Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?

I'm considering the idea of a non-static deformation of the moon due to a non-constant gravitational stress on it. It would require a non-baryonic inner core which therefore experiences a varying force with distance compared with the bulk of the normal baryonic matter.

Nice point. This isn't in conflict with the 'New-Newtonian Tidal Theory' (NNTT) though.

I appreciate your insight into my non-trolling intentions. My 'invention' of facts is indeed hypothetical, but certainly not "random".

Remember that Professor Brian Cox, inventor of the LHC at CERN and presenter of BBC TV programme 'What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?', stated that if there was a mistake in our current understanding, it would be connnected with the oblateness of the Earth. NNTT is just that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh really? And what are the equations you're considering? What areas of physics are you drawing results from? Do you have much experience with slow viscous flows under non-constant gravitational forces? Are you using Newtonian or relativistic gravity? If neither, what are your equations for gravitational fields?

Why non-baryonic? Please explain the properties your 'non-baryonic core' has which cannot be possessed by baryonic matter. Are you using QCD models or working on some kind of parton effective field theory? Let's see your equations.

Why don't you precisely define for us what NNTT is, what its description of matter is, how it deviates from GR and usual Newtonian gravitational models and how you went about deriving those results.

Or when you say 'I'm considering' you actually mean you're drawing pictures on backs of envelopes and inventing wordy explanations because you can't justify your claims with any actual concrete logical reasoning?

Firstly, he didn't 'invent the LHC' any more than a mechanic invents a Ford car factory. Secondly simply because we know our current understanding isn't perfect doesn't mean an ignorant random guess by someone who couldn't pass high school maths or physics is going to be right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To AlphaNumeric: I see you have little tollerance for ignorant fools.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Billy T; would it be easier to discuss an imaginary, alternative universe much like ours, but which is slightly different? You're right, of course, with everything you say about the mechanics of our solar system. That isn't in dispute. In this different solar system, if the central core of a moon was composed of matter which experienced a greater acceleration than the rest of the body, could this not cause tidal friction and so slow the moon's spin and therefore move it to a higher orbit? Just talking about an imaginary universe.

 

Yes and if unicorns had 6 legs we could waste time arguing if they would run faster or slower.

 

Yes and I must say I'm well aware I'm only getting worse.

Each week I have to teach a bunch of 1st years stuff like electromagnetism and classical dynamics. These are people who have nothing but a high school education but they are doing the course because they want to. Some of them are very good, learn things quickly and walk to 95%+ in their homeworks. Others are not so good and are always putting their hand up for help. But the point is they put their hand up, they want help. I have all the time in the world for people who struggle but honestly want to understand, I tell them they can visit my office outside teaching ours and I'll go through problems they have or help explain things a little more. If someone is getting 40% each week but comes to see me I will happily give up an hour or more to help. I like helping and when they say things like "This might be a stupid question..." I say "Don't worry, I've asked plenty of very stupid questions to my teachers in the past".

Now I'm sure some reading this are thinking "That's the polar opposite of how you behave here" and they'd be right. What's the difference? CSS doesn't want to learn. He doesn't want to expand his understanding. He doesn't want to even entertain the possibility he might be mistaken on anything. He claims to have an astronomy degree and to have worked in aerospace yet he's ignorant of basic mechanics. I have a father who has worked in aerospace for decades, with people like Boeing, Lockheed, Airbus etc, and he's completely up to speed on basic mechanics because you can't work in the aerospace industry doing practical stuff if you aren't.

Ignorance but a wish to reduce said ignorance is fine. Deliberate ignorance is something else. Not to mention CSS (and other cranks) make huge claims and then wonder why people don't accept their assumptions without a second thought. Apparently we're close minded for not accepting their work without a second thought. :shrug:

 

Originally Posted by Janus58
I think that it fair to point out that it rotates once per sidereal month......

Below is a grate antimated gif of these "aparent" osscilatons known as longitude an latitude librations.!!!

It may take up to a minute to load.!!!

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/Images/lunation.gif

An to help those in need to understan that the moon does rotate on an internla axis i made the page below about 1 1/2 year ago.!!!

You mite haave to "refresh" the page to get it to scroll down.!!!

http://cluelusshusbund.250free.com/Keep.html

 

I like that.
Except (of course there's always an "except" isn't there?), is it really rotating on its own axis?
If there were to be solid bar from the centre of the Earth to the red dot on the Moon (same overall effect) no-one would claim that the Moon rotates on its own axis (since the bar prevents it), it's rotating around the centre of the Earth...

Meh, I'm not sure if this a difference between the engineering mind-set* and the scientific one or what, but :shrug:

* Or simply me being extremely thick in this instance.

 

Yes... an for esample... the orbital speed of the moon varies... but if the moon did not rotate on its own internal axis at a constent speed... the longitude libration we observe from earf woud not be posible.!!!

Ther is no solid bar... but dew to the force of earfs gravity the moon is effectivly bein held as if ther was a solid bar connecton.!!!
-------------------------------------
Edit:::

BTW... If ther was a solid bar connectin the moon to earf... the axis of rotaton of the moon/bar/earf system woud be the center of earf... but if the solid bar suddenly disapeared the axis of rotaton of the moon woud be inside the moon... its own internal axis.!!!
-------------------------------------
The moon has angular momentum... if earf sudenly disapeared the moon woud continue to rotate on its internal axis as it does now.!!!

I demonstrated this to myself by attachin a strang to a ball an swung it overhead in a circle... when i released the strang the ball coninued to rotate as it flew off in a strate line.!!!

Below is a pitcher the ball on a strang i used.!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Granted. But libration isn't a full rotation.

Well duh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nope, that's what I'm saying: if there were a solid bar the effect would be exactly the same (sans libration) and NO rotation on its own axis.

Which makes MY point.
One face toward you all the time but it wasn't rotating on its own axis, rather around YOU.

 

Longitude libration ant even a partial rotaton... its basicly an illusion caused by the fact that the moon rotates at a constent speed but its orbital speed varies.!!!

"If ther was a solid bar connectin the moon to earf... the axis of rotaton of the moon/bar/earf system woud be the center of earf... but if the solid bar suddenly disapeared the axis of rotaton of the moon woud be inside the moon... its own internal axis.!!!"

The strang attached to the ball is to simulate earfs gravity holdin the moon in orbit of earf... an even tho the sam face of the ball/moon always faces the center of its orbit... the ball/moon has angular momentum... as demonstrated by the ball continuin to rotate when the strang/gravity is released.!!!

 

Meh, maybe it's a definition thing...

 

No it is not. It is an "understanding thing." Perhas making some change in the numbers will help you understand:

Supose that the Earth's spin about it own axis were slower, and exactly the same 360 degree rotation (about it own axis) as the moon's orbital peirod. I think you will (or should) then agree that the moon would only be visible from one side of the Earth. The spin of the Earth then keeps the same side of Earth pointing at the moon. I.e. As they rotate about their common center of gravity both keep one constant side pointed towards that common center of gravity point or at each other.


Below I "type draw" the Earth and moon in four positions, (each after 90 degrees more of counter clockwise rotation about their common center of mass):

o
O


o O


O
o

O o


Then of course the first typed drawing repeats etc.

Recall that both the O and the o ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME SIDE TURNED TOWARDS THE OTHER. (If you have trouble understanding this, then imagine there is a bridge between the moon and the Earth with both ends fixed in mass of concrete.)

How can you possibly think that the O is spinning about its own axis and yet the o is not?

If you still persist in that sillyness, lets make one more change (shrink the Earth to the same size as the moon) and redraw the same four phases of rotation about their common mass center:

o
o

o o

o
o

o o

Are you still going to claim one is rotating about it own axis and the other is not?

 

Using Cluluss' hardware example of the ball on a string.
One face always towards whoever's spinning it, right.
Where's the centre of rotation for the ball?
Is the ball spinning on its OWN axis or round the user-end of the string?

 

While atached to a strang (effectivly a solid bar) the axis of rotaton woud be my hand.!!!
-----------
Edit:::
But all ponts along the strang an ball have angular momentum.!!!
--------------
This mite help... if i released the strang an the ball also split into 2 seperate halfs... each half woud rotate about its own internal axis as they flew off in a strate line.!!!

Or put anuther way... if ther was 6 balls in a row atached to the strang that i was swangin in a circle... an the strang suddenly disapeared... all 6 of the balls woud fly off in a strate line an they woud independenly rotate about ther own internal axis.!!!

 

Um okay, so FUNCTIONALLY (in this case at least) there's no actual difference (until/ unless the "string" breaks)?
So it IS a definition thing.

 

To Dywyddyr

I asked two questions in post 193. Did you not see it? Or is it too clearly destroying your POV?

 

My point exactly as illustrated in my other posts.
If there's a concrete bridge is the Moon spinning on its own axis? No.
The rotation is around the OTHER end point (centre of Earth-Moon system), otherwise the bridge/ bar whatever would get twisted.

You don't actually read my posts do you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Where's the rotational centre for the smaller ball?
Especially if you consider the diagram to be an actual fabricated-from-metal structure?

 

As far as definitons go... when im talkin about the moon rotatin on its internal axis... im sayin it rotates on its axis jus as earf rotates on its internal axis... the moon jus rotates much slower.!!!

When a strang/solid bar is atached... the locaton of the axis of rotaton is changed... but when the solid bar is attached... the moon is no longer in orbit of earf... the moon/solid bar/ an earf are then a single body.... an that causes confuson in understandin that the moon is rotatin on its internal axis durin its synchronous rotaton about earf.!!!

An like the esample i gave earlier... if the moon did not rotate on an internla axis.... ther woud be no explinaton for the longitude libraton of the moon that we observe from earf.!!!

Edit:::

While lookin at my web page wit the antimated moon gifs... do you disagree wit what i clame my gifs demonstrate.???

 

No not at all.
Hence my comment about there being no FUNCTIONAL difference.
I've actually bookmarked your page, like it very much.
Clear and concise.