does.  Other than that, probably not too much.  No more moonlight.
442996
THe main issue with the Moon being the same size as the earth is that the moon would no longer be pulled in by the earth's gravitional pull. The planets would either settle into seperate orbits or collide and kill us all.\n\nThat aside, the size of Earth is one factor determing wether or not life is supportable. Other important factors are the tilt (has to be within 3 degrees if I remeber correcctly) and it's distance from the sun. \n\nI have heard of the theory of an 'anti-earth', a tehrotical earth on the oppsite side of our orbit with the same chactersitics as our planet and therefore capable of life. This might be starying into the realm oif sci-fi though
274565
How would earth-without-a-moon differ from the earth we know? Some of the changes are obvious: nights would be darker, and tides would be lower (but not nonexistent; the sun's gravitational pull on the earth would still generate tides, though they would only be about a third as high as those created by the moon and the sun together). Other changes are more surprising: over time, the moon's tidal drag has acted as a brake on the earth's rotation; without it, Comins estimates, the earth would spin as much as three times faster, so that a year on earth-without-a-moon would consist of 1,095 eight-hour days. This faster spin would in turn result in near-constant hurricane-force east-to-west winds. The increased sloshing of the earth's molten core would generate a stronger magnetic field, deflecting more of the solar wind and possibly altering the chemistry of the earth's atmosphere.