Does the Moon Rotate?

[viscount aero]

Teslas explanation:
The Illusion of the Axial Rotation of the Moon.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tes ... -illusions

That article is false. Ironically, it admits to the perception of axial rotation but then dismisses it as being merely "delusional". It doesn't matter who said it, Tesla or Santa Claus:

Extracting the thesis statement, the article actually debunks itself:

"To make the delusion complete let him take a washer similarly marked and supporting it rotatably in the center, carry it around a stationary object, constantly keeping the arrow pointing towards the latter. Tho to his bodily vision the disk will revolve on its axis, such movement does not exist. He can dispel the illusion at once by holding the washer fixedly while going around. He will now readily see that the supposed axial rotation is only apparent, the impression being produced by successive changes of position in space."

That would mean, too, that orbits are only "the impression being produced by successive changes of position in space" and are also not happening.

The article's reasoning is flawed. To add, the diagrams provided are more confusing than educational.

[jtb]

Viscount, I think Tesla is saying that changing direction moving in a circle gives the illusion of rotation. A rotable washer that Tesla refers to would be similiar to a small wheel mounted on an axle. Walk in a circle holding the axle. A point on the wheel always faces the center but does not rotate on the axle.

Something not mentioned is that science says that a point on the axle (axis) always faces the same direction. If you walk in a circle with a point on the wheel always facing the center, and a point on the axis always facing the same direction, the axis is rotating within the wheel: the wheel is not rotating about the axis.

[jtb]

by nicho247
For those who argue the moon does have axial rotation (rotate) relative to the earth, can you please help me visualize what the moon would do differently for the axial rotation to be zero?

Nick, with Tidal Locking a point on the axis always faces the same direction: for example, south. So, the axis, like an axle, is invisibly attached to some external southern force and is rotating within the moon. The moon is not rotating on the axis.

To a distant observer, only one side of the moon would be visible if it were not rotating. All sides visible with one rotation. All sides visible twice with two rotations. etc....

Center observer sees all sides once of a non-rotating moon. Only one side is visible if rotating once per orbit. All sides visible once if rotating twice per orbit: the same as non-rotating. All sides visible twice if rotating three times per orbit. etc....

My contention is that a point on the axis always faces the direction of motion. There is a different point facing each possible direction. If traveling east, the same point on the axis always faces east. If changing direction to north, the point on the north side of the axis faces the direction of motion. If traveling in a circle, the same point on the axis always faces the direction of travel.

With this scenario, the center observer only sees one side of a non-rotating moon. All sides once of the moon rotating once per orbit. All sides twice of the moon with two rotations. etc....

Distant observer sees all sides once of a non-rotating moon. All sides twice with one rotation. etc...

Tidal locking could not be argued if it stated that the axis rotates within the moon. However, what then is the force that keeps the axis facing the same direction?

[viscount aero]

Viscount, I think Tesla is saying that changing direction moving in a circle gives the illusion of rotation. A rotable washer that Tesla refers to would be similiar to a small wheel mounted on an axle. Walk in a circle holding the axle. A point on the wheel always faces the center but does not rotate on the axle.

Something not mentioned is that science says that a point on the axle (axis) always faces the same direction. If you walk in a circle with a point on the wheel always facing the center, and a point on the axis always facing the same direction, the axis is rotating within the wheel: the wheel is not rotating about the axis.

Then you've just proven axial rotation of the Moon--the action is reciprocal.

[jtb]

If you walk in a circle with a point on the wheel always facing the center, and a point on the axis always facing the same direction, the axis is rotating within the wheel: the wheel is not rotating about the axis.

Then you've just proven axial rotation of the Moon--the action is reciprocal.

Viscount,
Are you really saying that both the moon and its axis are rotating? Tidal locking contends that the axis (axle) is always facing the same direction. That means the axis is attached to something???

I think we both assume the moon is attached to Earth through gravity (whatever gravity is) and only one side of the moon faces Earth. If the axis (axle) was attached to Earth, a point on the axis would also always face Earth. The axis must be attached to some force other than Earth to always face the same direction???

[viscount aero]

If you walk in a circle with a point on the wheel always facing the center, and a point on the axis always facing the same direction, the axis is rotating within the wheel: the wheel is not rotating about the axis.

Then you've just proven axial rotation of the Moon--the action is reciprocal.

Viscount,
Are you really saying that both the moon and its axis are rotating? Tidal locking contends that the axis (axle) is always facing the same direction. That means the axis is attached to something???

In my opinion, you're overthinking this. The axis is an imaginary line. It doesn't actually exist as a physical entity. It's an extension of a point. Whether the axis is "actually" rotating or not is not relevant to the idea. Drop the issue of the axis being a "thing" that rotates. I think this is confusing you otherwise.

I think we both assume the moon is attached to Earth through gravity (whatever gravity is) and only one side of the moon faces Earth. If the axis (axle) was attached to Earth, a point on the axis would also always face Earth. The axis must be attached to some force other than Earth to always face the same direction???

I don't understand your statement as it doesn't make any sense to me. From my perspective it seems that you're going about your thought processes as if the axis were a character in a play with physical attributes and an ID card. The axis is merely an extension of a point, a line, that delineates the center of rotation of a sphere (or other object). The axis itself isn't rotating or doing anything. It sits there as a concept for discussion, being a set of coordinates used in physics and engineering.

[jtb]

Viscount, you are right. Since an axle is attached to something, it may be orbiting, but is not rotating within the object mounted on it.

To test the validity of an imaginary rotation of the moon on its axis we need to substitute an axle for the axis. An axle, to act as an axle, must be attached to something whether seen or invisible, otherwise it is merely part of the object.

With the axle attached to the center of orbit, the moon is orbiting the center but not rotating on its axle.

Tidal locking contends the moon is rotating once per orbit on its axis. To make it work, the axis, or axle, is attached to an external force rather than the center of orbit. A point on the axle would always face the origin of the force.

In my illustration I am attempting to demonstrate that if an axle is not attached to the force (gravity) holding the object in orbit, it must be attached to an external force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth. Except for libration effects, this results in the Moon keeping the same face turned towards Earth, as seen in the figure on the left. (The Moon is shown in polar view, and is not drawn to scale.) If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the figure on the right.”

The visual on the wiki site shows a polar view of a non-rotating moon on the right and a moon rotating once per orbit on the left. An axle attached to the center of orbit would have the left view non-rotating and the view on the right rotating once per orbit. The only way the visual works is with a lunar axle attached to an external force. A point on the axle would always face the origin of the force.

Too bad they don't show the moon rotating twice per orbit. Observer at the center would not be able to distinguish between a non-rotating moon and one rotating twice per orbit.

[viscount aero]

Viscount, you are right. Since an axle is attached to something, it may be orbiting, but is not rotating within the object mounted on it.

To test the validity of an imaginary rotation of the moon on its axis we need to substitute an axle for the axis. An axle, to act as an axle, must be attached to something whether seen or invisible, otherwise it is merely part of the object.

With the axle attached to the center of orbit, the moon is orbiting the center but not rotating on its axle.

Incorrect.

For sake of argument, let's go with your "axle" idea. Were the "axle" fixed then the Moon would be rotating around it thus proving the Moon rotates about an axis.

Tidal locking contends the moon is rotating once per orbit on its axis. To make it work, the axis, or axle, is attached to an external force rather than the center of orbit. A point on the axle would always face the origin of the force.

In my illustration I am attempting to demonstrate that if an axle is not attached to the force (gravity) holding the object in orbit, it must be attached to an external force.

What you said makes no sense in English: "I am attempting to demonstrate that if an axle is not attached to the force (gravity) holding the object in orbit, it must be attached to an external force"---means nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth. Except for libration effects, this results in the Moon keeping the same face turned towards Earth, as seen in the figure on the left. (The Moon is shown in polar view, and is not drawn to scale.) If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the figure on the right.”

The visual on the wiki site shows a polar view of a non-rotating moon on the right and a moon rotating once per orbit on the left. An axle attached to the center of orbit would have the left view non-rotating and the view on the right rotating once per orbit. The only way the visual works is with a lunar axle attached to an external force. A point on the axle would always face the origin of the force.

Again you are talking in nonsense language: "The only way the visual works is with a lunar axle attached to an external force. A point on the axle would always face the origin of the force"--has no meaning and is incoherent.

The Wiki article is actually correct. The animations provided prove that the Moon does rotate. You have been proving through your prior links (Tesla and Wiki) only that the Moon does rotate.

Too bad they don't show the moon rotating twice per orbit. Observer at the center would not be able to distinguish between a non-rotating moon and one rotating twice per orbit.

^^^That makes no sense whatsoever and describes nothing.

What you are doing is overcomplicating your position and thoughts, while inadvertently proving that the Moon does rotate by posting links that prove the point against your own personal fantasy beliefs. That is my view on what you are doing.

Your position is indefensible.

[D_Archer]

^^^That makes no sense whatsoever and describes nothing.

What you are doing is overcomplicating your position and thoughts, while inadvertently proving that the Moon does rotate by posting links that prove the point against your own personal fantasy beliefs. That is my view on what you are doing.

Your position is indefensible.

I know a thing or two about describing nothings (as do other EU adherents)

As for the argument, you are actually accusing jtb of what you are doing now, your response to jtb has no substance. It is all about visualization and Jtb does make good points but you fail to see them.

And comparing Tesla to Santa Clause? tsk tsk... i am actually quite astonished that Tesla is brushed aside as a nothing on the Thunderbolts forum. I thought this forum and EU was making progress, but comments like these show otherwise.

My response so far is also a big nothing as an argument to the topic at hand, but i made my view clear earlier.

Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

Regards,
Daniel

[viscount aero]

^^^That makes no sense whatsoever and describes nothing.

What you are doing is overcomplicating your position and thoughts, while inadvertently proving that the Moon does rotate by posting links that prove the point against your own personal fantasy beliefs. That is my view on what you are doing.

Your position is indefensible.

I know a thing or two about describing nothings (as do other EU adherents)

As for the argument, you are actually accusing jtb of what you are doing now, your response to jtb has no substance. It is all about visualization and Jtb does make good points but you fail to see them.

There is nothing to fail to see. Jtb posts very good visual points, Wiki animations, that actually disprove his fallacious position. That you seem to agree with jtb is a folly.

And comparing Tesla to Santa Clause? tsk tsk... i am actually quite astonished that Tesla is brushed aside as a nothing on the Thunderbolts forum. I thought this forum and EU was making progress, but comments like these show otherwise.

There is no point to agree across the board, like a sheeple, with the likes of Tesla if Tesla was incorrect. I highly respect Tesla but not the view attributed to his belief about the Moon. He was incorrect. Geniuses can be wrong. It doesn't matter if he is Tesla or Santa Claus or Frank Sinatra. If a genius speaks an untruth then they are not to be believed based only on their name brand.

It is likewise dogmatic to worship every utterance of Tesla whilst crucifying the likes of Einstein for his flawed relativity theories. Such a condition describes a double-standard.

My response so far is also a big nothing as an argument to the topic at hand, but i made my view clear earlier.

Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

Regards,
Daniel

"Your perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it"--which is exactly what people who allege the Moon to be NOT rotating are doing. In this case, Wikipedia, ironically, is telling the truth as revealed in the animations. To overcomplicate this issue is unnecessary.

[D_Archer]

In this case, Wikipedia, ironically, is telling the truth as revealed in the animations. To overcomplicate this issue is unnecessary

Yes, it is rather ironic and i think that is the whole point, they can not be right. I invert all standard paradigms and always come closer to the truth.

The animations are done in a forced perspective, they do not show a moon rotating on its axis, they show a virtual axis in a real orbit not rotating around ITS axis. This is the illusion Tesla was talking about, the observer creates the axial rotation of the moon by following the virtual axis.

Regards,
Daniel

[jtb]

I don't blame anyone for not seeing what I see. I have made many errors reaching my conclusion. It has been a painful journey going against consensus science, but also a lot of fun and satisfying. If consensus science believes that an object glued to the edge of a spinning lazy Susan is rotating on its axis, what can I say???

Also, when I learned that consensus science says Earth is traveling >2,000,000 mph in a flat, stationary, infinite, expanding universe creating nothing out of nothing, with no center or boarders, I highly suspect some really smart people have made a wrong turn somewhere and, we should reexamine the evidence.

It appears to me that there are always at least two basic assumptions to choose from to build on a certain subject. One leads to the truth, the other gets very very complicated.

[viscount aero]

Not all consensus science is false.

The animations demonstrate unequivocally a rotating versus not-rotating Moon and what that looks like. That you deny it in plain sight is your own choice.

[jtb]

Viscount, my point in the wiki demonstration is that if tidal locking is true, viewed from Earth, a non-rotating moon would look exactly like one rotating twice per orbit.

[viscount aero]

Viscount, my point in the wiki demonstration is that if tidal locking is true, viewed from Earth, a non-rotating moon would look exactly like one rotating twice per orbit.

I'm not understanding your idea the Moon "rotating twice per orbit looking the same."