reply to post by EarthCitizen07
The only direct insults
I've seen have come from you. IN that last post, especially.
Dick Hoagland is NOT a member of ATS, so he is fair game to be called what he is: A charlatan. I think he's either incredibly stupid (unlikely) or a
huckster (more likely). I label bad people like that "idiots"...not for being stupid, but for being terrible people. Liars. Frauds.
Nor is Hoagland a real topic of this thread, in the main. Except, inasmuch as his whacked -out "claims" might ever impact the way the OP presented,
and to dispute the "worries" of the Moon being "wrong" in some way. Because, it's perfectly normal. It is some people's incredibly incorrect views
that are "wrong"...and it is sad to see such mistakes perpetuated, to confuse and pollute the minds of those who are still learning.
Now, this started primarily from your post that referenced this "article" from
"grant
chronicles".
A hot mess of incorrect claims, and based on a seriously flawed perception of reality. Odd, in your post, you even included snippets of pertinent
text, where the author of that "article" had it right...at first, but completely misunderstood and jumped the shark in his "analysis" and
interpretation of how the Moon actually moves, and more importantly, WHY!! (For example, he confuses gravitational attraction, with a physical
connection...as if it has some actual, tangible and physical effect directly. Your three photos displayed the same misconceptions).
The ONLY effect of gravity, in terms of rotation of the Moon, is in altering its rate of rotation, over the billions of years that the Moon has been
there....until we see it today, in the apparent state of equilibrium that has developed, because of MUTUAL gravitational attraction. Of course the
Moon's mass is sufficiently less, so that IT slowed more, and was affected more, by the Earth, since Earth is much more massive.
These interactions continue, to the effect that the Moon is STILL "robbing" angular momentum energy from Earth, as it has been doing for ~4Billion
years. It HAS slowed the rate of Earth's rotation in that time period, and the extra energy it receives in doing so means that its orbit is very,
very slowly increasing its distance. This has been measured VERY accurately since 1969...when Apollo 11 left the retro-reflectors, for the most
precise way to get the best measure of distance, and change over time.
The Moon used to rotate faster, of course. BUT there were no Humans to see this (and to see it much larger in the sky, since it was closer to us). 3
Billion years ago, is when this was the case. It changed, all so gradually, until what we see today.
THIS is the way the orbital mechanics of physics, and the math, is. It is reality, it is immutable. Copernicus, Galileo, Hoyle, Kepler,
et al
have done this work, it has been checked and re-checked millions of times by now, refined as technology invents more precise ways to measure to more
precise detail....etc.
This is where the "grantchronicles" go so terribly wrong:
Within in this frame of reference, the Moon follows its rotational path as gravity turns the direction of motion of the Moon inward maintaining
orbital distance and any reference on the surface of the Moon changes direction by 360 degrees with the frame in relation to the Earth. The problem
the Moon rotation that those who formulated this theory, is that they confused completing a curved path of rotation where points of an object do
change in relation to others in an expanded reference frame. The frame of reference used for rotational spin contains only the object itself. The
definition of spin about an axis is the object must complete 1 rotation about its axis within the frame no matter what motion the frame itself takes
on.
What a mess! He says it correctly at first, then goes off into La-La-Land there, with the irrelevant crap about the orbital path of the Moon. He
says it, right here:
....and any reference on the surface of the Moon changes direction by 360 degrees with the frame in relation to the ....
...except, he writes "...to the Earth..." at the end. IF he substituted "Sun" instead, then he'd be precisely correct. "..surface of the Moon
changes direction by 360 degrees....". Translation? IT ROTATES ABOUT ITS AXIS!!!
Rest of his "explanation" involves the same mistaken belief and analogy, of a PHYSICAL connection of some sort.
Planets, as they orbit each other, and/or their star, have NO direct physical connection.
The "grantchronicles" fails to comprehend this, and thus draws very false conclusions....born from a deep ignorance and lack of understanding,
apparently.
It is truly sad that anyone would come along, and disparage thousands and thousands of very well educated people, to include Phil Plaitt, and try to
claim that ALL OF THEM are "wrong".
It is amazing in its audacity, and foolishness......
THAT doesn't matter, except in the fact of the radius of orbit, and the period of time it takes to follow one orbital path.
edit on 18 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)