Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?

[sadang]

@Billy
I think that in discussion between us, there was a misunderstanding in the terms used. Initial discussion was about "own axial rotation" of the Moon and we have now reached to dissect the entire universe.

On me personally I am not interested to make math, to calculate durations, masses, forces or any other such things. I am just interested to comprehend mentally, to visualize the movements of the moon, the Earth and Sun. I would not have wanted to come to a contradiction in mathematics, but because you forced me to do this, I will do, but only limited and to show you that you are wrong, in those that affirm and sustain with your math.

The value of 206.25 is a report showing how many times is more powerful gravitational pull of the Sun compared to that of the Earth. It This value is not the force of attraction of the Sun exerted on the Moon. Not at all!

The value of the gravitational force of the Sun exerted upon the Moon is about twice higher than that exerted by the Earth upon the Monn, because the Sun is at a distance of about 400 times larger compared to the distance between Earth and Moon, and we all know that the gravitational force decrease with the inverse square of the distance. And no more words, are sufficient ones until now!

Below is a calculation that shows the true value of the gravitational pull exerted by the Sun and the Earth upon the Moon:

Mass of the earth: about 6 x 10^24 kg
Earth-moon distance: about 384,000 km
Mass of the sun: about 2 x 10^30 kg
Sun-moon distance: about 150,000,000 km

The sun's gravitational pull on the moon (Sm) is equal to
2 x 10^30 / (1.5 x 10^8)^2 =~ 8.8 x 10^13

The earth's gravitational pull on the moon (Em) is equal to
6 x 10^24 / (3.84 x 10^5) = ~ 4 x 10^13

Now, we have Sm / Em = 8.8 x 10^13 / 4 x 10^13 => Sm / Em = 2.2 => Sm = 2.2 Em => just about twice time higher that that exerted by the Earth upon the Moon, and in no event an amount as that obtained by you, that is 206.25 times higher than that of Earth.

I really don't like what I did now, but you forced me to make these calculations. These errors can be seen by anyone who check closely your math. I thought you correct yourself, this error. Sorry!

So, coming back to your last message, and to avoid any further misunderstanding, especially from myself, I would like to make a short analysis of the first image and I want to know if you agree with the fact that what we see in this image represent the real path followed by the moon on its orbit around the Sun. If the answer is yes, that means you agree with what I already said; that the Moon path is for 14 days concave wrt the Sun, and for other 14 days is concave wrt to the Sun. On the other hand, I can agree with your affirmation that the orbit of the Moon is everywhere concave toward the Sun, if we talk about an entire segment of the Moon orbit, or even the entire orbit (let's say a segment length of four phases of the Moon). Exactly as can be seen by anyone from that image. If you don't agree, please be patient and try to explain how you see the movement of the Monn being on a permanent concave path wrt the Sun. Maybe I can not understand this motion, or I understand differently the notion of convex-concave. Here is an image that I think it represent what I think you want to say about the concave path of the Moon around the Sun: h t t p://w w w .math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/pictures/o40.gif

Related to the second image, it is very well documented, but I don't understand this phrase "Such a path would always be concave to the sun, but close to the earth's orbit, crossing it twice a month.". I, on the contrary, I think this way, as being convex to the Sun! And if it intersect with the Earth, twice a month, that means, at least fro me, exactly what I said above (~14 days concave, and !14 days convex).

Anyway, after we will finish this, and we'll reach a common opinion, I would like to return to the initial discussion, the claims of Tesla, that the Moon has no own axial rotation movement, opinion that I totally agree.

@Tim
I can't answer to your messages due to limitations here on this forum. Also, I already opened an account on that forum you suggested me, but until today I did not received the confirmation email with activation link, and can't post anything there. Sorry! Stupid rules everywhere! But, be sure when I'll have the rights to post I'll answer to your questions.

 

[origin]

Sadang why don't we just do an experiment and see what happens? I think an easy way to simulate this effect is to watch the event called "hammer throw". Essentally there is a weight on a rope and the participant swings the ball in a circle (orbit) and where the rope is attached to the weight is always facing the participant (like the moon) and then the participant released the hammer into the air (like the dissapearence of gravity). If you are correct the ball should have no angular momentum and just fly out without spinning.

Look at this video on Youtube particularly at about the 30 sec spot. The hammer is clearly rotating. Just a note - when it lands it will not be spinning much because the air resistence on the rope will stop the spinning. Take a look!

 

[Billy T]

@Billy ... The value of the gravitational force of the Sun exerted upon the Moon is about twice higher than that exerted by the Earth upon the Moon, ...

Yes I agree. I made power of ten error in mental calculation and then it got squared in the calculation. I recalled that 25^2 is 625 so did not use a calculator when computing the inverse square of the moon earth separation (0.025 AU) - I just falsely made the two zeros (00) into four (0000) and then stuck 625 on the end - all in my head in two seconds. Thank you for checking and finding my calculation error. I was disposed to accept the result as I already knew the sun, not the Earth controls the moon´s trajectory.

Some years ago, I too falsely believed (as you and many others do) that the moon orbits the earth, which orbits the sun; so the Earth drags the moon around the sun with it. Not realizing that even if the Earth did not exist the moon´s orbit about the sun would be almost identical to what it is now as the sun´s stronger gravity controls the moon´s orbit and the Earth´s gravity just makes very tiny (Less than one fourth of one percent radially) "wobbles" from perfect ellipse orbit about the sun.

It is a very common, but false belief, caused by the fact we neglect the fact Earth is rapidly moving about the sun when we view the moon, so when the moon slowly crosses the exact elliptical path of their common center of mass (~26 times each year) we get the false impression the moon is orbiting the Earth. In FACT, both Earth and moon are causing the other to wobble slightly in their high speed race around the sun. Wobble effect is so small that THE MOON IS AT EVERY INSTANT, CURVING TOWARDS THE SUN, but when the moon is closer to the sun than Earth is, the radius of curvature towards the sun is larger than at full moon position. I.e. the size of the instantaneous circle around the sun which the moon is on is constantly changing as it ALWAYS falls towards the sun.

When you neglect the fast movement of the platform you are viewing from, you will always make and error in judgment about the motion of an object you are viewing. For example, if you are viewing a car traveling at 65 mph on a road along side the train track and you are on the train traveling at 80mph train, the APPEARANCE is that the car is going backwards at 15mph.

Fortunately, we know from experience that appearance (of car going backwards at 15mph) is only a false impression we get because we are viewing car from a moving platform, but we have never directly experienced the fact that the Earth is racing thru space at 67,000 mph so we naively accept the appearance (of moon orbiting the Earth) as a true fact when in fact the moon is just making ~26 very tiny oscillatory crossing of the Earth´s trajectory about the sun.

If the train and car were both traveling at 67 mph and periodically the car crossed (over a bridge) to the other side of the train track, our impression would be that the car is orbiting the train. – That is what the moon does. – It crosses to the other side 26 times each year, giving the FALSE impression that it is orbiting the Earth. Exactly like the car seems to be orbiting the train.

The car is traveling along a slightly curving road at 67 mph and its tiny sideways shifts makes it seem / appear to be / orbiting the train.
The moon is traveling along a slightly curving path at 67,000 mph and its tiny sideways wobbles makes it seem / appear to be / orbiting the Earth.
Exactly the same effect on appearances, but we have some experience with cars and trains traveling 67mph so know it is only a false appearance that the car is orbiting the train, but we have NO Experience with earth and moon traveling at 67,000 mph so we believe what we see - i.e. Falsely believe moon is orbiting the Earth.

… I would like to make a short analysis of the first image and I want to know if you agree with the fact that what we see in this image represent the real path followed by the moon on its orbit around the Sun. …

No that image is clearly stated to be false. The article (and that “Fig 1” image) was published in 1919, when many, even some “educated” physicists, held the false belief, that when the moon was in “new moon” position, it had to be at that time moving back towards the Earth´s path, which is then more distant from the sun than the moon is (and it is moving back and in 7 days more the moon will actually cross the Earth´s path), so they falsely conclude it was moving away from the sun (it is not) – It is still curving towards the sun, just with a larger radius of curvature than when in the “full moon” position.

What they ignored or forgot was the platform they were on (the earth) was still curving towards the sun (as was the moon), but the moon then had a rate of curvature towards the sun (in the “new moon” position) which was less than the Earth´s rate of curvature towards the sun. This difference in their rates of curvature towards the sun made the moon move (in the sun radial direction) closer to earth. (Starting its next crossing of the earth´s path to the farther from sun side and the "full moon" position, 14 days after new moon.)

 

[sadang]

@origin
If this is a sincere question and not a tricky one, trying to make other confusions, or to cause, just another endless series of discussions, wrt the moon own axial rotation, I have to tell you that the answer to this apparent contradiction is very well expressed by Tesla in his article, namely, "The Moon's Rotation", posted by me here on this forum, a few messages ago. Here is the relevant paragraph:

"Another mistake in books on astronomy is made in considering this motion equivalent to that of a weight whirled on a string or in a sling. In the first place there is an essential difference between these two devices tho involving the same mechanical principle. If a metal ball, attached to a string, is whirled around and the latter breaks, an axial rotation of the missile results which is definitely related in magnitude and direction to the motion preceding. By way of illustration — if the ball is whirled on the string clockwise ten times per second, then when it flies off, it will rotate on its axis ten times per second, likewise in the direction of a clock. Quite different are the conditions when the ball is thrown from a sling. In this case a much more rapid rotation is imparted to it in the opposite sense. There is no true analogy to these in the motion of the moon. If the gravitational string, as it were, would snap, the satellite would go off in a tangent without the slightest swerving or rotation, for there is no moment about the axis and, consequently, no tendency whatever to spinning motion."

I think any other comments are useless.

 

[Billy T]

.... I think any other comments are useless.

That is a sad comment if the other comment is to correct what is false in Tesla´s ignorant error-filled publication.

When (if) sun´s gravity were removed, yes the moon would cease to curve around the sun and go flying off into space in straight line, BUT it would still turn the side we see directly towards any particular distant star every 27.3 days.

Its rotational angular momentum would be conserved. As its mass and shape (momentum of rotational inertia) would not change, it must keep rotating 360 degrees every 27.3 days.

The reason NASA has republished the old, but correct, 1919 publication is to made it available to schools, etc. as even today, many hold false and ignorant beliefs about the moon´s movements.

Did the following part of post 584 help you to understand why you hold ignorant and false beliefs about the moon´s motion?

... When you neglect the fast movement of the platform you are viewing from, you will always make and error in judgment about the motion of an object you are viewing. For example, if you are viewing a car traveling at 65 mph on a road along side the train track and you are on the train traveling at 80mph train, the APPEARANCE is that the car is going backwards at 15mph.

Fortunately, we know from experience that appearance (of car going backwards at 15mph) is only a false impression we get because we are viewing car from a moving platform, but we have never directly experienced the fact that the Earth is racing thru space at 67,000 mph so we naively accept the appearance (of moon orbiting the Earth) as a true fact when in fact the moon is just making ~26 very tiny oscillatory crossing of the Earth´s trajectory about the sun.

If the train and car were both traveling at 67 mph and periodically the car crossed (over a bridge) to the other side of the train track, our impression would be that the car is orbiting the train. – That is what the moon does. – It crosses to the other side 26 times each year, giving the FALSE impression that it is orbiting the Earth. Exactly like the car seems to be orbiting the train.

The car is traveling along a slightly curving road at 67 mph and its tiny sideways shifts makes it seem / appear to be / orbiting the train.
The moon is traveling along a slightly curving path at 67,000 mph and its tiny sideways wobbles makes it seem / appear to be / orbiting the Earth.
Exactly the same effect on appearances, but we have some experience with cars and trains traveling 67mph so know it is only a false appearance that the car is orbiting the train, but we have NO Experience with earth and moon traveling at 67,000 mph so we believe what we see - i.e. Falsely believe moon is orbiting the Earth. ...

If not, please explain why the train/car analogy does not apply the the Earth/moon case.

Origin in post 582, has given you a very valid experimental demonstration that Tesla is completely wrong when stating the moon does not spin about its axis. Tesla used as "proof" the ball on string swinging around someone´s head - Exactly what the hammer throw event is.

Tesla, had no films showing that when the string broke the ball did not spin - he just falsely asserted that - same as you only falsely assert the moon does not spin with zero evidence.

Tesla was very advanced in his understanding of electrical things. Edison never understood how an AC motor, which Tesla basically invented, could work so Edison stuck with DC. DC does have some advantages in that a DC motor has high torque even when stopped (Great for getting a street car moving again); but you can not send DC more than a couple of city blocks without great loss of energy (or great cost for large diameter copper wires). Edison electric company did build many new small generation station every few city blocks, but Transformers (which only work with AC) allow energy to be sent even 100 miles with small losses, so in the end Tesla was proven correct that AC is best for a power company to generate.

Being correct about electrical facts does not make Tesla an expert in un-related fields, such as ancient Greek Laws or the Laws of orbital motion. I don´t know what, if anything, Tesla knew about early Greek Laws, but I do know he was extremely ignorant and held completely false beliefs about the spin of the moon, as Origin´s reference clearly shows.

SUMMARY: Mathematics, moon´s observed librations, careful orbital observations, theory published in 1919 and now distributed by NASA and, the hammer throw event´s film records ALL show that you now, and Tesla nearly 90 years ago, are just inventing, without any evidence, FALSE BULLSHIT statements that the moon does not spin (turn 360 degrees in ~27.3 days).

 

[sadang]

I like to see that in this last message you did not use at all words like ignorant and ignorance. I consider this behavior, one step further to other sincere discussions, admitting that we are humans and can be subjected to errors, both in writing and in thought.

Coming back to our sheep, I have to observe, wrt to the Fig.1, in the article wrote by A.B. Turner in the "The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada" from 1912, that he specified under it "Incorrect representation of the moon's rotation.", and at the final of article, about a lot of calculations, he clear affirmed "That is, the moon's orbit is always concave towards the sun. When 0 == 0°, p = - 1·620a (new moon), 0 . 15°, p = - 0·988a (full moon).". Whiteout trying to check his calculations, and especially his premise of thinking, when he did that calculations, I want to make just an observation of common sense; "If the moon's path around the Sun is a continuous concavity how can we demonstrate the lunar phases?". And believe me, this si not a question addressed to you in particular! No! Is an universal question that I try to clarify in discussion with you, because you agree with the way the Moon always concave around the Sun.

On the other hand, according to this way of thinking, in which we consider the revolving around the Sun, instead of Earth, extrapolating a bit, we will find that the Earth is nor orbiting around the Sun at all, instead, after some calculations similar to those of A. B. Turner, our dear Earth will turn around the galactic center on a concave, or maybe convex path, wobbling together with Sun, and rotating both around their barycenter of gravity! And so on... What you think about this galactic image?

And for the next discussions that we will have, I would like to establish some terms:
- you use the word "platform" wich represent a specific referential
- I use "frame of reference", or "point of reference" for a specific referential

Which one do you like to use in the further discussions? Your "platform" or mine "point of reference" (POR)? Because, at least for me, its clear that we will have a long discussion wrt Moon's movement, seen from different point of reference or platforms.

P.S.
Let's first finish our discussion about Moon's orbit around the Sun, and after that will go back to the Moon's own axial rotation. Be patient!

 

[Billy T]

... I want to make just an observation of common sense; "If the moon's path around the Sun is a continuous concavity how can we demonstrate the lunar phases?". ...

That has been answered, more than once already. Here is a recent answer:

{post 580, in part}... as the Earth Moon “double planet” goes around the sun, both oscillate thru ~13 full cycles per year about their common elliptical path; slowly crossing (~26 times) from one side to the other side of their common elliptical path.

This makes the moon closer to the sun for about 14 days (with the new moon in the middle of that half cycle of the oscillation, & etc. for the full moon in the middle of the other half of the crossing cycle when the moon is more distant from the sun than the Earth is)...

Read especially the last paragraph above - it even tells when and for how long the moon is closer to the sun than earth is and what phases of the moon occurs then.

"Frame" usually refers to a coordinate system, like Cartesian (x,y, z) or many others, like polar coordinantes. As I recall there are about 11 standard ones, and some problems are much easier to solve in one than another. One characteristic of a coordinate system is that it spans all space.

"Platform" usually refers to a spot or location from which some observation is made in the mathematical or physic sense, but also is used to designate a usually flat surface such as the flat bed of a truck or a theater stage. Then there is the non-physical use of that word as in the "The Republican platform will be changed due to the election results." I was speaking of he Earth as a moving platform from which humans observe the moon.

BTW, I´m not sure that it has actually been done on the moon by astronauts on the moon, but one way to tell is the platform you are on is rotating (without using the simple test to see if the stars move across the sky at night) is the Foucault pendulum. It swings in one plane in space and the platform (such as Earth or moon) rotates under it giving the view/ false appearance that the pendulum is turning, but it is the platform that is turning. See one in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB2SXLYwKkM.

Years ago the Smithsonian in DC had a very nice one. It was my first stop when visiting the maul in DC and then again when getting ready to go home - To see home many more of the tiny pegs it had knocked over while I was doing other things.

Nice thing about a Foucault Pendulum is that you can detect even slow rotation inside a completely closed room. More rapid rotations of that room can be detected by the slightly parabolic shape the surface of a liquid will take - you can even compute where the axis of rotation is when you observe only a section of the parabolic surface.

--------------------
Also note there is nothing wrong about just being ignorant. I am ignorant about many things, but I have the good sense not to post false statements about things I am ignorant of. That I do consider to be a crime - trying to mislead others. About the question of the moon´s spin, you and Tesla are guilty of that crime.

 

[sadang]

“
Originally Posted by sadang
… I would like to make a short analysis of the first image and I want to know if you agree with the fact that what we see in this image represent the real path followed by the moon on its orbit around the Sun. …
”

No that image is clearly stated to be false. The article (and that “Fig 1” image) was published in 1919, when many, even some “educated” physicists, held the false belief, that when the moon was in “new moon” position, it had to be at that time moving back towards the Earth´s path, which is then more distant from the sun than the moon is (and it is moving back and in 7 days more the moon will actually cross the Earth´s path), so they falsely conclude it was moving away from the sun (it is not) – It is still curving towards the sun, just with a larger radius of curvature than when in the “full moon” position.

But here you said that image, Fig. 1 is false! I no longer understand anything! Or is true and the Moon rotate around the Earth like in image from wikipedia, or it is false and the path of the Moon is like this: h t t p://w w w .math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/pictures/o40.gif, and in this case we can't explain the Moon's phases. Please, put in your nect post both images, that from wikipedia and that suggested by me. Or tell me clear and show me clear in an image which is the path of the Moon around the Sun, accordion to your belief.

 

[Billy T]

But here you said that image, Fig. 1 is false! I no longer understand anything! ...

The thing that is false about Fig1, but was once widely believed*, is that the trajectory of the moon about the sun is shown to have both convex and concave sections. The moon is ALWAYS TURNING TOWARDS THE SUN. What does changes is the rate at which it turns towards the sun.

When moon is closer to the sun than earth is, the weaker pull of the Earth´s gravity effectively reduces the net pull of the sun´s gravity, so the moon "falls" towards the sun more slowly, than the earth´s fall towards the sun is at than time. (The moon´s tiny gravity is then actually slightly increasing the effective force turning the Earth towards the sun.) The "gravitational string" causing the moon to turn towards the sun is then weaker, but not broken!

If it helps you, think of two race car going rapidly around a circular path/ race track. (Always turning to the left, for example.) The one on the outside of the other can cross to the inside of the other car by making his radius of curvature to the left less than the curvature of the race track while he cuts inside the other for shorter total path.

Moon and Earth do this mutual crossing of paths 26 times each year, but most of it is achieved by the moon changing its radius of concave curving about the sun as it is less massive.

If I recall correctly Earth is about 80 times more massive than the moon. Thus the Earth is less disturbed by the moon from its nearly elliptical path about the sun than the moon is. Most of the "wobble" is by the moon, and it is large enough to make their paths cross 26 times per year, but NOT large enough to make the moon have any section curving convex - away from the sun - as Falsely shown in Fig 1.

* Once almost everyone believed the sun went around the Earth. I hope with modern education facilities and organizations like NASA working to change current false beliefs about the moon´s motion, False POVs like yours and Tesla´s die out in only 50 or so more years.

 

[origin]

@origin
I think any other comments are useless.

Yes, I am afraid so. You have "dug in your heels" and are steadfastly refusing to learn anything - too bad, but it is your choice.:shrug:

 

[Billy T]

Yes, I am afraid so. You have "dug in your heels" and are steadfastly refusing to learn anything - too bad, but it is your choice.:shrug:

Yes he seems to be filled with faith that Tesla was infallible - sort of a "physic pope," even though Tesla was very ignorant in this field - posted many completely false and unsupported ideas.

The one "supporting idea" he had, he did not test, but just assumed the result he believed in, without cause. Your pointing out that the hammer throw is a test (probably made even back when Tesla was alive) that clearly shows his assumed result (ball does not continue to turn when string breaks) is false. It even violates conservation of angular momentum so perhaps Tesla´s understanding of physic was less than that of today´s typical forth grader´s.

 

[sadang]

@Billy
Please, put here an image, as you already made in a previous message, that represent the moon path around the sun. Otherwise we just talk discussions, which leaves room for many interpretations. Just put here that image, make the necessary explanations, as you already made with that image from wikipedia, and we'll see who is right and who is wrong, related to the Moon's path around the Sun.

@origin
Thanks for the appreciation. I believe, it is more important to make your own practical experiments, before to make a single statement. But it seems that you, are just an arrogant and of course, like many other arrogant, full of certitudes. Tell me then, which are the affluents of universe?

@Tim
The Wikipedia is not an absolute reference. It is just an actual, in a continuous changing and evolution, and in accordance with our knowledge and understanding (good or bad) reference.

 

[Billy T]

@Billy
Please, put here an image, as you already made in a previous message, that represent the moon path around the sun. ...

As I have already explained on a computer screen or an 8.5 by 11 inch sheet of paper the path of the moon and the path of the Earth appear identical to an ellipse - they overlap. To seen any difference between their paths your computer screen would need to be about 10 feet wide and 10 feet tall!

But, if you don´t know what an ellipse is, here is one sort of like the earth moon ellipse:

This ellipse has eccentricity of e = (5-4)/(5+4) = 0.111..... but Earth´s (and moon´s) elliptical orbit has e = 0.0171
I.e. The Earth moon ellipse is much more like a circle (e =0) than this ellipses is.

Suppose you did have a computer screen big enough to draw a circle 8 feet in diameter. Then the moon and Earth paths would be ~4 feet from the focus and the max radial separation between earth and moon (either full or new moon) 1/400 of that radius or 0.01 feet. Depending on how high the screen resolution is you may or may not be able to see that the moon and Earth´s paths are not identical.

If the lines on screen are 0.05 feet wide, there will never be any space between the two almost elliptical graphs. Lets assume the lines are 0.02 wide (then the clear gap between the two paths could be, at max, 0.01 feet. To have that resolution on an 9 foot wide screen (to hold the 8 foot diameter circle) must be at least 900 bits wide and tall or 810, 000 bits resolved on the screen. I don´t k now much about computer screen total bits but nearly a million bit per screen display seems like a lot to me. Perhaps you would need a screen even larger than 10 feet by 10 feet to actually seen that the moon´s path was not identical with that of the Earth and identical in shape to an ellipse.

Point is that you have so little understanding of how little difference from a perfect ellipse both earth and moon´s essentially identical paths around the sun that you asked me to show a plot of their paths. - I did above, but obviously on a real size computer screen there is no difference in the paths around the sun, which they are always falling towards (concave towards).

 

[sadang]

From this image I can not distinguish the motion of the Moon and Earth around the Sun. On the one on wikipedia is better distinguished, even if it was a segment of orbit. Put that image and please specify whether you agree or disagree with that movement of the moon in orbit around the Sun. That design is a reality in your opinion? But I want the answer, yes or no, and obligatorily attached to that image.

And if you disagree with that image put one according to how you believe the Moon path around the Sun looks, or if you agree with the calculations made by Turner, here are three images made in excel, according to 3 values of b:
- when b=20 & n=13 - h t t p://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/85/Turner%27s_orbit1.pdf/page1-1280px-Turner%27s_orbit1.pdf.jpg
- when b=4 & n=13 - h t t p://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/Turner%27s_orbit_2.pdf/page1-1280px-Turner%27s_orbit_2.pdf.jpg
- when b=1 & n=13 - h t t p://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/Turner%27s_orbit_3.pdf/page1-1280px-Turner%27s_orbit_3.pdf.jpg

Put one of this here and say clear this is the image which represent the movement of Moon around the Sun, of course in your opinion.

In this way, we have a common starting point, because a picture is worth 1000 words.

 

[Billy T]

From this image I can not distinguish the motion of the Moon and Earth around the Sun. On the one on wikipedia is better distinguished, even if it was a segment of orbit. Put that image and please specify whether you agree or disagree with that movement of the moon in orbit around the Sun. That design is a reality in your opinion? But I want the answer, yes or no, and obligatorily attached to that image...

Yes, this image is basically correct, but top left part seems to me to be too near to being a straight line.

The correct image is a segment of an ellipse with e =0.0171 showing all four phases of he moon. (I.e. only about 1/13 of the full ellipse is shown.) As I explained in last post to both see the full ellipse and see any difference between the moon and Earth´s orbits, you need a compute screen about 10 FEET tall and 10 FEET wide. Of course only ~8% of the ellipse is shown to make it possible to seen even a tiny difference between the two orbits.

Yes, that design, except for the small distortion I just mentioned, does reflect 1/13 part of the moon and earth´s nearly elliptical orbit about the sun.

Although you lack the 20 posts to post images, you could, I am almost sure, quote my earlier post 580 (only the image part, if you like).

PS I spent a few minutes trying to view the images of the links you gave in post 594 (removed "upload" and/or final.jpg etc.) but I will not waste more time for someone so resistant to accepting the truth - well documented in 1912 astrophysics journal and re-printed by NASA as part of their educational programs.

As a former university professor I hate to give up on any student but it is pointless to continue with you. So keep your ignorance intact and hold on to your totally false and unsupported beliefs - I will not bother more with you.

 

[sadang]

Sorry for this delayed response, but is due to my job. I want to thank you very much Billy, for tolerance and the willingness you give proof, and I genuinely appreciate your professional training. But at the same time, I believe that on the road of knowledge, we all have the same chance of understanding the intrinsic reality of phenomena, irrespective of training, education, race, religion, because, because beyond all these social attributes, we are all being human here and now, with equal rights to know, but of course, with specific capabilities of understanding.

This is the Moon's revolution path around the Sun that I also agree. Now, having a common starting point, and leaving behind certain polemics, let us try to carry on this discussion.

Before going on, I want to say that in this picture, I consider the Earth as the point of large size and blue color, and the Moon as the point of small size and gray color.

Now, choosing the point of reference (POR) or point of view (POV) as being the Sun, I can clearly see that this segment of revolution path of the Moon around the Sun, is not a perfect convex path. It has, in an anticlockwise direction of movement, first a convex part - when the Moon is in opposition with Sun, and a concave part - when the Moon is in conjunction with Sun. Of course, this convex and concave segments are wrt to the Earth path. But if we make abstraction of these small up and down deviation from a perfect elliptical path, we can consider any segment of the Moon's revolution path around the Sun, at any moment, a convex path.

Now, I would like to make reference to your post number 580, without using quotes - because I don't like to use it, where once affirm (with bold fonts) that "...the Moon's orbit is everywhere concave toward the Sun" and a few lines below, you agree (with quotes from wikipedia) the next “… The Moon's trajectory is always convex[13][14] (as seen when looking inward at the entire Moon/Earth/Sun system from a great distance off), and is nowhere concave (from the perspective just mentioned) or looped."

I like to think it is a mistake, or a moment's escape, is a contradiction in terms. Or if you have another explanation, please formulate it. Or perhaps, again, I do not understand!

 

[Billy T]

... (as seen when looking inward at the entire Moon/Earth/Sun system from a great distance off), and is nowhere concave from the perspective just mentioned ...."

I like to think it is a mistake, or a moment's escape, is a contradiction in terms. Or if you have another explanation, please formulate it. Or perhaps, again, I do not understand!

No mistake. Just telling that if far away with the moon between you and the sun, then yes the current path of the moon which is concave towards the sun, is convex towards you, in location several AU or more from the sun.

For example, if you are inside a circular race track, then track is concave towards you. If you are outside the race track, seated in the stands, it is convex to you.

 

[sadang]

Ok Billy. It seems that was just my misinterpretation of the convex and concave terms depending on the used point of reference.

And because you din not make any other comments against my statements made in the previous message, wrt that 4 positions of the Moon around the Earth, I consider this an acceptance and a confirmation that even if we believe the Moon execute a motion of revolution around the Sun, this is a composed movement of revolution, its main movement of revolution being actually around the Earth.

And I insist on the this point, because no matter from where we look at the movement of the Moon, either from the Sun, or from the Galactic center, or from the center of meta-galaxy, from any of these centers of rotation we will find that actually, the Moon rotates together with Earth, on the same path of revolution, and then, analyzing the small deviations of the Moon from the Earth's revolution way, we can conclude that it actually revolves around the Earth. I repeat, from any point of reference on the entire Universe, we will observe the existence of this revolution movement of the Moon around the Earth.

The idea that the increased force of gravitational attraction exerted on the Moon by the Sun or by the galactic center, or by meta-galactic center, and so on, makes it to orbit around the respective centers of rotation, does not invalidate in any way, the real and default movement of revolution of the Moon around the Earth. At least, as long as the common center of mass would be located inside the Earth, and this couple is still a Moon-Planet couple. I am right or wrong?

If you have nothing against those exposed by me now, I will return to the existence or nonexistence of own axial rotation of the Moon.

 

[Billy T]

... because you did not make any other comments against my statements made in the previous message, wrt that 4 positions of the Moon around the Earth, I consider this an acceptance and a confirmation that even if we believe the Moon execute a motion of revolution around the Sun, this is a composed movement of revolution, its main movement of revolution being actually around the Earth. ...

NO I don´t agree and did not say so - don´t try to put false words in my mouth.

Tell me if you believe the car in my earlier analogy below is "orbiting the train" with 100 foot radius, as it too is taking four position around the train during its forward journey (Front, Left side, Rt side & behind). I.e it travels 67X 5280= 353,760 feet in the direction the train is moving while moving side way + or - 100 feet from the train.

... When you neglect the fast movement of the platform you are viewing from, you will always make and error in judgment about the motion of an object you are viewing. For example, if you are viewing a car traveling at 65 mph on a road along side the train track and you are on the train traveling at 80mph train, the APPEARANCE is that the car is going backwards at 15mph. ... We have never directly experienced the fact that the Earth is racing thru space at 67,000 mph so we naively accept the appearance (of moon orbiting the Earth) as a true fact when in fact the moon is just making ~26 very tiny oscillatory crossing of the Earth´s trajectory about the sun.


If a train and car were both traveling at 67 mph and periodically the car crossed (using a bridge) to the other side of the train track, {a lateral movement of say 200 feet, using bridges 67 miles apart - one side step every hour} our impression would be that the car is orbiting the train. – That is what the moon does. – It crosses to the other side 26 times each year, giving the FALSE impression that it is orbiting the Earth. Exactly like the car seems to be orbiting the train.

The car is traveling along a slightly curving road at 67 mph and its tiny sideways shifts makes it seem / appear to be / orbiting the train.
The moon is traveling along a slightly curving path at 67,000 mph and its tiny sideways wobbles makes it seem / appear to be / orbiting the Earth.
Exactly the same effect on appearances, but we have some experience with cars and trains traveling 67mph so know it is only a false appearance that the car is orbiting the train, but we have NO Experience with earth and moon traveling at 67,000 mph so we believe what we see - i.e. Falsely believe moon is orbiting the Earth. ....

I say for both the car and the moon the dominate motion is their main paths. (of the train on tracks and the car along the road OR moon and Earth along their ellipses around the sun.) - not the very tiny periodic lateral shifts in position.

In the moon´s case the slight lateral path crossing movement is 0.25% of the moon´s 1AU orbit movement.
In the car´s case the slight lateral path crossing movement is 0.0028% of the along the road movement.

100 / 353,760 = 0.0028% of the "in path" movement. (I think - my old calculator gives several different results)

Even though the car´s "orbit radius" is ~100 relative times closer to the train´s path than the moon´s 0.25% slight lateral path crossing movement is wrt to distance to the sun,
I doubt you would be so SILLY as to describe the car´s movement as orbiting the train. INSTEAD OF say: "The car is traveling along side the train for 67 miles and periodically shifting from being 100 feet on one side to 100 feet away from train on the other side every 67 miles." I.e. the car is much more "tightly bound" to the train than the moon is to the Earth.

Why are you so SILLY to describe the moon´s small lateral shift (wrt to distance of travel along the forward path) as moon is orbiting the Earth?

Answer is of course:
You live on the Earth and have zero understanding of the moon´s movement at 67,000 MILES per hour in the forward direction along the almost exactly elliptical path, so are ignorant of the dominate (by 400 times) motion along the ellipse. I.e. you claim the extremely small lateral path crossing movement dominates the huge movement along the ellipse. - That is just you ignorance of the 67,000 mph in path movement showing.

 

[wellwisher]

The core of the earth spins faster than its surface.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol22/vol22_iss1/Core_Spin.html

The moon not spinning, suggests that the moon's version of the earth's internal engine died a long time ago.

An interesting question that comes to mind is, if the moon's internal engine was still active and rthe moon was currently spinning, how would that impact the surface of the earth, such as the tides and continental plate movement?