scotth, keep in mind that the Earth hasn’t always been rotating at the same rate, either, so a geosynchronous orbit would be lower then than it is today. Of course, this still doesn’t get the Moon down to the surface of the planet, but it gets it a little closer.
And the Earth would lock to the Moon quicker than to the Sun, since the Moon’s tides are about twice as strong, but it would still take longer than the lifetime of the solar system. None of the other planets would be able to lock to moons, since they have more smaller moons. Venus is in the process of becomming locked to the Sun, but I don’t know how long that’s expected to take.
I did have that in mind, but left it out for simplicity. I did include that fact in the email I sent to author of the paper.
It is reassuring that neither you nor the Bad Astronomer showed me that I had my foot completely in one or orifice or another. The explanations were made without outside reference. I had read about energy convservation and the basic tidal effects, but the rest about the transfer of energy between the bodies was deduced on the spot.
I could not find a source for the statement that the moon was originally only 1/10 as far away, but it is not a crackpot theory. I heard it on Quirks and Quarks, the respected Canadian science program (CBC, radio 1, Saturdays noon-1). It was from a guy who wrote a book on what the earth would be like without a moon and was understood not to be a matter of any controversary.