Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by common_sense_seeker, Sep 6, 2008.

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Pity i'm not a mathematician, or can you not read my member title?
    Or perhaps you thought my Avatar was some kind of mthamatical equation? (Hint, it isn't).

    Gravity is a weak force is a relevant statement, and conducting the sort of experiment you're talking about would require the gross domestic product of several small third world nations (and Belgium).

    Or we can take the common sense approach, you know, that which you claim to be seeking, and we can make inferences based on observations, and there have been plenty of observations of tidal locking, and various other similar phenomena.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ken Dine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    22
    The conventional wisdom is (amazingly) that the moon rotates on its polar axis one time per orbit. HOWEVER, that is simply not true, because due to tidal braking, the moon no longer rotates around its internal polar axis at all. The moon's polar rotation ground to a halt billions of years ago, so today the moon just *orbits* around the Earth-moon common-mass barycenter, which is a point located within the Earth.

    The *apparent* rotation of the moon from the sidereal perspective (and your above example is from the sidereal perspective) ONLY shows a 360 degree turn as the moon orbits, which is not a true polar rotation. E.g., if you had a sidereal perspective of the Earth orbiting the sun, then you would count 366.25 rotations per year instead of 365.25, which is our Earth's 365.25 polar rotations plus one (1) 360 degree orbit.

    The moon will then have *turned* halfway around as a result of its orbit, so as viewed from the stars (the sidereal perspective), the moon would point in the opposite direction. HOWEVER, the axis for that turn would be the Earth-moon barycenter located within the Earth and NOT a rotation around our moon's internal polar axis!

    If the moon BOTH orbited and rotated around its polar axis (two axes at the same time), then you would see all sides of the moon. The Earth has two axes, its polar axial spin as well as its orbit around the Earth-sun-moon barycenter. The moon has only ONE (1) relevant spin axis as the moon orbits (revolves) around its barycenter.

    Yes, we do ...BECAUSE, the moon lost all of its polar axial spins billions of years ago!!

    Are you referring to a so-called "zero-rotation" moon as shown in this graphic -- NOTE, I don't have enough posts yet to post URLs, so you need to add the http part to this URL (don't add www):

    community-2.webtv.net/kdine5/Lunacy/scrapbookFiles/mailedD1.gif

    If that so-called "zero-rotation" moon is what you mean, then that moon actually has one clockwise polar rotation per each counter-clockwise orbit.

    When viewed from a sidereal perspective, all counter-clockwise orbiting bodies that are either tidally locked, or rotating on their polar axis counter-clockwise, *appear* to have one (1) extra polar rotation, which in fact is its orbit and not a true polar rotation. Thus, the Earth has a 366.25:1 spin ratio, and the moon has a 1:1 spin ratio - BUT, the Earth still has only 365.25 polar rotations per year (366.25 - 1 = 365.25), and the moon has zero polar rotations per orbit (1 - 1 = 0).

    Conversely, from the same sidereal perspective, all counter-clockwise orbiting bodies that are spinning down from the clockwise direction will *appear* to have one (-1) less polar rotation from the sidereal perspective than they actually have.

    Think about it - at one time our moon did have polar axial rotation, but billions of years ago tidal braking quickly ground the moon's polar rotations to a halt ... and normally, when you lose all of something you end up with ZERO, not one!

    What confuses this issue is the claim that a sidereal perspective shows some sort of absolute truth (i.e., God's eye!) But, there are no absolute reference frames, and it's easy to prove that the sidereal perspective has obvious problems.

    E.g., from the sidereal perspective a counter-clockwise orbiting body spinning down from the clockwise direction will not only have a 0:1 spin rate when that theoretical moon actually still has one polar rotation left as it orbits around its larger planet, but also, a moon spinning down from that clockwise direction will have TWO (2) 1:1 spin rates!!!!

    Don't believe it? It's true, and rather easy to prove!

    Let's try your table top experiment again, but instead of orbiting a coin around the center-point, instead take an orange (or any other round object) and draw a happy-face on one side, and draw an X on the opposite side.

    Place the orange in the 6 o'clock position with the X facing you, and then push the orange in the counter-clockwise position to 3 o'clock as you spin the orange around its polar axis one time – when you land at 3 o'clock the happy-face should again be facing the center-point and you should have counted the X one time.

    Proceed in this same fashion to 12 o'clock, then 9 o'clock, then back to the starting point at 6 o'clock.

    In that single orbit the orange's happy face will have faced inwards four (4) times, and you will have counted the X five (5) times! No matter how many polar rotations you make per each orbit, you will ALWAYS count the X one more time ... and, that extra X count is caused by the 360 degree orbit, NOT a polar rotation!

    Try the same experiment with the same counter-clockwise orbit, but rotate the orange clockwise this time, and you'll then count the X one (-1) time LESS than than the orange's actual polar rotations - thus, the so-called zero-rotating moon is actually a counter-clockwise orbiting moon spinning down from the clockwise direction. Amazingly, counter-clockwise moon spinning down from the clockwise direction that still has 2 polar rotations left will have a 2nd 1:1 sidereal spin ratio, the same 1:1 it will have when it finally spins down.

    So much for the absolute truth of the sidereal perspective!!!

    Thus, despite appearing to not spin from the sidereal perspective (0:1), that zero-rotation moon is actually spinning clockwise around its polar axis one time per orbit (0 + 1 = 1):

    Likewise, this tidally-locked moon with a 1:1 (sidereal) spin rate is often incorrectly cited as a one (1) rotation moon:

    community-2.webtv.net/kdine5/Lunacy/scrapbookFiles/mailedD0.gif

    But, the only spin you're seeing these 1-rotation models make is the moon's 360 degree orbit around an exterior axis (its barycenter.)

    The moon ONLY *orbits* around its Earth-moon barycenter! The Earth both *revolves* around the sun and *rotates* around its polar axis. The Earth also wobbles around the Earth-moon barycenter.

    I realize that most websites have this wrong - likely, this rotation nonsense is being taught in Astronomy 101 courses and most people don't think too deeply about it and just accept it.

    The Earth was once known to be flat, too!
    :shrug:

    Ken




     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Can you provide a citation for that?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Rand-McNally. (Has many 2D maps of it.)
     
  8. Ken Dine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    22
    Ophiolite: "Can you provide a citation for that?"

    Funny!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yup, the Flat-earthers are still out there, but their numbers pale in comparison to the loony moon-rotaters still walking around loose:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

    Ken
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Hi Ken & WELCOME to sf.

    Consider for example: A top with lots of kinetic energy so it can stand on its tip without falling over (I am avoiding the word "spinning.") and it is going around with me on a circus merry-go-round, is it not spinning? Even spinning on it Polar axis?

    You understand some things well, but are a too dogmatic and provincial on others, IMHO.

    There is really no good way to absolutely distinguish between your "turning", "spinning" & "rotating." Adding the word "polar" in front of "rotation" does not do it because as you say there are no absolute reference frames. In fact the only reference frame in which the moon appears not to spin is the Earth-fixed rotating frame. One fixed in the sun or Mars or any other planet or even any star does see all sides of the moon. Thus to hold your provincial POV you must ignore the POV of ALL other frames, which see the moon as spinning.

    Also your provincial bias to this particular frame made you make statements such as:

    "The Earth both *revolves* around the sun and *rotates* around its polar axis. The Earth also wobbles ..."

    But do not state that the moon is doing the same thing. I.e. the only difference is that the Earth's "wobble" and spin rates are both larger.
    A difference in degree is NOT a difference in kind.

    Perhaps you, like many others, erroneously think the Earth is the main gravitational force acting on the moon and thus it orbits the Earth?

    Well that is false. The sun is the dominate gravitational force on the moon. Both Earth and moon are in slightly elliptic orbits about the sun, which are always curving towards the sun. Both do "wobble" about 13 cycles as they make a complete circuit. The moon makes a 360 degree spin about 13 times and the Earth about 365 times during each trip around the sun. Neither is doing anything the other is not. The magnitudes of their wobbles and spin rates differ in value - that is all.

    James was correct.* Your POV (quite a provincial one) is valid only from one special non-inertial frame whereas ALL other frames clearly see both the Earth and moon as spinning and wobbling as they orbit the sun.
    ----------------
    *He usually is. Thus I take special delight when I catch his errors. I have been watching for more than three years and his rate is 4 errors in that period. (much lower than mine.) Take care when correcting him to make sure it is not you making the error, as you unfortunately did in your very first post.

    Later by edit: Since Janus58 is still active here let me again thank him for teaching me the facts about the moon orbiting the sun, not the Earth, in an orbit that is ALWAYS curving towards the sun.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2008
  10. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    Ken, I like you to consider this image which shows a satellite orbiting a body. The satellite has a sidereal rotation equal to its orbit, but a has a 90° axial tilt. Would you consider this satellite as rotating on its axis or not? If not, why not?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    If yes, then consider this image, same situation but with 45° axial tilt. Does it rotate or not? If not, why, and at what axial tilt between 90° and 45° did it quit rotating?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Finally, we have 0° of axial tilt. I already know that you say this situation involves no rotation of the satellite. And assuming you said yes to rotation for the last image, at what point between 45° and 0° did it stop rotating?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Janus, why not go ahead and finish out the series? Show a true non-rotating moon - in which case all sides become visible during the course of one full orbit.
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    If we are going to make recommendations to Janus58, mine would be to show ONLY the satellite, stationary at the center of the frame, with the same rotation that it has in Janus58's first frame And ask if that satellite was spinning. Then add a mass for it to orbit and ask if that same motion of the planet was no longer a spin? (i.e. Janus58's first frame would become the second frame.)
     
  13. Ken Dine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    22
    Frankly, I don't see any difference between graphics #1 & #2 – even so, both moons appear to be tidally locked showing only the white face towards their primary. They both would have a 1:1 spin rate, which means they do not rotate at all around their polar axes and thus both only revolve around their common barycenter with their primaries.

    Can you more clearly explain where your 90° and 45° axial tilts are??

    While graphic #3 appears a tad different than the first two, I didn't see your 90° and 45° axial tilts, and I don't see any 0° axial tilt with this one either?

    What I see are 3 tidally locked moons that aren't rotating around their polar axes, but they all do seem to have orbits with high declinations, which can contribute to libration – i.e., more than 50% of their respective surfaces may be viewable from the surface of their primaries.

    E.g., due to libration, from Earth (over time) we can view about 59% of our moon's surface. Libration has various causes.

    Our moon's apparent orbit can also exhibit extreme declination – e.g., google "moon's standstill" and you'll find that our moon has an 18 year cycle where it can get very high in our northern sky – as I recall, as much as 58°, and then two weeks later the moon will travel across our sky at just above the southern horizon, depending upon where the viewer is standing, of course.

    Even though the moons in your graphics may show more of their surfaces (but less than all of their surfaces) to their primaries due to libration and still be considered tidally locked, a tidally locked body can even show ALL of its surface to its primary and still be considered tidally locked!

    A classic example of this would be the planet Mercury, which has a 3:2 spin rate. Even though Mercury has spun down and lost all of its original polar rotation, because of Mercury's very eccentric orbit, each time Mercury orbits the sun it does a half-flip, so every two orbits mercury makes one complete rotation - thus, its 3:2 spin rate.

    Even so, Mercury is still considered to be tidally locked since its spin is caused by its eccentric orbit.

    As I recall, even though they are still considered to be tidally locked, harmonics may cause a few moons around the gas giants to also rotate 360°, which is caused by the gravitational effects of the other moons.

    There are over 200 moons in our solar system and a lot to examine that is out of the ordinary - e.g., Venus is nearly tidally locked with the sun but still has a slight retrograde (clockwise) rotation.

    Venus takes 243.01 days to spin once on its axis. With this slow rotation rate it actually takes 18.3 days longer for Venus to spin once on its axis than it takes for Venus to orbit the Sun, so from a sidereal perspective, Venus nearly has a 0:1 spin rate as it spins down to a tidally locked 1:1 spin rate.

    Pluto is already tidally locked with its (relatively) large moon Charon, and both Pluto and Charon obit around an exterior barycenter, a point of their common-mass that lies in the space between them, which is very unusual for planets, but then again, Pluto has been downgraded from the planet classification.

    Uranus' axis of rotation lies on its side with respect to the plane of the solar system, with an axial tilt of 97.77 degrees.

    Ken
     
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Ken, a very clearly written, accurate and informative post. I just missed the bit where you accepted that the moon rotates on its axis.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    And I missed ANY comment on post 86 about how the moon "turning" as it appears to orbit the Earth differs from the Earth turing as it goes around the sun Or even the top turing as it goes around the center of the circus merri-go-round, except these all have different rates of turning and orbit periods.

    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 still ask (again but more specifically):

    What does the Earth do as it orbits the sun that the moon does not also do as it orbits the sun?

    The Earth has smaller "wobbel" and a more rapid spin, but that is not a difference in kind. They are doing the same type of thing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2008
  16. Ken Dine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    22
    Hi, back at ya!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Why avoid the word "spinning" since it's a perfectly good word? Because there are potentially two axes involved (the barycenter & the moon's polar axis), the only problem when discussing this issue is in NOT identifying the axis of spin you are referring to!

    E.g., you can say that the moon rotates, orbits spins or revolves around the common mass barycenter and I don't have a problem with any of that "spin" verbiage. For clarity, just give me the location of your spin axes! Location, location, location!

    Back to your question:

    That top will have two spin axes, the center of the merry-go-round and the top's own internal axis.

    Instead of a top which is difficult to observe spinning by an observer not on the merry-go-round, instead sit your body on a swiveling bar-stool positioned on the outer rim of the merry-go-round. If you sit motionless on that counter-clockwise spinning merry-go-round, then you will have a 1:1 spin rate as viewed by the observer, but your body won't spin at all when viewed by other people on the merry-go-round.

    NEXT, pick a tree off in the distance, and as the merry-go-round continues to spin, now spin your body on that rotating stool to keep facing that distant tree – from the observer's perspective you will have stopped rotating on your stool (a 0:1 sidereal spin rate), but the other people on the merry-go-round will see you spin clockwise once per each complete rotation of the merry-go-round.

    By "dogmatic" I assume you think my opinion wasn't humble enough in my certainty? Hey, I'm right (about this issue), and I've been called worse!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You're wrong since there are more than one reference frames by which it can be determined that the moon does NOT rotate on its polar axis! Two obvious reference frames would be when standing on the moon itself, or any observer standing on the Earth.

    If you were inside a windowless spacecraft it would be impossible to determine if you were traveling at a steady 2 mph or 25,000 mph, but you could detect acceleration and deceleration. You could also detect a turn or spin from inside a windowless spaceship.

    There are also the so-called fictitious forces, such as the Coriolis effect. E.g., 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.

    You can also observe deformation in the astronomical body for physical evidence of polar rotation since a polar rotating body will be oblate. WHEREAS, a tidally locked body's shape won't be oblate (like the Earth is) and often it will be in the shape of a prolate spheroid (add the httt w/o www to view this shape):

    upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/ProlateSpheroid.png

    Our moon solidified into a prolate spheroid when the Earth-caused tidal bulges deformed our moon into that elongated shape.

    As I stated above, I often add "polar" to help identify the particular spin axis I'm then discussing – nothing devious about that.

    You're 100% WRONG!!! The Earth-moon common-mass barycenter is located within the earth, so the earth simply CANNOT orbit, or rotate around its own internal barycenter, thus, the Earth can only wobble (i.e., deviate from a smoot circular orbit.) WHEREAS, our moon can orbit around its exterior barycenter.

    The Earth rotates around its polar axis 365.25 times per complete orbit around the sun, and the moon spins zero times around its polar axis each 27.3 day orbit around the Earth. The ONLY thing there in common is, that both the Earth and the moon *appear* (from the sidereal perspective) to rotate one extra time per complete orbit, but that extra 360 degree *apparent* spin is the result of the 360 degree orbit and not caused by any extra spins around a polar axis.

    I do believe that, and I'm NOT in error for believing that!!!!

    Our moon has 1/80th of the mass of the Earth - YET, the effects of our puny moon's gravity upon the Earth is over twice that of the sun's!!!! I think you should study Earth tides, and in particular look at "spring tides" and "neap tides."

    Because our moon is so much closer to us than our sun causing the moon's gravity to increase our ocean's tidal bulges much more strongly than the sun's gravity does, our much more massive Earth's gravity must by consequence be the main gravitational force acting upon the moon. Indeed, the Earth's gravity has distorted the moon into an prolate spheroid!

    You're wrong about most of that!

    I think James would be better off defending himself!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    BTW - James accurately had stated a conventional example that is often used to (incorrectly) prove that the moon rotates around its polar axis once per orbit, so if he was a good student, then that's where he got it. I don't deny that at first blush that example's logic seems valid, which is probably why most students don't challenge their teachers on it. And, the teachers learned the same thing as students and they are merely passing on the same bullshit.

    I consider myself to be a person of science, and I've relied on expert scientific opinion myself many times in explaining evolution and other scientific principles to Neanderthals, but this is one time where I see supposedly reputable websites failing to grok the basic concepts affecting our own moon's motions!


    You're wrong in your unsupported belief that I'm wrong!!!

    You say the moon only orbits the sun!?!?!? That's wrong – our moon both orbits the sun AND orbits the earth.

    Ken
     
  17. Ken Dine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    22
    Thank you about the writing praise, but don't expect an admission from me any time soon that the moon rotates around its polar axis!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    A race-car also doesn't rotate around the axis of its mass when it completes a lap, but it does indeed TURN around its mass each lap. To actually "rotate" the car would need to spin out.

    Seriously, I've discussed this rotation nonsense before, both online and in person, and I've always won. I win because I'm right!

    A simple demonstration - draw a happy-face on an orange, then go into a darkened room and take the shade off of one table lamp (that will be the sun), then hold the orange on your outstretched palm with the happy-face facing you, then spin 360 around counter-clockwise on your heels.

    If you do that, then you'll see all phases of the moon likewise pass across that orange.

    The orange will NEVER spin in your hand, yet, its happy-face will always remain pointed towards your spinning body!

    You can even see more than 50% of the orange's surface (libration) by raising the orange/moon model above and below your eye level. Viewing the orange/moon first with one eye and then the other eye will also cause some libration (caused by parallax.)

    When you show a person that demonstration to prove that the moon doesn't spin on its polar axis (only around your body's axis), they will either grok it, or they'll dig their heels in and claim your arm isn't the same thing as gravity.

    Of course an arm isn't gravity, but in an accurate model your arm can serve the same purpose.

    Men have been making sun-Earth-moon models (called Orreries) for hundreds of years now, and no orrery ever constructed has any gearing to rotate the moon-model on its internal axis! BECAUSE, rotating the moon-model on its spindle just isn't necessary to do!!!

    E.g., here's a good example of one (add the http & www to it):

    .abhirjoshi.com/models/sme_model_abhir.jpg

    Ken
     
  18. Ken Dine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    22
    I have NOT erred! You have! So, perhaps, you should follow your own advice?

    As the Earth orbits the sun it rotates 365.25 times around its INTERNAL polar axis each orbit.

    As the moon orbits the sun in that same time period, the moon instead orbits (aprox. 13 times) around the Earth-moon barycenter (which is a foci of their combined common-mass) that's locate within the Earth and EXTERIOR to the moon.

    As the moon orbits around the Earth its gravity tugs the Earth slightly in the direction of the orbiting moon, and that tug causes the Earth's slight orbital wobble.

    Pluto and its moon Charon both orbit around an exterior barycenter, thus allowing them to both orbit around that barycenter as well as wobble in their orbit around the sun.

    NO – an astronomical body's orbit is NOT the same thing as a "wobble!"

    E.g., the Earth and moon's combined mass orbits around another barycenter located within the sun, which causes the sun to likewise wobble in its larger orbit. Are you claiming that the sun "orbits" around this Earth-sun-moon barycenter too?

    I say NO!!!

    BTW - detecting the wobble of neighboring stars is one method now being used to indirectly detect other planets in orbit around these stars.

    Billy, you need to do some research since you're obviously shooting from the hip!

    Ken
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No that is false. If standing at the North Pole of either Earth or moon you will see that the body you are standing on is rotating. In both cases you can constaantly look at the sun or any other star, but to do so you will need to constantly turn on the surface you are standing on to compensate for its rotation. The Earth rotates at about 15 degrees/ per hour. The moon at about (360degrees) / {(28days)x(24hours/day)} = 0.536 degrees per hour. Not a difference in kind only in rate of spin

    Excellent point and absolutely correct. That does tell when some body is rotating, but you are shooting yourself in your foot. A Foucault pendulum at either pole of the moon will appear to rotate over the surface of the moon at 0.536 degrees per hour but of course is its plane of oscillation is really fixed in space and the moon is rotating under it. - (For your hole in foot, I recommend stemming blood flow and quick visit to the physics facts hospital)

    No you are wrong here too. The tides are caused by the GRADIENT of gravity not by gravity itself. The gradient falls off as the CUBE of the distance, not the square. This is why the moon is much more important than the sun in producing tides on Earth.

    Just do the calculations with mass of sun at 1 AU from moon and mass of Earth at one moon /Earth separation. When calculating gravity force on moon the denominator distance is squared and the sun is much more important.

    When calculating the gradients the inverse CUBE makes the moon's gradient larger at the Earth than the sun's is. So the moon does dominate the tides. Do it and then you will understand why moon dominates the tides on Earth but the sun, not the Earth, controls the moon's orbit around the sun. Earth only causes an "hardly noticicable" percentage variation or "wobble" in the distance between the moon and the sun.

    Another way for you to see that the moon orbit the sun, not the Earth, is make a scale drawing of the moon's 1AU orbit about the sun and the "wobble" will be almost less than the width of your pencil line! I.e. to the accuracy of your drawing, (if on 8.5 by 11 inch paper or less), the moon will have zero wobble as it goes around the sun. If this is too much for you, JUST TELL ME HOW FAR THE MOON IS FROM SUN when it is closest to the sun and ~2 weeks later when most distant from the sun. The difference is twice the wobble. Please give the wobbler as a percent of the average distance to the sun. - I dare you to do this simple calculation. If you do you will understand the moon orbits the sun with very small wobble due to the Earth.

    You do not understand what causes the tides. I.e. that it is not gravity but the gradient of gravity.

    Thus it would be interesting to hear you try to explain why there are TWO tides each day, (one on each side of the Earth), instead of just one bulge on the side of Earth towards the moon. The correct answer has is due to fact the moon's gravity is stronger on the side near to the moon than on the side most distant from the moon - I.e. depends upon the GRADIENT of the moon's gravity, not on the gravity itself.

    No look in the mirror to see someone making several errors. I will not comment on your "off-thread” points.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2008
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Let us hope this fascinating exchange can be continued without fatal injury to any of the parties involved. (Sure enough, I heard that in my head with the lilt of an Irish accent. You'll need to do the same to get where I'm coming from.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  21. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Does it rotate on its axis?
     
  22. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    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???
     
  23. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    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
     

Share This Page