Page 6 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 619

Thread: Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?

  1. #101
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    10,268
    Quote Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa View Post
    No matter how much or little educated or how stupid or intelligent, people say & do anything to try to justify their position. That's your story & you're sticking to it!
    This is extremely simple. Truly. If you can't get this, how can you handle the extremely complicated???
    You really need to learn to use the quote function so we can tell just who the heck you're talking to!!!

    This post, as it is now, is worthless because there's NO way to tell who it's in response to. That's not too bright in anyone's book.

  2. #102
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    10,268
    Quote Originally Posted by DwayneD.L.Rabon View Post
    Well i just would like to make mention that the earths moon is a unsual lunar satellite, it is far to large to be a considered a natural lunar satellite, although it apppears have its orgin from the earth in earths early formation.

    A natural earth lunar satellite should be only about 550 miles in diameter.

    The moon appears to be a apart of the earth from a time when the earth was much larger, a time when the earth was a gas giant, in which the moon seperated from the gas shell of the earth when the earth was about 20,000 miles in diameter or slightly less. Avery good example of such bodies that become abnormal lunar satellites is that of the Red Eye on Jupiter which is a body simular to the moon trapped in the gaseous body of Jupiter. eventually when the gas of jupiter has been evaporated this moon will be exsposed.
    As can be seen from the Red Eye of Jupiter these bodies are tidally locked to the primary body.


    DwayneD.L.Rabon
    Rabon, it's easy to see that you have no idea what you're babbling about. Every bit of your post is nothing but pure nonsense. Even a kid of 18 knows better.

  3. #103
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    968
    Read only, your a proffessional dumb ass.


    DwayneD.L.Rabon

  4. #104
    O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Steve100's Avatar
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by DwayneD.L.Rabon View Post
    Read only, your a proffessional dumb ass.


    DwayneD.L.Rabon
    Haha.

  5. #105
    You really need to learn to control yourself.

  6. #106
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    10,268
    Quote Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa View Post
    You really need to learn to control yourself.
    Who???????

    Once again, by quoting nothing and addressing nothing, you are just talking to yourself alone. No one has any idea who else you might be talking to.

    Silly boy/girl/whatever.

  7. #107
    Stranger,
    Read-Only is right. Your last comment, for example. "You really need to learn to control yourself."
    It follows a post from Steve100. Internet forum convention would strongly suggest your post is directed at Steve. However, it makes little sense to ask Steve to control himself. He seems perfectly in control.
    It is more likely that you are talking to Dwayne. (He does need to control himself.) But how are we meant to know this? You could be talking to anyone, frankly.
    Cheers
    O.

  8. #108
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus58 View Post
    I have redone the images to show the polar axis of each satellite.

    If you are still having trouble, here is the 90° tilt as seen from the planet surface.

    home.earthlink.net/~parvey/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rotate4.gif

    Does it rotate on its axis?
    #1 - that graphic has nothing in common with your earlier 3 graphics which all (more or less) had kept their same side pointing towards the center.

    #2 - your 4th graphic, if viewed from a planet at the center of its orbit, would be tumbling around two axes. It thus would NOT be tidally locked ...UNLESS, there were other moons close by that were causing it to tumble and keeping it from becoming tidally locked.

    How do your graphics relate to the issue of whether (or not) our own moon is still *rotating* around its polar axis?

    If our moon is still rotating around its internal polar axis one (1) time per complete orbit as some here claim, then please do name the force that has (for at least 3 billion years) kept our moon rotating around its polar axis against the torque of tidally locking?

    Other than the Earth and moon's mutual pull of gravity on each other (and to a lessor extent of the sun & Jupiter, etc), the only remaining force I see that's affecting the moon's motion would be the moon's own orbital motion around the Earth-moon barycenter, and the force of that orbital motion is not constant since the moon's orbital motion is speeding up as energy is transferred from the Earth through tidal braking.

    Pretty graphics, though.


    Ken

  9. #109
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,788
    Ken your post 93has many errors, which I CORRECTED IN POST 96, but you have ignored that so I condense your post 93 to display only your errors directly related to the thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Dine View Post
    … reference frames by which it can be determined that the moon does NOT rotate on its polar axis! {one} would be when standing on the moon itself…a person with no other reference points could use a Foucault pendulum to determine if they were on a astronomical body that had polar axial rotation. … Ken
    If I sit on North pole of the moon for 28 days without moving initially facing the sun, two weeks later the sun is at my back and 28 days later the sun is again at my face again.
    Did not I and the moon make one 360 degree turn about the polar axis?

    I also watched the Foucault pendulum near me make one 360 degree turn during those 28 days. That you yourself CORRECTLY said was PROOF that the moon did turn on its polar axis. Are you contradicting yourself? Or just confused?

    You also think the Earth’s gravity force on the moon is stronger than the sun’s gravity force on the moon is. It is so easy to show you are wrong here too, that I will:

    If M & m be the masses for Sun and Earth and D & d be the distances of Sun and Earth from the moon. Thus, the ratio of Sun’s to Earth’s gravity on moon is:
    {M/(D^2)} / {m/(d^2)} or (M/m) x (d/D)^2.
    Now the mass ratio (M/m) = 1.3 x 10^6 and D = 150 x10^6 km. The moon to Earth separation, d, is 0.384 x10^6 km and I assume the moon is as far as it can be from the sun so D = 150.384 x 10^6.
    Then (d/D)^2 = (0.00255)^2 or (2.55)^2 x10^-6 or 6.5 x 10^-6

    Thus the Sun’s gravity is 1.30 x 6.50 = 8.45 times stronger force on the moon than the Earth’s gravity is. This is why the moon orbits the sun, not the Earth. All the Earth does is make the moon’s basically elliptical orbit about the sun have some small “wobble.”

    How small is that “wobble”? Well that too is easy to answer: It is as 0.384 is to 150 or a ¼ of one percent variation in the moon to sun distance. So do graph it but for easy assume a circular orbit. When you draw a circle with 13 cycles of only ¼% variation in the radius you will see that AT ALL POINTS in the moon’s orbit it is ALWAYS turning towards the sun. The moon does NOT orbit the Earth it only very slightly crosses from one side of the Earth’s orbit to the other as it orbits the sun.

    Summary: YOU HAVE BEEN 100% WRONG on everything stated directly related to the thread and even about the cause of the tides. You did NOT even correctly note the fact that both the Earth and moon only APPEAR* to rotate about their barycenter, which only wobbles from its elliptical orbit very little (due mainly to the perturbations of Jupiter).
    --------------------------
    *Appear” as neither is rotating about the barycenter, but if you were traveling with it in orbit about the sun it does APPEAR to be what they are doing; however, from ANY point fixed in space, both Earth and moon are in slightly (1/4 of a percent at most perturbed) elliptical orbits about the sun. They are NOT rotating or orbiting about each other nor about the barycenter. It only APPEARS THAT WAY. Also in case you are also confused about the sun: The sun is not rotating about the Earth either, but it too APPEARS to be rotating about the Earth from an Earth based perspective. Most educated persons now know that appearance is false. - The sun does not orbit the Earth; it only Appears to orbit the Earth. Unfortunately, most people still think the moon DOES orbit the Earth because it appears to orbit the Earth. Things are not always what they appear to be. To know the truth you need to do the calculations / analysis (as done above) not just assume the common POV and appearance are correct.

    Finnally: As the moon goes around the sun in an eliptical orbit with 1/4 percent perturbation by the Earth of that orbit it is spinning about its polar axis approximately 13 times in each complete orbit of the sun. From Mars or some more distant place the telescope-aidded eye could ONLY observe the polar spin of the moon, not the tiny, slow 1/4 % wobble.
    Last edited by Billy T; 09-17-08 at 10:55 AM.

  10. #110
    Ken,
    you seem like a smart guy. Please prove it now by conceding that you have had, like many others, the wrong end of the stick.
    Sincerely
    O.

  11. #111
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite View Post
    Ken,
    you seem like a smart guy. Please prove it now by conceding that you have had, like many others, the wrong end of the stick.
    Sincerely
    O.
    Huh? In plain English please?

    Ken

  12. #112
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Dine View Post
    Huh? In plain English please? Ken
    I will help you by drawing a verbal picture. (I cannot post any picture for reasons not known):

    Imagine an eight inch diameter perfect circle drawn on an 8.5x11 inch piece of paper with a pencil that makes a mark 0.01 inches wide. (That is about the width of: | on my computer screen.)

    Now you have a "circularized" scale model of the moon's orbit going around the sun. I.e. the 1/4 of one percent "wobbles" do not go outside of the 0.01 inch wide line, but are contained entirely inside its 0.01 inch width. This is why it is correct to state the moon is in orbit about the sun, not the Earth.

    It is also why it is correct to state that it spins on its polar axis as it does so. The only motion noticeable to a telescope aided eye from most everywhere in the universe is this polar spin, not these tiny wobbles. To even see them with a telescope, your position if represented on the scale drawing would need to be close to the point on the circle of the scale drawing where the Earth is.

    Also I worked out for you in my last post the sun's gravity on the moon is 8.45 times larger than that of the Earth. You seem to be a very stubborn fool to ignore all the facts that I and others have explained to you and persist in beliefs that contradict these facts which are only based on appearances when viewed from the Earth.

    Based on the appearances you equally well can believe the sun orbits the Earth also as it too does gives the appearance of doing so. You have only the appearance to support your POV and none of the facts. Facts you have all wrong, including the believe that gravity, not the gravity gradient, causes the tides.
    Last edited by Billy T; 09-17-08 at 01:20 PM.

  13. #113
    O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Steve100's Avatar
    Posts
    2,339
    If the Earth just disappeared, would the moon continue to rotate about its axis, instantly start rotating about its axis, or remain not rotating about its axis?

    If you think it's the second option, what causes the moon's rotational acceleration?

    If you think it's the third option, you need to get on the right stick, never mind the right end.

  14. #114
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,788
    Nicely put questions, Steve100.

    I do tend to get too detailed, give numerical facts etc.

    If he still does not admit his errors he really is a "stubborn fool" not only just appearing to be one.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Dine View Post
    Huh? In plain English please?

    Ken
    You are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. You are more wrong than a hirsute Latvian accordionist wearing embroidered silk bloomers in a remake of The Third Man. If they gave Oscar's for wrongness you would have a clean sweep. Generations from now young children will be shown these posts in order to understand how wrong, wrong can be. Your wrongness is of such magnitude that it may even stop the LHC from operating correctly. W-R-O-N-G. Wrong!

    Did that help.

    I tried to be polite by using a common colloquial expression. Suggesting you had the wrong end of the stick allows the possibility that you just have the wrong perspective on things. However, as Steve100 has now touched on, it looks like you may not even have the right stick.

    What I don't understand, returning to my original comments, is how someone so apparently smart could be so persistently committed to remaining wrong.

    Here's some unsolicited advice. When you are in a hole that you do not wish to be in the first thing to do is to stop digging. We are all rooting for you, but only you can make the transition.

  16. #116
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    968
    Well, heres a little in addition..... The mass for the moon according to Nasa is 1/87th the mass of the earth, which cleary would define that the moon, exerts less force on the earth than the earths magentic feild.

    Also if you are going to consider the effect of the sun on the moon then you should also consider the effect of the sun on the earth. Which would result in finding out that the earth should not spin either.

    Under such anaolgy the moon would not rotate it would be locked as the earth should be locked in orbit with the sun.

    The earth is located just out side of a region where things stop rotating, and begin to become more like the motion of venus and mercury.
    and so the moon is just small enough that if it broke away from the earth it would begin to rotate.

    And so also the moon is in a normal orbit around the earth.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon

  17. #117
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,788
    Post 93 in part.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    ...Ken you will soon learn (I hope, although some active here never have) that the best policy when you do error is to quickly convert to correct POV and thank those who have helped you do so. - That way the "beatings" stop. ...
    I guess Ken is just a very slow learner (or perhaps a masochist?).

  18. #118
    Yes. A great shame. Otherwise he seems like a real nice guy and capable of reasonable analysis, up to a point. I hope he comes around. On the plus side we got to see all those neat animations.

  19. #119
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve100 View Post
    If the Earth just disappeared, would the moon continue to rotate about its axis, instantly start rotating about its axis, or remain not rotating about its axis?

    If you think it's the second option, what causes the moon's rotational acceleration?

    If you think it's the third option, you need to get on the right stick, never mind the right end.
    Since the moon is revolving around an exterior axis (the barycenter within the Earth), if the Earth were magically removed, then the moon would switch over to revolving around the barycenter of the moon & sun's combined common-mass, a point near the sun's center.

    Because the moon had no actual polar rotation prior to being released by the Earth's gravity, at most the moon would wobble slightly until tidal-braking by the sun stabilized it.

    The proof that the moon's circular revolution around the Earth is not the same thing as polar rotation is easy. Have you never seen an athlete's hammer toss?

    Prior to releasing the hammer (a round metal ball on a chain), the hammer-thrower's ball is whizzing about him (or her) at such blazing speed the ball is just a blur at a high rate of circular motion, but upon release, the ball at most does a slow tumble and does NOT spin in the air at all.

    Any minor tumbling of the ball upon release is caused by minor cartwheeling prior to the release, thus any minor tumbling motion caused by cartwheeling (around its own mass) the ball would retain after its release.

    Here's a video clip - there are several athletes tossing in this clip and only the last athlete's toss can be seen clearly while in the air, the blond Russian gal's toss. At the end of the clip they replay her toss in slow motion making it easy to see the ball's lack of rotation while in the air (add the http & www):

    youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbgg2TRCuw

    Don't believe the video? Then go to the park and fling a couple balls for yourself.

    Ken

  20. #120
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    968
    I would have to agree,
    if the moon were suddenly released from earth the moon would wobble around a bit first the start in to a rotation later.
    However in the release the moon could make a tumble into a orbit region where it would not gain a rotation, given that the earth is just a few million miles out side of the no rotation region of our solar system.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon

Similar Threads

  1. By Orleander in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 11-18-09, 11:16 AM
    Replies: 72
  2. By countezero in forum Science & Society
    Last Post: 12-03-07, 10:32 AM
    Replies: 108
  3. By Medicine*Woman in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 03-12-07, 09:07 AM
    Replies: 20
  4. By vincent in forum World Events
    Last Post: 09-01-05, 02:10 AM
    Replies: 5

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •