The devastation due to tsunami on moon may count lower if the moon was habitable

[suntrack2]

This is I am saying. If the moon was habitable and having some sea's on it, and if there the tsunami erupt in the sea the devastation may be count on the lower level but as far as tides are concern they could irrupt on great levels, but due to a lesser gravitational pressure on the tides the speed of falling tide can count on the lower level! in all the total things caught in the tides.

The tsunami tide X 1/6 in its weight, so the aggregate weight of the raised tide may minimize and hence the devastation shall be lower in such case.

We know that moon has no sea's, not habitable etc.

I am saying this one "for example".

What corner of thought would you like to give in this case.

[NEOWatcher]

If the moon was habitable and having some sea's on it, and if there the tsunami erupt in the sea

That's a real big if.

But; tsunamis are a problem in any environment anyway. As far as the tides are concerned, they are continuous, so any civilization will learn to live with it. (Bay of Fundy as an example)

And, add in the fact that there is a 2 week period for a tide to go in or out. Lot's of time there.

[hhEb09'1]

But; tsunamis are a problem in any environment anyway. As far as the tides are concerned, they are continuous, so any civilization will learn to live with it. (Bay of Fundy as an example)

Since the moon is fairly dead, the tsunamis might be much smaller. There are earthquakes, though, and they might cause earthslides that trigger larger tsunamis. Assuming that the seas had built up such structures, of course.

And, add in the fact that there is a 2 week period for a tide to go in or out. Lot's of time there.

Because the earth has greater mass than the moon, the tides will be larger by that factor of what 81? But the moon being smaller radius makes the tides smaller by that factor, of 4. And since the moon is tide-locked, there is very little in the shift that would cause tides, except for that which would be associated with libration.

Of course, tsunamis are not tidal waves, really.

[NEOWatcher]

And since the moon is tide-locked, there is very little in the shift that would cause tides, except for that which would be associated with libration.

Ouch, I can't believe I got that wrong... Holiday weekend thinking, I imagine.

[Argos]

On a hypothetical geologically active planet with the gravity of the Moon [think of an earth-sized less dense planet] containing an ocean, the water column would weight less. So a tsunami [which is caused by the uplift of the ocean floor] could be potentially bigger, methinks.

[hhEb09'1]

On a hypothetical geologically active planet with the gravity of the Moon [think of an earth-sized less dense planet] containing an ocean, the water column would weight less. So a tsunami [which is caused by the uplift of the ocean floor] could be potentially bigger, methinks.

I don't think it's so much as weight, as displacement. But that displacement might be affected by the angle of repose, say, of submarine shelves. And it could go either way then.

[Argos]

But wouldnŽt the weight of the water exert a pressure on the floor, limiting the upward displacement?

[mugaliens]

Wave velocity is a function of the fluid, the wavelength, and the gravitational pull. Amplitude in a deep see is dependant on simply the force of the wave and the gravitational pull.

The greater the gravitational pull, the smaller the amplitude but the faster the velocity of the wave.

Thus, waves on the moon would have a greater amplitude, but move much slower.

As for tides, the only tide it would experience would be due to the sun, but with a rotation of once per 28 days, the tides wouldn't exactly occur very rapidly... But as someone noted, because of the moon's lesser gravity, the difference between low and high tide would be significantly larger.

[MAPNUT]

The tides on the moon would be analogous to the spring and neap tides on Earth. In other words they would occur twice a month, with highs when the earth and sun's gravity pull in line, and minima when earth and sun's gravity pull at right angles.

[hhEb09'1]

But as someone noted, because of the moon's lesser gravity, the difference between low and high tide would be significantly larger.

The solar tide, at earth/moon distance is less than a third that of the spring tide. Since the moon is a quarter of the size of the earth, the tide would be reduced by a factor of four. Lunar gravity is a sixth. Back of the envelope, that would be about 1/3 x 1/4 x 6, or half. About 50 cm, top to bottom.

The tides on the moon would be analogous to the spring and neap tides on Earth. In other words they would occur twice a month, with highs when the earth and sun's gravity pull in line, and minima when earth and sun's gravity pull at right angles.

The earth's pull results in an almost permanent deformation, except for libration, meaning no noticeable tide contribution.

[Argos]

But wouldnŽt the weight of the water exert a pressure on the floor, limiting the upward displacement?

Well, this question was made in earnest, reflecting my ignorance, not irony. IŽd like to know if the weight of the ocean above the plaque is negligible, when it comes to [limiting] the upward displacement of the ocean floor. IŽd like somebody to answer [hhEb09'1 ?], since IŽm having a hard time trying to find it [maybe because the answer is "yes, it is negligible"].

IŽm finding though, that tsunamis can be generated by a downward displacement too.

[suntrack2]

thanks argos and other friends here in this topic for the replies, all thoughts are precious and possitive and can be apply, "Argos your last line is important "tsunamis can be generated by a downward displacement". One of my friend said last time, that tsunamis can be generated 1. due to the addition of the mass into the water, 2. due to the disturbance in the plates, 3. due to a particular location fault at a specific place in the underwater of the sea, 4. due to a horrible tycoon in the sea. in replying against his possibilities, only I could do "my mouth with a great 'O".