Does the Moon Rotate?

[viscount aero]

I suggest that Miles Mathis could explain this, but I can't access his pdf files.....

He shows that the tides on Earth are charge from the moon....clever!...

That's new to me. I'd like to read that one.

[Sparky]

try this: http://milesmathis.com/tide2.html

index of some papers: http://milesmathis.com/index.html

[chrimony]

Being a very practical type person, I think it may have to do with a different kind of thinking, as much is related to non existent 'axis' and maths out of my scope.

You are right, the problem isn't math or any non-existent axis. It's that you are unwilling to let go of your flawed analogy of a "moon" rigidly attached to a rod and look at how freely-rotating bodies actually behave in space. You need the math if you want to verify to a high degree of accuracy, but the basic principles are not that hard to understand.

You say you are practical. Then try the bowls with water experiment for yourself. To an approximation, you can get a "moon" orbiting about yourself without spinning. Also, explain how the Earth manages to orbit the Sun without always showing the same face to the Sun, or how we can spin man-made satellites in orbit at whatever spin we want.

Had a look at libration and need to go over it again to sink in properly. Immediate 'mind' problem is that I am having some difficulty visualising the moon rotating on its own axis and being able to move in the manner it does (from the video). You cant turn/spin an object on its own axis in 2 directions at the same time.

There's only one constant spin for the Moon. The mistake you are making is that you assume for an object to orbit in space that it already must be spinning.

[dukemh]

It's that you are unwilling to let go of your flawed analogy of a "moon" rigidly attached to a rod and look at how freely-rotating bodies actually behave in space

The problem is still there. It is not that I do not understand the standard model, I really do get it. Flawed or not my head keeps forcing the issue, it will not be satisfied with this. After sleeping on it a good few times the conflict persists.
Principle: A body with direction (pointing the same way / forward) going round in a circle by this standard model it has to rotate on its own axis. This scenario insists one complete turn on its own axis per 'orbit'. This would be to say any item travelling in a circle facing the same way cannot be any different, no matter how large the 'orbit' or how long it should take.
Expression/statement of perfectly matching single orbit is seriously flawed; it is not possible to be any other way unless the orbiting item is given its own spin axis.
Example: Take our 'moon' orbit around earth as it does, take your time , make orbit larger and longer; turning/orbiting once facing the same direction is just that. Perfectly in sync, doesn't need to as it has no option when you consider it is not rotating on its own axis. Further; 'perfect' and perfect sync rarely exist in anything. Given there are the wobbles/libration ect demonstrates there is imperfection to the orbit but none has a real overall effect on the perfectly in sync orbit 'on its own axis' even though these 'other movements' are found to be about constant in the orbit.

The rotation is on the axis of the central point (not unlike drawing a circle with a compass, whereby the fixed point on the paper is the central point). The outside (other point of the compass) is just following a track/circle with direction the same way. It does not turn on its own axis within itself.

Put an object on the edge of a plate and turn, it does not make the object turn on its own axis. Lose the plate and keep the object turning; still the same. Move the object to the center of the plate, lose the plate, keep the object turning and then, ONLY then can it be said it is now turning on its own axis.
The standard is just perspective or a relative view if you like.

The model for an object with no spin axis is an object that requires an 'up and down' and we get a plan view of it. Example is a fairground big wheel with the 'cage' seats. I don't know but imagine you would be hard pushed to find anything behaving like it in space.

No matter what route I take to convince me of the standard it doesn't rest right in my head. On my own perhaps but c'est la vie.

There maybe just one thing to help... the fractional spin on its own axis about an orbit. Is there an example?
Although same face would not really apply, it would mean there are then examples of + and - and at least possible in my mind the perfect sync is there at 1.
Just a note on the libration; at this point with just the overview it would seem for the most part it is a visual/view thing especially at the elliptic. I would also have a hard time being convinced it was all down to gravity and includes 'rotation on own axis' (wonder if can be also given/calculated as what it looks like; object moving forward in an elliptical orbit) given other things learned from this site and others. I would be wasting my time with the maths as out my depth; not that I dont feel up to my neck without it.

Thank you very much for all the info and trying.

[viscount aero]

The tidally/one-face-locked orbit itself creates the axial spin of the locked object no matter what it is.

To help visualize it further, take the Moon's orbit and spiral it into the Earth--imagining the Earth as only a "point"-- spiraling into a tighter and tighter orbit until the Moon covers the point that it is "orbiting" and that is the axial spin.

[chrimony]

The problem is still there. It is not that I do not understand the standard model, I really do get it. Flawed or not my head keeps forcing the issue, it will not be satisfied with this. After sleeping on it a good few times the conflict persists.

I can tell by your post that you really don't get it, and the problem is you aren't really trying. In my last post, I asked you to perform an experiment that shows the flaws in your thinking. Why don't you try it? Are you interested in science or philosophical dogma? I also asked for you to explain other objects that orbit without always showing the same face (Earth/Sun and man-made satellites). Again, no reply.

Principle: A body with direction (pointing the same way / forward) going round in a circle by this standard model it has to rotate on its own axis. This scenario insists one complete turn on its own axis per 'orbit'. This would be to say any item travelling in a circle facing the same way cannot be any different, no matter how large the 'orbit' or how long it should take.

You again repeat your assertion based on rigid bodies, but the facts and theories don't back it up for objects in space, or for an object even as simple as a bowl floating in another bowl.

The model for an object with no spin axis is an object that requires an 'up and down' and we get a plan view of it. Example is a fairground big wheel with the 'cage' seats. I don't know but imagine you would be hard pushed to find anything behaving like it in space.

*laugh* If you were listening, you would know how easy it is to imagine such an object in space, because they are common. We call them satellites. We can put any spin on them that we want, including no spin. The last is pretty useful if the object is the Hubble telescope and you're trying to photograph distant objects in space.

There maybe just one thing to help... the fractional spin on its own axis about an orbit. Is there an example?
Although same face would not really apply, it would mean there are then examples of + and - and at least possible in my mind the perfect sync is there at 1.

*facepalm* I've been giving you examples all along, as I've iterated in this post (and including libration, which I'll get to below). It's just that you refuse to acknowledge them.

Just a note on the libration; at this point with just the overview it would seem for the most part it is a visual/view thing especially at the elliptic.

That's rather dismissive and shows you don't understand it. Libration in longitude exactly demonstrates that the Moon is not locked in it's orbit as a rigid body would be. It shows that the moon's spin is constant and independent of it's orbital velocity, which changes as it is either farther or closer.

I would also have a hard time being convinced it was all down to gravity and includes 'rotation on own axis' (wonder if can be also given/calculated as what it looks like; object moving forward in an elliptical orbit) given other things learned from this site and others. I would be wasting my time with the maths as out my depth; not that I dont feel up to my neck without it.

The math for the standard model of libration in longitude should be relatively simple to a good approximation. It's a two-body Newtonian gravity problem. If there was something wrong with the math, astronomers would have found it a long time ago.

Thank you very much for all the info and trying.

Sure, but without indication that you're taking the info seriously and keeping an open mind it isn't worth my time to keep on repeating stuff. If you can't be bothered to try a simple experiment with two bowls and some water, report back your results, and discuss the implications, or acknowledge the arbitrary spin on man-made satellites, then there's no point in me continuing.

[dukemh]

bowls it is then. thank you.

[moot]

It does on youtube

http://youtu.be/sNUNB6CMnE8

[jtb]

One theory on the origin of heavenly bodies is that material was electrically expelled from stars or gaseous planets, some of which was electrically captured by the parent. Orbits were stabilized immediately or shortly thereafter as opposed to billions of years. The conservation of angular momentum mathematically explains how orbits are maintained; not how heavenly bodies are captured.

Non-Rotating Object Moving in a Circle
An object moving in a circle is not rotating if a point on its axis is continually aligned with a point on the object. It’s merely moving in a circle like a horse/pole on a merry-go round (MGR) or a wheel moving in a circle but not rotating on its axle. In each scenario, both the horse and the wheel are rotating about the center of the circle; not about their pole/axle.

Horse scenario: a point on the axis is always oriented in the direction of motion. Distant observer sees one rotation/orbit; observer at the center only sees one side of the object.

Wheel scenario: a point on the axis is always oriented in the same direction. Distant observer only sees one side of the object; observer at center sees all sides once/orbit.

Object Rotating once/orbit on its Axis
In the MGR horse scenario, a point on the axis of a rotating object moving in a circle continually points in the direction of motion while a point on the object continually faces a different direction. The MGR horse is rotating once/orbit on its pole. Observer at center sees all sides once/orbit; distant observer all sides twice/orbit.

In the wheel scenario, a point on the axis always faces the same direction while a point on the wheel continually changes direction. A distant observer sees one rotation/orbit; observer at the center only sees one side.

The only difference between the horse and the wheel scenario is orientation of the axis/axle. Since an axis is virtual (imaginary), either scenario may be imagined.

Point on Axis Always Oriented in the Direction of Motion
Compare the moon and Venus to a plane flying in a circle, a train on a circular track, or a horse/pole on a merry-go-round. The moon is not rotating; Venus is retrograding .08 times/orbit.
Observer @ Center Distant Observer
One Retrograde Rotation: All sides visible once All sides visible twice
Non-rotating Object: Only 1 side visible All sides visible once
One Pro-grade Rotation: All sides visible once All sides visible twice

Moon, Venus, plane, train, and horse all fit in the Non-rotating Object scenario.

Point on Axis Always Oriented in the Same Direction
Again, compare the moon and Venus to a plane flying in a circle, a train on a circular track, or a horse/pole on a merry-go-round. The moon is tidally locked; Venus is retrograding 1.08 times/orbit.
Observer @ Center Distant Observer
One Retrograde Rotation: Only one side visible All sides visible once
Non-rotating Object: All sides visible once Only one side visible
One Pro-grade Rotation: Only one side visible All sides visible once
Two Pro-grade Rotations: All sides visible once All sides visible twice

The plane, train, and MGR horse/pole don't fit any scenario above because they are rotating about the center of their orbit, not their axis. If forward motion were to cease, so would their imagined rotation. However, this scenario must be maintained to support the BB and Old Earth theories.

[jtb]

Hopefully these are links to my updated diagrams explaining the difference between rotating on an axis vs. an axle.

[img][IMG]http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b611/jtban/Slide1_zpse42ba8e5.jpg[/img][/img]

[img][IMG]http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b611/jtban/Slide2_zps5c512ceb.jpg[/img][/img]

[jtb]

Another attempt:
http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b61 ... 2ba8e5.jpg

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b61 ... 512ceb.jpg

[Jupiter05085]

Hi,
The moon definitely is not rotating around it's own axis.
Tie a rope to a bowling ball and rotate it around your head. Does ball rotating it's axis? It is tied by a rope - how could it rotate?
If it is not clear then try the following:
Earth is rotating, it is very clear - when you are going to equator, you are loosing weight due to centripetal force.
Using previous ball analogy try to calculate your weigh if you are standing on that ball - there are only two components in formula: 1) weight from ball gravity and 2) centripetal force from ball orbiting - nothing from rotation!
Regards.

[jtb]

Hi Nick,
Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I like your analogy, but it needs tweeking. I try to base my reasoning on the assumption that the invisible things of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. I compare the invisible to the visible. The invisible attractive force between Earth and Moon is understood by comparing it, like you did, to a rope tied to a bowling ball. However, how is that rope attached to you? If permanently attached, the bowling ball would only see the side of you where it is attached. You would be rotating at the orbital speed of the bowling ball.

To refine your analogy, attach the rope to a ring (bearing) and hold a pole (axle) inside the ring. You can place several different rings on the same pole with bowling balls attached and orbiting at different rates. That way, your body can rotate while holding the pole. However, you must be at the center of mass of the rotating bowling balls, otherwise you would be wobbling like an unbalanced tire on an axle.

An axle is stationary unless attached to something else that is rotating. In your bowling ball analogy, the rotating pole would be Earth, and you holding the pole would be the universe rotating at the same rate.

The stress from the orbiting bowling balls may cause a slight horizontal bulge on the pole where the rings are attached.

Modern cosmology does not recognize that the universe has a center of mass or a boarder. They are delving into the supernatural, or invisible things of the world, without understanding the things that are made.

[Jupiter05085]

Hi jtb!
Glad you like it.
But beside analogy I also provide the idea about weight calculation.
Your weight on Earth (according to classical mechanic of course) will consists of several components: 1)gravitation, 2)rotation around it's own axis, 3)Rotation around Sun - which will be very small and could be neglected.
Your "weight on the Moon" formula will consists again from those components - the component due to Moon rotation around it's own axis is missing! That clearly indicates - no rotation.
The rotation around your own axis is absolute and not depend on reference frame. It was always a problem for theory of relativity. (See Sagnac effect). So the Moon rotation (around axis) does not depend what reference frame you are using.
The following is the quote from Wikipedia about Lorentz transform for the spin of particles:
"We could try the same approach to determine the behavior of spin under general Lorentz transformations, but we would immediately discover a major obstacle. Unlike SO(3), the group of Lorentz transformations SO(3,1) is non-compact and therefore does not have any faithful, unitary, finite-dimensional representations."
Personally I understand each single word, could not say so about the whole.
Thank you.

[jtb]

Nick,
I'll have to leave the math for a heavenly body's rotation to you. I appreciate your supporting evidence for a non-rotating moon.

Please see page 4 of the "Mad Ideas" forum for my threads "Is the vacuum of space expanding" and "the velocity of Earth through space".

In the former I contend that if space were expanding atoms would be moving further apart in space and we would be experiencing universal cooling rather than global warming. Earth is in some sort of container like an aerosol can (high pressure) floating in the vacuum (low pressure) of space. Puncture the can and the pressure equalizes. Earth and Venus are the only heavenly bodies with an appreciable atmosphere.

In the latter, I contend that the more we learn, the faster Earth is traveling through space bordering on the absurd: today over 2,000,000 mph.

I would appreciate your honest opinion. I know I may be wrong in some of my reasoning and will remain so if not challenged.
jtb