Michael V wrote:Unjustified assumptions, are just so easy, don't you agree?.
Except you're missing the justifications I gave after you claimed I was making an "unjustified leap of reasoning". Justifications that have been given several times earlier. If you had some calculations that you had given earlier to fall back on, you'd have a point.
Whether jtb's alternative explanation of the Moon's rotation/non-rotation is correct or not, I really don't see that the standard explanation is as complete and ironclad as you imply.
So I've gathered, but on the one hand we have Newtonian mechanics, satellites spinning in space as they orbit, and the Earth, Moon, and other planets spinning in their orbits around the Sun, calculated libration effects, and tidal locking, versus... pretty much nothing but busted analogies and "visualizations".
Michael V wrote:
chrimony wrote:I'm suggesting as far as analogous experiments go, the bowls match much more closely to what we see in space than jtb's palm experiment or your ball on a string.
It could be argued that a horse looks more like a elephant than a giraffe does, but it does not follow that studying horses will not necessarily give me more insight about elephants than studying giraffes would. In truth, both are useless as "analogies".
Nonsense. It's Newtonian mechanics. Such analogies and experiments are the bedrock for this field. When we seek to simulate what happens to bodies in space, we try and reduce frictional effects.
You will again notice that I suggested the "piece of string" scenario as a visualisation, not an analogy.
Uh huh, a "visualisation" and not an analogy. Here's the text from your post when you introduced your diagrams (bold mine):
Michael V wrote:This diagram shows that if the Moon were swung round the Earth, as if tied by a piece of string between their centres, then the Moon's famous big black spot would always face Earth.
The Moon would be continuously changing direction, but not rotating.
This diagram shows that if the Moon rotates about its polar axis (the small black dot) at the rate of one rotation per orbit, then the big black dot would always face Earth.
The Moon would be continuously changing direction and rotating.
So which scenario most accurately describes the relationship between the Moon and the Earth ?.....and why ?.
You can claim you aren't making an analogy all you want, but all I see is backpedaling and a continual refusal to acknowledge basic points. As I said in my last post, this makes further conversation useless. This is the last post for me.
Quite so, I am aware of the "tidal locking" explanation. However, I have read a bit about it, but did not fully understand how it works to produce the single rotation per elliptical orbit claimed for moons. For example, does the moon start with no rotation and acquire rotation, or start with more rotation and loose rotation. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain.
I'm not interested. Good luck in your research if you really are.
Also, what happens to satellites you mentioned. Why are the spin rates arbitrary?. Do they attain a certain spin rate that stays fixed?, or does it change over time?. Do all satellites spin in orbit if not corrected?. What about satellites in perfectly circular equatorial orbits?. What about an idealised case of a satellite with an equatorial orbit around a much larger body with a perfectly uniform gravitational "field"?. Any knowledge or insight you could provide would be much appreciated.
Again, not interested. Good luck in your research if you really are. I'm satisfied with the standard explanations and evidence. I have seen nothing in this thread to make me doubt them or want to dive in further. If I felt discussion was fruitful and points were acknowledged, I might have been willing to go further.