Does the Moon Rotate?

[jtb]

Earth's magnetic field is supposedly generated due to rotation. The magnetic field is what supposedly contains Earth's atmosphere. Since no known tidally locked celestial bodies have a magnetic field or an atmosphere, could it be that they are not rotating?

Imagine a horse on an oval race track. An observer at the center of the track only sees one side of the horse. An observer in the stands sees all sides of the horse once.

If at some point on the track the rider makes the horse go in a circle and then continues to the end of the track, the observer in the stands would see all sides of the horse twice; once orbiting the center of the track and once rotating in a circle. The observer at the center would now see all sides of the horse once, but only while it was rotating.

If the rider made the horse go in 2 circles, the observer in the stands would see all sides of the horse 3 times: once orbiting the center of the track and twice rotating in a circle. The observer at the center would only see all sides of the horse while it was rotating.

An observer on the sun would see all sides of Earth ~365 times a year. A sidereal distant observer, ~366 times a year; once as a result of orbiting the sun and ~365 times as a result of actual rotation.

Subtract the ~365 actual rotations, and one side of Earth is continually facing the sun in its orbit. The same side of Venus is also always facing the sun. The same side of the moon is always facing Earth. One side of the horse is always facing the center of the track.

If all these objects are said to be rotating once per orbit, a non-rotating orbiting object is impossible. The observer at the center would not be able to distinguish between a non-rotating object and one rotating twice per orbit: all sides of the object would be visible once in both instances. Again, an absurdity.

An alternative: Start by considering orbiting objects continually facing the center as non-rotating. Observer at the center sees only one side; distant observer sees all sides once.

For an object rotating once per orbit, observer at the center sees all sides once; distant observer sees all sides twice.

For an object rotating twice per orbit, observer at the center sees all sides twice; distant observer sees all sides three times.

For an object rotating ~365 times per orbit, observer at the center sees all sides ~365 times; distant observer sees all sides ~366 times.

[jtb]

The moon rotates about its center of mass, or barycenter; not its axis, or imaginary axle.

I compare the moon to a horse on a merry-go-round (MGR). The barycenter of the moon is Earth. The barycenter of the horse is the central axle of the MGR. The horse rotates about its barycenter; not its axis (pole through its back). Junior, sitting on the horse, has no problem holding onto the pole because the horse and the pole are both changing direction simultaneously. The horse is not rotating on its pole. Observer at the barycenter only sees one side of the moon or the horse.

Its important to distinguish between orbital rotation (revolution) and axial rotation. Observed from a distance, both the moon and the horse appear to rotate once per orbit (all sides visible once). If the horse began rotating on its pole (axis) while orbiting, rotation rate would increase. Distant observer would see all sides of the horse more than once per orbit. Junior, sitting on the horse, wouldn't be able to hold onto the pole. The pole would be stationary as the horse rotates under him.

If any object is actually rotating on its axis once per orbit (tidal locking) as modern science contends, observer at the barycenter would not be able to distinguish between a non-rotating object and one rotating twice per orbit.

[viscount aero]

Earth's magnetic field is supposedly generated due to rotation. The magnetic field is what supposedly contains Earth's atmosphere. Since no known tidally locked celestial bodies have a magnetic field or an atmosphere, could it be that they are not rotating?

Titan is tidally locked to Saturn in its orbit and has an atmosphere.

Ganymede is tidally locked at Jupiter and has an internal magnetic field.

If you're still advocating for the non-existence of axial rotation of tidally locked bodies then you would be mistaken. The Moon rotates about an axis. It's rotational period and orbital period happen to be 1:1.

[jtb]

Thanks Viscount. Ganymede and Titan are evidence that rotation isn't necessary to produce a magnetic field and magnetic fields are not necessary to maintain an atmosphere. In another thread we discussed that atmospheres may be electrically locked to cosmic bodies.

Physics is the realm of the real. Tidal locking only works with an imaginary axle (axis).

An object is mounted on an axle and the axle is somehow attached to whatever it orbits. The axle orbits the barycenter; the object rotates on the axle. Tidal locking has the object (moon) locked to the barycenter with an imaginary rotating axle. Tidal locking only works in the imagination; not the real world.

[viscount aero]

Thanks Viscount. Ganymede and Titan are evidence that rotation isn't necessary to produce a magnetic field and magnetic fields are not necessary to maintain an atmosphere. In another thread we discussed that atmospheres may be electrically locked to cosmic bodies.

Physics is the realm of the real. Tidal locking only works with an imaginary axle (axis).

An object is mounted on an axle and the axle is somehow attached to whatever it orbits. The axle orbits the barycenter; the object rotates on the axle. Tidal locking has the object (moon) locked to the barycenter with an imaginary rotating axle. Tidal locking only works in the imagination; not the real world.

Well you're entitled to your opinion. The Moon shows the same face to Earth but that doesn't preclude axial rotation. Whatever causes the "locking" is up to debate. But this is about the Moon rotating on an axis, be it directly through the center or through the barycenter of its mass. Axes need not be directly through the geometric center of a body.

You can go in the opposite end of the spectrum and look at Venus. It's year is shorter than its day. So it has the opposite issue of Earth. Venus orbits the Sun more quickly than Venus turns on its axis. You could argue that the Earth's Moon rotates faster on its axis than Venus does on its axis.

But what you're saying, if I remember your position correctly, is that the Moon doesn't rotate on an axis.

But consider that Venus does rotate about an axis but does so slower than it does to make an orbit. Earth does and does it faster than it takes to make an orbit.

And again, per your reasoning, if a body is "locked" and shows the same face to its parent body then it ONLY orbits and doesn't rotate. So in the case of tidal locking, per your position, all rotation of the body ceases.

I see your point of view but do not agree. In the case of the Moon, it rotates in a 1:1 relationship of its axial rotation to orbit about the parent.

And that's an interesting topic about atmospheres (and off this topic). Suffice it to say, I think atmospheres derive from the bodies themselves. In other words, Earth's atmosphere is being created from within its mantle and ultimately from its core. The ocean (the water) and the sky derives from Earth's geologic cycles. There is ample evidence for this in hydrated silicates in the deep mantle, volcanism, and venting on land and in deep sea conditions. The water doesn't all flow and disappear into deep sea trenches and cracks because that is where it comes from.

In my opinion, the ocean and sky doesn't need a magnetic field to keep it held in place. As the air escapes to space it is replenished. This is what is happening on both on Mars and Titan. In those cases the bodies are being "mysteriously" replenished in methanogenic gases. But scientists cannot accept that oceans and atmospheres are created by the planets themselves. So they are always "baffled" and confused.

[jtb]

Viscount, I should have been more clear. When I used the term “barycenter” I meant the center of mass of the orbit; not the center of mass of the orbiting object. I'll call the center of the orbit the “orbital center” or “center”.

Either the object or the axis is somehow attached to the center of the orbit. With only one force: the one connecting the object or the axis to the orbital center, there is no axial rotation. With another force applied, either the object or the axis rotate, depending upon which one is NOT connected to the center.

Tidal Locking has a force causing a point on the axis to always face the same direction anywhere in its orbit, so it can never be connected to the center. A single point on the object that is mounted on the axis is connected to the center and the axis rotates within the object. In other words, the axis rotates within the non-rotating, orbiting object. A point on the object always faces the center. A distant observer sees all sides of the object once per orbit. The axis rotates once per orbit; not the object.

The alternative is the axis connected to the center of the orbit and a point on the axis continually facing the center anywhere in its orbit. With no external force applied to the object mounted on the axis, there is no axial rotation and a point on the object also continually faces the center. A distant observer sees all sides of the object once per orbit.

So in both scenarios, the object is not rotating: in the former because the axis is rotating within an object locked to the orbital center; in the latter because only the axis has a force acting on it locking it to the center. In both scenarios the distant observer sees all sides of the object once per orbit. In neither scenario is the object rotating.

Using the merry-go-round example again, with Tidal Locking the horse (object) is connected to the central axle by the rotating MGR platform. An external force applied to the pole (axis) through the horse's back causes it to always face the same direction and it rotates once per orbit. The pole is rotating; not the horse. A distant observer sees all sides of the horse once per orbit.

With the alternative, the pole is connected to the central axle by the rotating platform. Without an external force applied, the horse does not rotate about the pole. A distant observer sees all sides of the horse once per orbit.

The platform on which cosmic bodies rest is invisible. As a result, rotation is imagined where there is none. A visible example would be a ball glued to a spinning lazy Susan. The distant observer sees all sides of the ball once per orbit but the ball is not rotating.

By subtracting a 24 hour period from the equation below, we get the axial rotation as observed from the center. Remember that the consensus equations are derived from the perspective of a distant observer. The below equations are the perspective from the center.

Mercury: 88 day orbit x 24= 2112 hours, 59 day rotation x 24= 1416 hours, Distant observer =6.7 mph 2112 / 1416 = 1.5 - 1 day = .5 x planet circumference 9517 / 2112 = 4.5 mph center observer

Venus: 225 day orbit x 24 = 5400 hours, 243 day rotation x 24 = 5832 hours, Distant observer = 4 mph 5400 / 5832 = .9 -1 day = -.1 x planet circumference 23615 / 5400 = -.44 mph center observer

Moon: 29.5 day orbit x 24= 708 hours, 29.5 day rotation x 24= 708 hours, Distant observer =10.3 mph 708 / 708 = 0 - 1 day = 0 x moon circumference 6782 / 708 = 0 mph center observer
And so on and so forth.

I like your perspective on the atmosphere.

[viscount aero]

Viscount, I should have been more clear. When I used the term “barycenter” I meant the center of mass of the orbit; not the center of mass of the orbiting object. I'll call the center of the orbit the “orbital center” or “center”.

It's ok. I probably didn't read your post well enough.

Either the object or the axis is somehow attached to the center of the orbit. With only one force: the one connecting the object or the axis to the orbital center, there is no axial rotation. With another force applied, either the object or the axis rotate, depending upon which one is NOT connected to the center.

In traditional science things actually "orbit each other" at the barycenter of mass. Is that what you mean?

Tidal Locking has a force causing a point on the axis to always face the same direction anywhere in its orbit, so it can never be connected to the center. A single point on the object that is mounted on the axis is connected to the center and the axis rotates within the object. In other words, the axis rotates within the non-rotating, orbiting object. A point on the object always faces the center. A distant observer sees all sides of the object once per orbit. The axis rotates once per orbit; not the object.

I dunno. That is very confusing to read. I really cannot follow that.

The alternative is the axis connected to the center of the orbit and a point on the axis continually facing the center anywhere in its orbit. With no external force applied to the object mounted on the axis, there is no axial rotation and a point on the object also continually faces the center. A distant observer sees all sides of the object once per orbit.

Ok I sort of follow that. But I think my issue in general with your posts is that your phraseology and syntax is internally confusing and opaque, like a run-on sentence using vague terminology. I suggest you simplify things to very bare sentences, perhaps bullet points. As of now I can't really comprehend your posts.

For example "With no external force applied to the object mounted on the axis ...." has no meaning.

And "the axis connected to the center of the orbit and a point on the axis continually facing the center anywhere in its orbit...." has no meaning to me. It's a jumble of strange phraseology and syntax crashing together in a confusing stream.

The only sentence that is coherent and follows very easily is this: "A distant observer sees all sides of the object once per orbit." And I agree with that.

And that is exactly the entire answer right there: A distant observer sees all sides of the object once per orbit. That comprises the rotation about the axis in a 1:1 relationship with the orbit. In tidal locking, the orbit itself also represents the axial spin.

Moreover, I'm not really asking you to agree with me. I'm only offering my opinion.

I like your alternative point of view and the tenacity with which you present it. That is notable.


The rest below I just shut down to. I cannot really follow it because I don't understand your phraseology. I don't quite understand your position in explaining the relationship between "axial rotation as observed from the center..." versus "...from the perspective of a distant observer. The below equations are the perspective from the center."

So in both scenarios, the object is not rotating: in the former because the axis is rotating within an object locked to the orbital center; in the latter because only the axis has a force acting on it locking it to the center. In both scenarios the distant observer sees all sides of the object once per orbit. In neither scenario is the object rotating.

Using the merry-go-round example again, with Tidal Locking the horse (object) is connected to the central axle by the rotating MGR platform. An external force applied to the pole (axis) through the horse's back causes it to always face the same direction and it rotates once per orbit. The pole is rotating; not the horse. A distant observer sees all sides of the horse once per orbit.

With the alternative, the pole is connected to the central axle by the rotating platform. Without an external force applied, the horse does not rotate about the pole. A distant observer sees all sides of the horse once per orbit.

The platform on which cosmic bodies rest is invisible. As a result, rotation is imagined where there is none. A visible example would be a ball glued to a spinning lazy Susan. The distant observer sees all sides of the ball once per orbit but the ball is not rotating.

By subtracting a 24 hour period from the equation below, we get the axial rotation as observed from the center. Remember that the consensus equations are derived from the perspective of a distant observer. The below equations are the perspective from the center.

Mercury: 88 day orbit x 24= 2112 hours, 59 day rotation x 24= 1416 hours, Distant observer =6.7 mph 2112 / 1416 = 1.5 - 1 day = .5 x planet circumference 9517 / 2112 = 4.5 mph center observer

Venus: 225 day orbit x 24 = 5400 hours, 243 day rotation x 24 = 5832 hours, Distant observer = 4 mph 5400 / 5832 = .9 -1 day = -.1 x planet circumference 23615 / 5400 = -.44 mph center observer

Moon: 29.5 day orbit x 24= 708 hours, 29.5 day rotation x 24= 708 hours, Distant observer =10.3 mph 708 / 708 = 0 - 1 day = 0 x moon circumference 6782 / 708 = 0 mph center observer
And so on and so forth.

I like your perspective on the atmosphere.

And thanks about the atmosphere. That is another topic deserving its own thread I think.

[jtb]

Viscount, you are correct in questioning my use of the word barycenter. I understood it to mean the center of an orbit, which it is not.

In attempting to simplify the complicated, I complicated the simple.

In short, an axis is imaginary. You can't treat an object without an axle as though it has one. And even if an object does have an axle, until there is motion about the axle, the object should be treated as though it has none. If you lay an object with an axle on a spinning lazy Susan, the object is rotating about the center of the lazy Susan; not the axle. As distant observers, we see all sides of the object once per orbit, so our reasoning tells us that it is rotating. And it is, but not about its axis. It is rotating about the center of the lazy Susan.

The merry-go-round (MGR) horse axle (pole) is attached to the horse, so they are one. The horse is not rotating about the pole. Ask Junior sitting on the horse's back. The horse is however, rotating about the center of the MGR. Since as distant observers we see all sides of the horse once per orbit, we reason that the horse is rotating, and it is, but not about its axis.

A distant observer sees Earth rotate 366 times per orbit. Once as a result of rotating about the center of the orbit; 365 times rotating about its axis. Our calendar has 365, 24 hour days. Sidereal, or distant observer time, does not distinguish between orbital rotation and axial rotation and combine the two. As a result, a sidereal year and day is longer than what we actually experience.

I really appreciate your comments. I was getting into areas where only mechanical engineers with years of experience should tread. I do believe my rotational velocity equations are correct since orbital rotation is inappropriately added to axial rotation as a result of the distant observer perspective.

[viscount aero]

Viscount, you are correct in questioning my use of the word barycenter. I understood it to mean the center of an orbit, which it is not.

In attempting to simplify the complicated, I complicated the simple.

In short, an axis is imaginary. You can't treat an object without an axle as though it has one. And even if an object does have an axle, until there is motion about the axle, the object should be treated as though it has none. If you lay an object with an axle on a spinning lazy Susan, the object is rotating about the center of the lazy Susan; not the axle. As distant observers, we see all sides of the object once per orbit, so our reasoning tells us that it is rotating. And it is, but not about its axis. It is rotating about the center of the lazy Susan.

jtb, thanks for the open discussion and easy tone of our debate. We're only having a talk

This statement by you is mostly true in my opinion: "As distant observers, we see all sides of the object once per orbit, so our reasoning tells us that it is rotating. And it is, but not about its axis. It is rotating about the center of the lazy Susan."

I say mostly because you are speaking the truth. But I feel that the object is, too, rotating about an axis.

The merry-go-round (MGR) horse axle (pole) is attached to the horse, so they are one. The horse is not rotating about the pole. Ask Junior sitting on the horse's back. The horse is however, rotating about the center of the MGR. Since as distant observers we see all sides of the horse once per orbit, we reason that the horse is rotating, and it is, but not about its axis.

Yes I understand your rationale. I understand your point of view and I nearly agree with all of it. You are posting easier to understand sentences to describe your concepts. It makes talking about it much more fun

A distant observer sees Earth rotate 366 times per orbit. Once as a result of rotating about the center of the orbit; 365 times rotating about its axis. Our calendar has 365, 24 hour days. Sidereal, or distant observer time, does not distinguish between orbital rotation and axial rotation and combine the two. As a result, a sidereal year and day is longer than what we actually experience.

Good point. Combining the two is exactly the rationale of a 1:1 relationship of axial spin and orbit--the "tidal locking" of moons.

I really appreciate your comments. I was getting into areas where only mechanical engineers with years of experience should tread. I do believe my rotational velocity equations are correct since orbital rotation is inappropriately added to axial rotation as a result of the distant observer perspective.

And I appreciate yours.

We almost agree actually. I jump ship when you insist the Moon doesn't actually have an axial rotation. But that is okay, too. We both agree that the Moon's existence and nature is mysterious and beautiful to witness. It is a world so close that we actually know little about.

[D_Archer]

I changed my mind and will not change it back. The Moon does not rotate on its axis; it is an illusion. My first instincts where correct and jtb is also correct.

Now the words from the master:

Original:
http://www.teslauniverse.com/pdf/articl ... 200-01.pdf

More readable:
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tes ... -illusions

The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable. Volumes have been written on the subject and many erroneous arguments advanced in support of the notion. Thus, it is reasoned, that if the planet did not turn on its axis it would expose the whole surface to terrestrial view; as only one-half is visible, it must revolve. The first statement is true but the logic of the second is defective, for it admits of only one alternative. The conclusion is not justified as the same appearance can also be produced in another way. The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.

Bless you Nikolai.

Regards,
Daniel

ps. And thank you rory88 > http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =45#p99073

[chrimony]

I changed my mind and will not change it back.

Nothing like having a closed mind to discover the true nature of things!

The Moon does not rotate on its axis; it is an illusion. My first instincts where correct and jtb is also correct.

You were earlier convinced of the moon's rotation by libration in longitude. What caused you to change your mind? What is your explanation for libration in longitude?

Now the words from the master: ... http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tes ... -illusions .... Bless you Nikolai.

Ah, dogmatic appeal. I read the article and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

1. A heavenly body thrown off from a larger one cannot rotate on its axis. The mass, rendered fluid by the combined action of heat and pressure, upon the reduction of the latter immediately stiffens, being at the same time deformed by gravitational pull. The shape becomes permanent upon cooling and solidification and the smaller mass continues to move about the larger one as tho it were rigidly connected to it except for pendular swings or librations due to varying orbital velocity. Such motion precludes the possibility of axial rotation in the strictly physical sense. The moon has never spun around as is well demonstrated by the fact that the most precise measurements have failed to show any measurable flattening in form.

(bold mine) So he has no explanation for why the bodies would behave as if they are rigidly connected when they are clearly not, and he has no explanation as to why they behave as if they are not rigidly connected as shown by libration in longitude. In the meantime, basic Newtonian mechanics explains it just fine. They are not rigidly connected, and the Moon is rotating.

As for the flattening of the Moon, its rotation and mass is much smaller than the Earth, so there would be negligible flattening from rotation. Though from what I gather some flattening has been measured in modern times, and it is attributed to Earth's gravity, not rotation.

2. If a planetary body in its orbital movement turns the same side towards the central mass this is a positive proof that it has been separated from the latter and is a true satellite.

3. A planet revolving on its axis in its passage around another cannot have been thrown off from the same but must have been captured.

Um, right, so planets rotate or do not rotate based on whether they have been "thrown off from the same" or captured. He offers no explanation of the novel physics as to why one body should behave rigidly (sort of, but not for libration in longitude!) and another not.

I'll finally note some words from the same article that Tesla might as well have been writing about himself:

Great men of all classes and professions — scientists, inventors, and hard-headed financiers — have placed themselves on record with impossible theories, inoperative devices, and unrealizable schemes. It is doubtful that there could be found a single work of any one individual free of error. There is no such thing as an infallible brain. Invariably, some cells or fibers are wanting or unresponsive, with the result of impairing judgment, sense of proportion, or some other faculty. A man of genius eminently practical, whose name is a household word, has wasted the best years of his life in a visionary undertaking.

[jtb]

Observer at the center sees the actual number of rotations. Observations from a distance combine orbital and axial rotations.

Earth's calendar year is 365 days. Its distant observer year is 366 days due to orbital rotation.

A solar day is the time it takes the sun to return to the same spot. If Earth was the sun, a lunar solar day would be eternal. Only one side of the moon would see the sun.

The orbit of the moon is similar to the orbit of a horse with its feet glued to the edge of a spinning lazy Susan. Neither the horse nor the moon rotate. However, both rotate about the center of their orbits.

[D_Archer]

I'll finally note some words from the same article that Tesla might as well have been writing about himself:]

I think he is talking about you. My mind is always open and i also know my intuition is very good and in this case i was right the first time i thought about it. I came to doubt myself because i visualized the moon as rotating, but now that i know it is just an illusion ( a trick of the mind) i am back at my first instinct.

I am not sure why you would think more of yourself than Nikolai Tesla...is downplaying his intelligence by vestigial science still so ingrained?

Regards,
Daniel

[viscount aero]

Observer at the center sees the actual number of rotations. Observations from a distance combine orbital and axial rotations.

Earth's calendar year is 365 days. Its distant observer year is 366 days due to orbital rotation.

A solar day is the time it takes the sun to return to the same spot. If Earth was the sun, a lunar solar day would be eternal. Only one side of the moon would see the sun.

The orbit of the moon is similar to the orbit of a horse with its feet glued to the edge of a spinning lazy Susan. Neither the horse nor the moon rotate. However, both rotate about the center of their orbits.

And if the glued horse were to spiral inward at each orbit, the orbital diameter closing in smaller and smaller at each pass, it would then eventually encounter an orbit so small that it would reveal its rotation about its axis--the orbit so small that it would spin in place.

The Moon rotates about an axis.

[chrimony]

I think he is talking about you.

Can't be, because I make no claims to greatness. Tesla, in the meantime, fits his own description to a T.

My mind is always open

Contradicts your earlier statement.

and i also know my intuition is very good and in this case i was right the first time i thought about it. I came to doubt myself because i visualized the moon as rotating, but now that i know it is just an illusion ( a trick of the mind) i am back at my first instinct.

So how do you know you were right the first time? Because the "master" said so?

I am not sure why you would think more of yourself than Nikolai Tesla...is downplaying his intelligence by vestigial science still so ingrained?

Why does Tesla, an inventor, think he is smarter than Newton or all the other scientists who accept that the Moon rotates? As Tesla yourself told you in his remarks, nobody is infallible. Appeal to authority is a fallacy. What counts is the evidence and logical reasoning, and you notably have provided none in your response.