Does the Moon Rotate?

[webolife]

In your illustration the two hubs and stick are rotating down the incline as a single entity. A real axle or axis, does not rotate with the object mounted on it.

Still confusing axle with axis, you avoided answering my questions; but you did infer that in fact the entire assembly is rotating about its axis. And whether you look at the sidereal path as an ellipse or a modified helix, the conclusion is the same: the assembly is rotating once for each period of revolution.

[jtb]

Web, an axis is imaginary. It is only real in your mind. An axis does not have a physical presence: it's metaphysical like your mind. You can't touch an axis like you can an axle. The moon is physical but has no axle so we substitute an axis for illustration purposes to help us understand how it works. The invisible things of this world (axis) are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (axles).

We can't see an electromagnetic "field" but we understand what it is by comparing it with a hay "field": an enclosed area containing hay.

I was thinking about a tinkertoy wheel/axle system where two hubs are attached by a stick between them... I set the system to roll down a short incline [ie. its "translational" motion is powered by gravitation], such that the wheel/axle system makes one full rotation by the time it gets to the bottom of the ramp -- what is rotating, the hubs, axle, both, or neither? Now wrap the incline about the gravitational center such that when the wheel/axle gets to the "end" of the ramp it is starting over at the "beginning" in the continuous falling motion we normally describe as an orbit. What is rotating [same question as before]? Is your answer the same as before? Why or why not?

Hubs & Stick are rotating as a single entity in both scenarios because the hubs are permanently attached to the stick, can't rotate on the stick, and can only travel in a straight path (assuming both hubs are the same diameter). Velocity of rotation is determined by the diameter of each component. To travel in a circular path, one hub has to be smaller than the other, or, both hubs have the ability to independently rotate on the stick.

[jtb]

And whether you look at the sidereal path as an ellipse or a modified helix, the conclusion is the same: the assembly is rotating once for each period of revolution.

Web, now I have a question for you. What would a non-rotating assembly look like from a sidereal view and from the center?

[webolife]

The videos you supposedly watched and commented on clearly show all the scenarios you have mentioned. Watch them again. What is it specifically you disagree with?

[jtb]

The videos you supposedly watched and commented on clearly show all the scenarios you have mentioned. Watch them again. What is it specifically you disagree with?

I don't disagree with the videos, I disagree with the conclusions. So, what does a non-rotating moon look like from Earth?

[webolife]

The moon is not a wheel and axle machine. It is more of a pendulum swinging in just one direction. If it were on an axle, then the entire axle is rotating along with the wheel once for every rotation. Just as the video shows, if the moon were not rotating, the "center" [a viewer from Earth] would see all sides of the moon during the course of revolution. Do you not believe your own eyes? By the way, "center" [ie. barycenter] is also not a real object, but an abstract geometric construct to describe the shifting point about which both the earth and moon revolve.
The "invisible things" you are fond of invoking here are in the context of the passage just as real than the "things that are seen". The most direct example I might deliver for that is Light itself. Light is entirely invisible, there is no visible spectrum that is in some way physically distinct from the invisible spectrum. What is visible for us is the resonant response of our retina when it is touched by colors from red to indigo. The other portions of the spectrum are just as visible to other differently resonant sensors, so that the invisible things are made known.

[jtb]

If it were on an axle, then the entire axle is rotating along with the wheel once for every rotation. Just as the video shows, if the moon were not rotating, the "center" [a viewer from Earth] would see all sides of the moon during the course of revolution.

My point exactly. The conclusions are absurd. We can't say that the moon is rotating when attached to Earth by gravity. We can only say so if an external force is causing the moon to orbit Earth.

Light is entirely invisible

You must have read my post on "Invisible Light". We don't see light; we see color.

[webolife]

I actually think I agree with you... But whether the force is from the earth or from the outside [which I think] does not and can not determine whether or not the moon is rotating. Your point of view may determine whether you see the rotation happening, but not physics. Do you believe the earth does not rotate, just because you are always on the same side of it? What is the reason for your concern here?

On a tangent...
The invisibility of light is not actually controversial, just not intuitive for the average person. The resonance of the universe is taken for granted [ie. the way in which anything is perceived], and the fact that at any order of magnification [astronomic to atomic], the stuff that comprises the universe is still "invisible" [or perhaps transparent] is a solid basis for the "invisible things" text. Add to this counter-intuitive outlook the fact that at any order of magnitude objects interact across a space [this is the unified field], and you just might find that "action at a distance" is a sensible mechanism. Actualize the fact that no object needs to reside at the center or barycenter of a revolving system, and you have the realization that the "holding" force of the universe is centropic, ie. the vectoral representation of it is from the outside in [toward any given system centroid]. Include Light in this unification, and you reach the understanding that light is the result of centropic pressure, not of emitted particles or propagated waves. Light and gravitation act alike, pushing our senses toward the "center". Call this pressure field "electromagnetic", and the unification is complete.

[jtb]

Another absurdity of modern astronomy is that Earth is traveling in a spiral path at nearly 2,000,000 mph; 650,000,000 mph if the expansion of space is included. The Copernicus heliocentric theory was based on a stationary sun which modern science says is no longer true. The sun is now orbiting the Milky Way which is orbiting the Local Cluster of Galaxies which is orbiting the Super Cluster of Galaxies.

[webolife]

Like the rotation question, speed is a relative term. The alleged expansion of space is a radial velocity relative to the earth, taking the earth as a stationary object. You can't add that to the earth's sidereal velocity therefore as an additional motion. But we are still left with the COBE redshift data which has us zooming toward Leo [or more precisely toward the Great Attractor near the Virgo supercluster] at 390kps, which is about 372,000 mph. The other motions which you apparently added in are periodic, so average out to zero over time as related to earth traveling across the universe. After taking those periodic motions out of the picture, the only motion left is that with respect to the CBR, the COBE data. Now I interpret cosmic redshift as partially a directional indicator with a distance related gradient, not using the Hubble ratio of speed to distance. Some would probably refer to this as a variation of the "tired light" view. I also recognize Arp's ionization related red shift. The actual meaning of red shift is still controversial, and the COBE data has other interpretations as well, incl the EU [Thornhill, et.al.] hypothesis of local interstellar EM field gradient.
So your stated hundred-millions-mph order of velocity is absurd and unfounded, but modern standard astronomical values are simply controversial. In fact the whole "dark" physics is in turmoil, and BB may be in its last throes... wishful thinking

[jtb]

But we are still left with the COBE redshift data which has us zooming toward Leo [or more precisely toward the Great Attractor near the Virgo supercluster] at 390kps, which is about 372,000 mph. So your stated hundred-millions-mph order of velocity is absurd and unfounded

So, Earth traveling at 372,000 mph is sane?

[webolife]

Compared to the magnitude of the depths of space, it is not a huge velocity. But I don't necessarily buy these speeds either, based as they are on the Doppler redshift paradigm. I just don't like evidence-free claims thrown about in the discussion of alternate physics, so I am challenging you to back up your claims with some solids!

I am going to ask you again, what is your beef with the rotation of the moon? What conclusion do you draw from those videos which clearly show that the moon must rotate once for each revolution in order for us to see the constant "near" side?

[Aardwolf]

So, Earth traveling at 372,000 mph is sane?

But I don't necessarily buy these speeds either,

What's wrong with that speed?

Comet ISON apparently reached over 800,000 mph in 2013. S2 in Sagittarius A is estimated to be travelling at 11,000,000 mph.

372,000 mph is nothing.

[john666]

Great majority of people have trouble with visualization.
This, and the dishonesty of astronomers, is the reason why an absurd theory like " synchronous rotation with Earth" is considered "solid scientific explanation"

If the Moon would rotate around its own axis with the same speed as it does revolve around the Earth, the Moon would always be showing the same face FOR A PARTICULAR PLACE ON THE EARTH!!!

For example, people in NYC would always see face A of the Moon(whatever features the face "A" would show) people in Moscow would always see face B, people in Berlin would always see face C, and so on, and so forth.

Don't believe me?

If you don't believe me, make the following thought experiment:

Imagine a giant laser beam directed at the Earth from the Moon.
Imagine the Moon rotating.
Imagine the laser beam rotating together with the Moon.

Eventually because of rotation, the laser beam would be directed at the opposite direction from which it started.
Meaning it would no longer be directed at the Earth, but at the space.

MEANING THE MOON WOULD NO LONGER SHOW THE SAME FACE!!!

[jtb]

I am going to ask you again, what is your beef with the rotation of the moon? What conclusion do you draw from those videos which clearly show that the moon must rotate once for each revolution in order for us to see the constant "near" side?

Again. The videos are not portraying the moon's axis as if it were an imaginary axle. Modern science says that the moon is attached to Earth by gravity. You can't have it both ways. The moon can't be attached to Earth by gravity and be rotating with the same side continually facing Earth. Even Einstein said that to be considered true, theories must match reality.

I just don't like evidence-free claims thrown about in the discussion of alternate physics, so I am challenging you to back up your claims with some solids!

Your tinker-toy illustration demonstrates how 2 similiar sized hubs connected by a stick rotate: the unit can only travel in a straight line since the stick (axis) rotates with the hubs. It does not match how the moon orbits Earth. The moon's axis (axle) is vertical: your tinker toy axis is horizontal. A real axle (axis) is always attached to something. Your tinker toy stick (axis) isn't attached to anything. Physics deals with reality: real axles. Meta-physics deals with concepts: imaginary axles. Your imaginary axle must match reality in order to be true.