As we all know, only one side of the moon, the so-called Man in the Moon side, is visible to the Earth. Yet for all that, I've read several articles online that say the moon does in fact rotate, but at a rate that coincides with its orbit around the Earth, thus keeping only that one side visible to our planet.
But I also read an article that said that no, it does not rotate and that's why we only see one side.
As the spin in the community of Astrophysics has yet been able to grasp even the simplest concepts in the universe, due to holding dear to their flat earth theories, we will address why the Moon does not rotate once about its axis per one orbit about the earth. Yet as of today NASA’s spokesman astronomer Phil at Bad Astronomy still believes in this myth. Either you are a paid debunker or have little wisdom of the universe, which is it Phil?
Now lets clear away all of the smoke and mirrors in one theory of Astronomy which still holds dear today, the rotation of the Moon. For those who truly want to learn, you need to throw out all of that you have learned on this subject and let’s start on a fresh unwritten page.
Now, this isn't philosophy or religion, which have multiple views and answers, all of which may be right or wrong. But science, in which there may be multiple views, but only one correct answer. Either the moon does rotate on its axis as it orbits the Earth or it does not.
Is it known for sure whether or not the moon rotates on an axis?
If viewed by a stationary observer far out in deep space, then yes: the moon rotates roughly once every month, just the amount needed to keep the same face towards the Earth.
I've never heard of the guy you quote ("Grant Chronicles"?). But his web site seems to be the work of a nut case. You're not doing yourself any favors by reading this stuff.
[I said "roughly" above for two reasons: (1) Because the Earth advances in its orbit during that month, so the angle changes between it, the moon, and the sun. You have to be careful what you define as one complete rotation. One month - defined as the time from New Moon to New Moon - is a bit more than the time for one complete rotation.
And (2) the moon wobbles a bit. On average the same side always faces the Earth, but small slivers of the edge of other side can be seen on occasion.]
I read that about nine percent of the other side can sometimes be seen.
So the moon has precessions in its axial rotation just as Earth does? Very interesting.
I actually tried a model of it with a roll of toilet paper with an ink splotch one side rotating around a bag of M&Ms and found I had to keep rotating the toilet paper to keep the mark facing the bag of M&Ms. If I didn't rotate it, the mark would not always face the bag of M&Ms. I guess it works that way between Earth and moon on a much, much larger scale.
Whether or not it rotates is more or less dependent on how you're looking at it. In respect to us, it does not. The "face" of it is always facing the earth, almost as if tethered physically. It doesn't rotate any more than a ball on a string does if you twirl it.
On another perspective, if you aren't necessarily taking the earth into account, yes, it does rotate.
Personally, I'd say technically no (or at least very slowly) because its "rotation" is not innate, it is specifically because of its orbital relationship to the earth. It is, however, rotating from a different perspective than our own.
Around its axis.
Which is not relative motion at all.
Because not all motion is relative.
All inertial frames of reference are relative.
That is not the same thing.
Around its axis.
Which is not relative motion at all.
Because not all motion is relative.
All inertial frames of reference are relative.
That is not the same thing.
But you could say the moon is not rotating, that the universe is rotating around it.
But you could say the moon is not rotating, that the universe is rotating around it.
You could also say that it's a pink strawberry tort.
But when absolutely all evidence directly contradicts it, doing so would leave you prone to rampant mockery because saying that the universe is rotating around the moon is ******** stupid.
But you could say the moon is not rotating, that the universe is rotating around it.
You could also say that it's a pink strawberry tort.
But when absolutely all evidence directly contradicts it, doing so would leave you prone to rampant mockery because saying that the universe is rotating around the moon is ******** stupid.
It goes against conventional thought but the fact remains that to claim something is moving you must have something else as a reference. If you were in a total void you would have no idea if you were spinning, standing still, or moving toward a distant object at the speed of light.
It goes against conventional thought but the fact remains that to claim something is moving you must have something else as a reference. If you were in a total void you would have no idea if you were spinning, standing still, or moving toward a distant object at the speed of light.
That is, quite frankly, not true.
Rotational mechanics are always about a point. You can tell that you're rotating without use of other objects.
You are misunderstanding inertial frame of references.
Or only half read that part of a physics book
Or only heard it in a bar.
It goes against conventional thought but the fact remains that to claim something is moving you must have something else as a reference. If you were in a total void you would have no idea if you were spinning, standing still, or moving toward a distant object at the speed of light.
That is, quite frankly, not true.
Rotational mechanics are always about a point. You can tell that you're rotating without use of other objects.
You are misunderstanding inertial frame of references.
Or only half read that part of a physics book
Or only heard it in a bar.
Shama_okami is technically correct about rotation (Though the link in the original post is nonsense). Relativity says the laws of physics are the same for all reference frames, not just inertial ones. A frame which describes the moon as stationary is just as physically meaningful as a frame which describes the moon as rotating.
"Is it not possible for me to regard the earth as free from rotation, if I conceive of the centrifugal force, which acts on all bodies at rest relatively to the earth, as being a "real" gravitational field of gravitation, or part of such a field? If this idea can be carried out, then we shall have proved in very truth the identity of gravitation and inertia. For the same property which is regarded as inertia from the point of view of a system not taking part of the rotation can be interpreted as gravitation when considered with respect to a system that shares this rotation. According to Newton, this interpretation is impossible, because in Newton's theory there is no "real" field of the "Coriolis-field" type. But perhaps Newton's law of field could be replaced by another that fits in with the field which holds with respect to a "rotating" system of co-ordiantes? My conviction of the identity of inertial and gravitational mass aroused within me the feeling of absolute confidence in the correctness of this interpretation." -- Einstein
It goes against conventional thought but the fact remains that to claim something is moving you must have something else as a reference. If you were in a total void you would have no idea if you were spinning, standing still, or moving toward a distant object at the speed of light.
That is, quite frankly, not true.
Rotational mechanics are always about a point. You can tell that you're rotating without use of other objects.
You are misunderstanding inertial frame of references.
Or only half read that part of a physics book
Or only heard it in a bar.
Shama_okami is technically correct about rotation (Though the link in the original post is nonsense). Relativity says the laws of physics are the same for all reference frames, not just inertial ones. A frame which describes the moon as stationary is just as physically meaningful as a frame which describes the moon as rotating.
No, she's not Morbert.
Because if she were, the stars would be required to be travelling at orders of magnitude above the speed of light.
Perhaps you're missing the context.
Where in she says that the universe is rotating around the moon.
No, she's not Morbert.
Because if she were, the stars would be required to be travelling at orders of magnitude above the speed of light.
The local speed of light is invariant. The coordinate speed of light is not. There is nothing in relativity which prohibits the coordinate speed of anything from exceeding c.
Quote:
Perhaps you're missing the context.
Where in she says that the universe is rotating around the moon.
She is free to adopt such a reference frame is she likes. Coordinate systems are simply arbitrary descriptions. You can't say one is more correct than another.
No, she's not Morbert.
Because if she were, the stars would be required to be travelling at orders of magnitude above the speed of light.
The local speed of light is invariant. The coordinate speed of light is not. There is nothing in relativity which prohibits the coordinate speed of anything from exceeding c.
Sounds to me like you're trying to blend the two.
In saying "The universe rotates around the moon" you are putting the universe into the local context and using the moon as a universal frame of reference.
In saying "the moon rotates about its axis" you are not.
Morberticus
She is free to adopt such a reference frame is she likes. Coordinate systems are simply arbitrary descriptions. You can't say one is more correct than another.
I am doing no such thing. Local invariance has a very specific meaning in relativity. The speed of light is locally invariant, but the laws of physics are generally invariant.
Quote:
In saying "The universe rotates around the moon" you are putting the universe into the local context and using the moon as a universal frame of reference.
In saying "the moon rotates about its axis" you are not.
-
We're not talking about coordinate systems here.
Yes we are. A coordinate system is precisely what a frame of reference is. We are talking about alternative but equivalent descriptions of the moon and the surrounding universe. We can say one description uses an inertial frame while the other does not, but one is not more "true" than the other.
Also, I do not understand the sentence underlined. I specifically do not know what you mean by "local context". Locality has a very specific meaning in relativity.
200
200
250
