View Full Version : Does the Moon rotate on its Axis? Tesla says No, NASA says Yes. What say you?
Jim_Duyer
27th April 2024, 23:48
I found a curious article by Nicola Tesla concerning the Moon's lack of a rotation on its axis, complete with his work sheets in evidence. This conflicts directly with what we have been told all along, and I confirmed that the Moon is today still held to rotate on its axis on the NASA science webpage on Top Moon Questions:
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/top-moon-questions/
Moon in Motion: Phases, Patterns, and More
Does the Moon rotate? Does the Moon spin on its axis?
Yes! The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once on its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This means that the same side of the Moon always faces our planet.Your browser does not support the video tag.The Moon always keeps the same face towards Earth because it takes the same amount of time to rotate on its axis as it does to orbit our planet. This is called synchronous rotation. Credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization StudioIf the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different parts of the Moon throughout the month.
Here's Tesla's take on it - he firmly believes that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. This seems to be something that we might be able to prove, one way or the other, to our own satisfaction, and it is interesting that they have these conflicting understandings. I tend to believe Tesla in most of his pronouncements, personally.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
The Moon's Rotation (Follow-up)
by Nikola Tesla
Electrical Experimenter
June, 1919
Page number(s):
132-133, 156-157 & 160
In this article Dr. Tesla proves conclusively by theory and experiment that all the kinetic energy of a rotating mass is purely translational and that the moon contains absolutely no rotational energy, in other words, does not rotate on its axis. — EDITOR.
In revising my article on “The Moon’s Rotation”, which appeared in the April issue of the Electrical Experimenter, I appended a few remarks to the original text in further support and elucidation of the theory advanced. Due to the printer’s error these were lost and, in consequence, I found it necessary to forward another communication which, unfortunately, was received too late for embodiment in the May number. Meanwhile many letters have reached me in which certain phenomena presented by rotating bodies, as the moon’s librations of longitude, are cited as evidences of energy due to spinning motion, i.e., proofs of axial rotation of the satellite in the true physical sense. I trust that the following amplified statement will meet all of the objections raised and convert to my views those who are still unconvinced.
Fig. 1. — If You Still Think That the Moon Rotate on Its Axis, Look at This Diagram and Follow Closely the Successive Positions Taken by One of the Balls M While It is Rotated by a Spoke of the Wheel. Substitute Gravity for the Spoke and the Analogy Solves the Moon Rotation Riddle.
53013
He offers several pages of mathematical proofs and concludes with this:
A motion of this character, as I have shown, precludes the possibility of axial rotation. The easiest way to free ourselves of this illusion is to conceive the satellite subdivided into minute and entirely independent parts, as dust particles, which have different orbital, but rigorously the same angular, velocities. One must at once recognize that the kinetic energy of such an agglomeration is solely translational, there being absolutely no tendency to axial rotation. This makes it also perfectly clear why the moon, provided its distance does not greatly increase, must always turn the same face to us even without any inherent directive tendency nor so much as the slightest effort from the earth.
Neptune7
28th April 2024, 11:09
Fascinating question. If you accept that our Sun Moon pair move through space, would the motion be like this?
53015
which suggests to me that we rotate as a couple pair?
Jaak
28th April 2024, 11:42
Does this apply to only our moon or to all tidally locked moons ? Because there are dozens of them in our solar system. Saturn alone has 15 moons that behave same way as earths moon...
Although interesting theory.
Jim_Duyer
28th April 2024, 13:50
I like your coupled pair theory - especially due to our close magnetic or gravitic attraction. I nearly get a headache when people speak of a flat earth - it's just so irrational a suggestion considering that we have always "known" of a spherical Earth. (Even in the Bible). And then I learn that many ancient peoples spoke of a time before the moon was in our skies, which reflects human or modern time periods, and Tesla's math showing the moon doesn't rotate. And suddenly I begin to wonder .... That way lies madness, however.
Jim_Duyer
28th April 2024, 13:53
Does this apply to only our moon or to all tidally locked moons ? Because there are dozens of them in our solar system. Saturn alone has 15 moons that behave same way as earths moon...
Although interesting theory.
Yes - good catch - there are many moons Kemosabe (Lone Ranger).
If none do, then they will have to tear up their teaching materials and come up with another way in which they might have begun to rotate and under what force - and change that to an explanation of how it is that they do not rotate! Perhaps they can steal Tesla's work - everybody else has.
Ratszinger
28th April 2024, 14:11
There are great Youtube videos on the Primer effect and how this system of ours works. He has it nailed on the head and Tesla is correct. In the first video you can see this clearly in his demonstrations. NASA is either lying or doesn't follow the correct science for how this universe works.
Jaak
28th April 2024, 14:17
I love Tesla and his works but he wasnt also always right.. Thanks to genius of Steinmetz he managed to get his first electrical motor to work. Also he had some ideas to light up the sky permanently which would have been catastrophic for nocturnal wildlife and also would mess up cycles of the plants... But i still hold him in high regard. The book ¨Prodigal Genius¨ should be a must read for everyone.It shows that Tesla wasnt born gifted but he intentionally trained his imagination from early age. Which these days seems to be ignored sadly. No one else can improve our imagination/visualisation than ourselves.
Lets just say it improves the quality and clarity of thinking.
Bill Ryan
28th April 2024, 14:28
It's all about rotating frames of reference. :thumbsup: (It's complicated!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame
Ernie Nemeth
28th April 2024, 17:30
Why is the above analysis of the rotating frames of reference required? Because there is no absolute frame of reference in existence - everything is in motion.
If one was to employ an imaginary absolute frame of reference, we would see that, in fact, the moon is rotating on its axis. Whether it has rotational velocity or is experiencing a 'tidal lock' with the Earth, I guess, is debatable.
Mind experiment:
If the Earth suddenly vanished, would the moon continue to rotate on its axis or not?
Bill Ryan
28th April 2024, 21:21
Why is the above analysis of the rotating frames of reference required? Because there is no absolute frame of reference in existence - everything is in motion.
Exactly, yes. In ultimate terms, all frames of reference are arbitrary.
(Einstein, and his equally brilliant but largely unknown wife, pondered this deeply for months before coming up with the Special Theory of Relativity, one way of resolving some of the paradoxes.)
If you twirl round in a circle, did you rotate — or did the universe rotate around you? Take your pick. :)
The mechanics of energetic issues like angular momentum are a different matter, just ways of predicting what knock-on effects occur when something rotates. (Serious arguments about the weird behavior of gyroscopes persist to this day.)
TrumanCash
28th April 2024, 22:20
In my own visualization if the moon is orbiting the Earth and is stationary--that is, always facing in the same direction--we would be able to see all around the moon including the dark side. Therefore, it must be rotating in such a way that we only see one side-- which leads to lots of speculation as to why that is. And that includes whether it is a natural or an artificially-created phenomenon.
Jim_Duyer
29th April 2024, 13:39
It's all about rotating frames of reference. :thumbsup: (It's complicated!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame
Thanks for that link. Yes, too complicated for my mind trained on words instead of math - but luckily Bill has a degree in math if my reading is correct.
Rotating frames of reference reminds me of Shrodinger's Cat. And well, it has to rotate on it's axis, because if it did not then NASA would not have been able to place men on the moon near the spot that they aimed for .... Oh, wait a minute, there's some that question that as well, right?
¤=[Post Update]=¤
Why is the above analysis of the rotating frames of reference required? Because there is no absolute frame of reference in existence - everything is in motion.
If one was to employ an imaginary absolute frame of reference, we would see that, in fact, the moon is rotating on its axis. Whether it has rotational velocity or is experiencing a 'tidal lock' with the Earth, I guess, is debatable.
Mind experiment:
If the Earth suddenly vanished, would the moon continue to rotate on its axis or not?
That's a good one - LOL. If an earth fell in the forest and the moon did not hear it, would it really have fallen?
Jim_Duyer
29th April 2024, 13:46
I love Tesla and his works but he wasnt also always right.. Thanks to genius of Steinmetz he managed to get his first electrical motor to work. Also he had some ideas to light up the sky permanently which would have been catastrophic for nocturnal wildlife and also would mess up cycles of the plants... But i still hold him in high regard. The book ¨Prodigal Genius¨ should be a must read for everyone.It shows that Tesla wasnt born gifted but he intentionally trained his imagination from early age. Which these days seems to be ignored sadly. No one else can improve our imagination/visualisation than ourselves.
Lets just say it improves the quality and clarity of thinking.
Jaak - I agree that he was not always right - but that's what made him a genius - he was willing to go out on limbs where others clung to safe and tired ideas. I've read several books on Tesla and I was planning to write a chapter on him myself. His idea about free energy was what got him mainlined and relegated to the dumpster of history.
In fact Morgan, who was a tool of Rothschild, gave Jacob Astor free tickets on the Titanic just to get rid of him - since he was Tesla's main monetary angel for some time.
What really gets under NASA's skin is that Tesla would have said this - they hate him because he knew and claimed aloud that their fair-haired child Einstein was neither a genius nor correct in most of his theories. The one that the powers that be hate the most about Tesla is his statement, on many occasions, that the speed of light had no special "limit" and that he himself had projected waves at greater than the speed of light - some 25% faster on one occasion. That screws their "aliens can't exist because the distances are too great" nonsense. The secret members of government and military have been speaking to aliens for over 75 years - so it's just another part of the picture of silence to us common folk.
Jaak
29th April 2024, 14:29
If the Earth suddenly vanished, would the moon continue to rotate on its axis or not?
Moon does rotate,but not on its axis. When it completes it´s orbit around earth is when it completes its 360 degree rotation. From sun´s perspective is moon still or does all of it sides get sunlight?
After sun or earth or anything else has completed a 360 degree rotation,are they in the same place in the universe where they started ? No,everything is in motion... So does anything rotate on their axis ?
Everything in this universe in pretty much orbiting something. How fast or slow they complete their 360 degree spin compared to one thing or another is rather relative.But everything rotates/spins and nothing aint still.
My opinion is that all moons came from their planets . None are captured from ¨outside¨.Only when something from outside collides with planet,then yes. I playd Kerbal Space Program for years now and that game teaches you orbital mechanics like none other. It´s why people from NASA and ULA etc play it.
Whatever asteroid etc reaches us means it will eventually move at so high velocity that it would be impossible for earths gravity to slow it down to make it neatly orbit around each other.
If you jumped out from a moving bus you move at the same speed as the bus,but you will slow down because of atmosphere resistance and with the inevitable and unpleasant contact with the ground.
But imagine it happen on large scale,something the size of the moon slowly breaking apart from earth.It will maintain it´s inertia to move in the same direction as earth at same rate.But if nothing gives it force to spin,why would it..
Or metaphoricly if you jumped out from a fast moving bus in a zero-g environment that is taking a slow curve ,would you start randomly spinning? Only if you jump out in a spinning manner. And lets say there is an attractive force between you and the bus that doesnt let you depart from bus too fast too far.You will be moving at same direction at same speed while slowly making a curve ,eventually making an orbit..
What would happen to the moon if earth disappeared? Depends when it happens. It will be launched as an slow asteroid to one direction or another. It wont become a new moon to anything else,no matter how slow or fast or what direction you launch it... Maybe a tiny possibility is for this to happen but most likely not.
Jaak
29th April 2024, 14:43
I love Tesla and his works but he wasnt also always right.. Thanks to genius of Steinmetz he managed to get his first electrical motor to work. Also he had some ideas to light up the sky permanently which would have been catastrophic for nocturnal wildlife and also would mess up cycles of the plants... But i still hold him in high regard. The book ¨Prodigal Genius¨ should be a must read for everyone.It shows that Tesla wasnt born gifted but he intentionally trained his imagination from early age. Which these days seems to be ignored sadly. No one else can improve our imagination/visualisation than ourselves.
Lets just say it improves the quality and clarity of thinking.
Jaak - I agree that he was not always right - but that's what made him a genius - he was willing to go out on limbs where others clung to safe and tired ideas. I've read several books on Tesla and I was planning to write a chapter on him myself. His idea about free energy was what got him mainlined and relegated to the dumpster of history.
In fact Morgan, who was a tool of Rothschild, gave Jacob Astor free tickets on the Titanic just to get rid of him - since he was Tesla's main monetary angel for some time.
What really gets under NASA's skin is that Tesla would have said this - they hate him because he knew and claimed aloud that their fair-haired child Einstein was neither a genius nor correct in most of his theories. The one that the powers that be hate the most about Tesla is his statement, on many occasions, that the speed of light had no special "limit" and that he himself had projected waves at greater than the speed of light - some 25% faster on one occasion. That screws their "aliens can't exist because the distances are too great" nonsense. The secret members of government and military have been speaking to aliens for over 75 years - so it's just another part of the picture of silence to us common folk.
That in a way deserves a topic on its own how electricity was taken over by Rockefeller.As i mentioned in previous post he bought up all the patents/corporations and destroyed everyone.Edisson was first,then Tesla and Westinghouse and Farnsworth etc... Eric Dollard has ton of material about this .His lectures are not the easiest of listening but worth it for those who want to investigate into this.
Jim_Duyer
29th April 2024, 15:22
I love Tesla and his works but he wasnt also always right.. Thanks to genius of Steinmetz he managed to get his first electrical motor to work. Also he had some ideas to light up the sky permanently which would have been catastrophic for nocturnal wildlife and also would mess up cycles of the plants... But i still hold him in high regard. The book ¨Prodigal Genius¨ should be a must read for everyone.It shows that Tesla wasnt born gifted but he intentionally trained his imagination from early age. Which these days seems to be ignored sadly. No one else can improve our imagination/visualisation than ourselves.
Lets just say it improves the quality and clarity of thinking.
Jaak - I agree that he was not always right - but that's what made him a genius - he was willing to go out on limbs where others clung to safe and tired ideas. I've read several books on Tesla and I was planning to write a chapter on him myself. His idea about free energy was what got him mainlined and relegated to the dumpster of history.
In fact Morgan, who was a tool of Rothschild, gave Jacob Astor free tickets on the Titanic just to get rid of him - since he was Tesla's main monetary angel for some time.
What really gets under NASA's skin is that Tesla would have said this - they hate him because he knew and claimed aloud that their fair-haired child Einstein was neither a genius nor correct in most of his theories. The one that the powers that be hate the most about Tesla is his statement, on many occasions, that the speed of light had no special "limit" and that he himself had projected waves at greater than the speed of light - some 25% faster on one occasion. That screws their "aliens can't exist because the distances are too great" nonsense. The secret members of government and military have been speaking to aliens for over 75 years - so it's just another part of the picture of silence to us common folk.
That in a way deserves a topic on its own how electricity was taken over by Rockefeller.As i mentioned in previous post he bought up all the patents/corporations and destroyed everyone.Edisson was first,then Tesla and Westinghouse and Farnsworth etc... Eric Dollard has ton of material about this .His lectures are not the easiest of listening but worth it for those who want to investigate into this.
I agree that it deserves a topic of its own. It was J P Morgan that took over electricity. And he was one of the wealthiest of men in America - but he was the representative of Rothschild in London to begin with, and owed his loyalty to that family for all of his days. Westinghouse was one of the good guys in my opinion. After I studied the tricks of Edison I was ashamed that I had visited his home in Ft. Myers, Florida as a child, and thought him a hero.
Bill Ryan
29th April 2024, 17:27
This is partially related... a fun short video, interesting, and pretty easy for anyone to understand. (Once it's explained! :))
The SAT Question Everyone Got Wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUHkTs-Ipfg
Jim_Duyer
29th April 2024, 18:37
This is partially related... a fun short video, interesting, and pretty easy for anyone to understand. (Once it's explained! :))
The SAT Question Everyone Got Wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUHkTs-Ipfg
Yes it is a fun video - my laughter was only stifled by the understanding that I missed the correct answer or closest to the most correct. I'm not sure what's up with today's testing in any event - on a dare, I took a course at the U Tech here locally (the MIT of Costa Rica) in trigonometry. It was taught in Spanish, and I took it to prove to my wife that my Spanish did not suck after all. I got a 94. BUT. I was standing by with paper and pencil and squares, while the entire class was told to use calculators that they recommended. So, not so much of a test after all.
Thanks for sharing.
Jim_Duyer
29th April 2024, 23:27
OK - I thought my answer was considered wrong by the examiners, but by doing the math it seems correct to me.
I think what confuses the people is having one sphere rotate around another one. But man doesn't think that way - man is mostly linear. Miles and yards and meters and not 3d slices of some angles.
So if we think about it this way - the larger sphere has a radius of 3, giving it a diameter of 6.
So 6 times PI gives us a circumference of 18.849.54
The smaller sphere is 1/3rd the size of the larger.
So we take the edge of the larger and lay it out in a linear fashion and we have a length of 18.84954
We then take our 1/3rd smaller sphere and roll its circumference out in a line - this becomes our
measuring rod. Our measuring rod or stick is 2 (1/3rd) times PI or 6.28318 in length. It doesn't really matter if this is length or circumference - it's all the same except for the easier perception in the linear fashion (to me).
How many rods does it take to measure our linear large sphere? Exactly three. And three should have been the correct answer.
Let's do the same thing to figure out the Tesla-NASA problem.
The Earth's circumference is roughly 40,075 kilometers. That's our new line.
Our rod, the Moon's circumference, is 10,921 kilometers. It's not an exact 4 times, but that would be the closest whole number to the fractional answer. Now, we always see the same half of the moon, every night, every day.
If it were to rotate on its axis, it would need to rotate 4 times to one of our own - but it would also need to do so while displaying only one half - the same half. That would indicate double the 4 times, in order to be in sync, so
it should revolve at very roughly eight times our speed of revolution. Or if you choose to examine it from an earth-centric viewpoint, the earth should revolve at a speed of eight times that of the moon's rotation on its axis.
The earth's revolution speed is some 107,000 km/hr.
The moon orbits the earth at a speed of some 3,683 kilometers per hour.
Relative to the distant background, the moon rotates with a period of roughly 27.322 Earth mean solar days. That boils down to about 13.18 degrees per day, or about 0.549 degree per hour. This is something like 3.7% of the Earth's rate of rotation. That is, the Earth rotates about 27.32 times as fast as the moon does.
So how does that compute with our theory? It would seem that the earth should rotate on it's axis at a speed of eight times that of the moon's but we are told that the earth rotates 27.32 times as fast. Doesn't seem to compute, to me.
Tesla's idea that it rotates around the earth but not around its axis and that it is locked to our motion with the same side being visible, starts to sound more reasonable to me.
Those who passed any grade of math would probably have better skills than I, so please chime in with a helpful explanation. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/images/smilies/0103%20Big%20smile.gif
Denise/Dizi
3rd May 2024, 14:34
I found a curious article by Nicola Tesla concerning the Moon's lack of a rotation on its axis, complete with his work sheets in evidence. This conflicts directly with what we have been told all along, and I confirmed that the Moon is today still held to rotate on its axis on the NASA science webpage on Top Moon Questions:
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/top-moon-questions/
Moon in Motion: Phases, Patterns, and More
Does the Moon rotate? Does the Moon spin on its axis?
Yes! The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once on its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This means that the same side of the Moon always faces our planet.Your browser does not support the video tag.The Moon always keeps the same face towards Earth because it takes the same amount of time to rotate on its axis as it does to orbit our planet. This is called synchronous rotation. Credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization StudioIf the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different parts of the Moon throughout the month.
Here's Tesla's take on it - he firmly believes that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. This seems to be something that we might be able to prove, one way or the other, to our own satisfaction, and it is interesting that they have these conflicting understandings. I tend to believe Tesla in most of his pronouncements, personally.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
The Moon's Rotation (Follow-up)
by Nikola Tesla
Electrical Experimenter
June, 1919
Page number(s):
132-133, 156-157 & 160
In this article Dr. Tesla proves conclusively by theory and experiment that all the kinetic energy of a rotating mass is purely translational and that the moon contains absolutely no rotational energy, in other words, does not rotate on its axis. — EDITOR.
In revising my article on “The Moon’s Rotation”, which appeared in the April issue of the Electrical Experimenter, I appended a few remarks to the original text in further support and elucidation of the theory advanced. Due to the printer’s error these were lost and, in consequence, I found it necessary to forward another communication which, unfortunately, was received too late for embodiment in the May number. Meanwhile many letters have reached me in which certain phenomena presented by rotating bodies, as the moon’s librations of longitude, are cited as evidences of energy due to spinning motion, i.e., proofs of axial rotation of the satellite in the true physical sense. I trust that the following amplified statement will meet all of the objections raised and convert to my views those who are still unconvinced.
Fig. 1. — If You Still Think That the Moon Rotate on Its Axis, Look at This Diagram and Follow Closely the Successive Positions Taken by One of the Balls M While It is Rotated by a Spoke of the Wheel. Substitute Gravity for the Spoke and the Analogy Solves the Moon Rotation Riddle.
53013
He offers several pages of mathematical proofs and concludes with this:
A motion of this character, as I have shown, precludes the possibility of axial rotation. The easiest way to free ourselves of this illusion is to conceive the satellite subdivided into minute and entirely independent parts, as dust particles, which have different orbital, but rigorously the same angular, velocities. One must at once recognize that the kinetic energy of such an agglomeration is solely translational, there being absolutely no tendency to axial rotation. This makes it also perfectly clear why the moon, provided its distance does not greatly increase, must always turn the same face to us even without any inherent directive tendency nor so much as the slightest effort from the earth.
IF the Moon rotated at all, and our world is constantly facing it from some location, we would at some point see the whole of the Moon. Lets say that each time it transits over my area, if rotating at equal speed, I would always see the same side... That would mean those on the opposite side of the planet from my location, would see the back side of the Moon, yet we never do... Or I have yet to see images of our Moon other than the one side of it.., but there are those that only see that side of it?
Perhaps I just don't pay attention enough and missed the photos, of the backside from the Earth.... But I believe we call it the "Dark Side" for a reason, it is always facing away.. No matter what direction it would have to spin? We would eventually see the other side, am I not correct? As a round sphere... if it spun, eventually, at some angle, we would see the other side...
Logically, if it spun, we would be able to see all sides of it and quite regularly, merely by hanging our location of viewing it... We don't even have to check the math... Either we see the back or we don't
And I would have gotten the SAT question wrong as well. As I would have said 3. I learned something new today! I would not have thought to go to the center of the smaller circle either.
I remember coming across this one day, when I was investigating just how far away the Moon REALLY IS... And I was surprised to learn that it is really in our atmosphere... Far out in it, but in it none the less...
"The moon is the earth's only natural satellite, and it lies about 240,000 miles, or 385,000 km, away from our planet. Studies suggest that the moon is situated in the exosphere, which is the outermost layer of our planet's atmosphere."
If the atmosphere is considered part of our sphere, then anything within it would be as well... Which could explain why it doesn't spin on it's own... As noted above.
Blastolabs
4th May 2024, 01:46
From what I can tell NASA and Tesla are saying the same thing with different words.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=53013&d=1714261672
If we imagine the moon is the ball connected to the spoke with one side always facing the center, NASA's explanation is the same.
In both versions the moon is rotating,
relative to its axis. If you were to put a camera on the ball facing away from center, you would see 360 degrees just as if it were rotating while stationary.
It also rotates at the same rate around the earth so we only see one side of it at all times.
This sure sounds impossible with out something "driving the moons rotation"
I'm not completely sure, but it sure seems like they are both in agreement
Neptune7
4th May 2024, 11:54
So everything we know of in our entire Universe spins, except the moon according to Tesla. Hmmm
So everything we know of in our entire Universe spins, except the moon according to Tesla. Hmmm
Aint that all relative.Depends what you observe and from where. Everything kind of spins,rotates,orbits...Depending of perspective.
If the Moon is hollow as we presume, it would not have “axis” unless it would be artificial one. Then how could it “rotate around its axis”?
It would either spin around lots more which it does not or keep self attached to us by the power of Earths gravity.
If it rotates as NASA suggests it would imply it’s insufficiently “weightless” but somehow perfectly balanced to fit into our orbit , harmoniously rotating with us.
I’m favoriting Nicola Tesla in this case unless I understand it better.
🕊
silver birch
4th May 2024, 16:50
The simple question is
Does the Moon rotate on its Axis?
and the simple answer is YES.
I'm sorry if Tesla said otherwise, and now feels offended.
The proof will be supplied in a moment, and note that the Earth's rotation and how much we can see of the Moon is irrelevant to that simple question.
The moment we ask about rotation on something's virtual axis, the "frame" is set. No other views or emotions are relevant than "the Moon sphere's eggsperience".
A few facts may be of interest before I continue.
Both the Moon and the Earth had faster rotation yesterday (before now), both individually and as The Earth-Moon Satellite system, but as the Earth is larger the Moon got tidal lock many moons ago, which eggsplains the Moon only showing 59% of it's sur-face to the beautiful Earthlings.
The extra 9% is due to "Libration" which is a kind of wobble.
One pair of such satellite systems in our solar system has double tidal lock, so they shows only around half of their surface to each other (Pluto and Chiron), all other pairs have like Earth-Moon a lock on the smaller body.
Now it may be time for proof:
Take one old tennis ball and put a stick through it to symbolize the axle of rotation.
Make a mark close to the equator with a pen, indicating the center of visible area from Earth.
Hold the stick firmly in one hand at 7 deg and move it around something or imagine an Earth. When you do that, and keep the mark oriented towards our beloved Earth with the free hand, you will have to rotate the ball on the axle.
Question answered.
IF the Moon would not rotate around it's "axis" in tidal lock, or any other speed than 1:1 that is "tidal lock", we would see all areas of it.
Moderators, please decrease my IQ-social-credit-member-score, if I'm wrong ...
In this article Dr. Tesla proves conclusively by theory and experiment that all the kinetic energy of a rotating mass is purely translational and that the moon contains absolutely no rotational energy, in other words, does not rotate on its axis
Re-reading the first post i think i understand what is implied.
Lets say you have a sphere of water that is slowly rotating and on the surface of the water you got a ball floating.It rotates at same rate as the sphere of water.From some perspective it makes periodically a full rotation but does it mean it has individual inertia of spin in it ? It´s inertia of spin is tied to the rotation of what it is orbiting.
Everything in this universe moves towards where it density fits in.And how dense something is depends how dense are things around it ... Walter Russell gives a complicated explanation why moons and planets are where they are and where their size and density comes from.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaGDL5GUYAEyb1J?format=jpg&name=medium
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-xUeVVnMXaec/TiF9DvQCaAI/AAAAAAAAC2Q/_kNhWLtcQGQ/s800/2357264751_8762ca05a2_o.jpg
Neptune7
5th May 2024, 11:12
How do we know where the moon's axis even is if it is 'not rotating'?
This Moon could be giant water-ice ball that has collected enough space dust to form firm shell over it since its formation.
NASA’s current prevalent theory claims the opposite ; it being remnant of a planet that once crashed to Earth, 4.5-3.9 billion years ago and “collected” ice from colliding comets since.
Ice in the Moon (https://theconversation.com/scientists-suspect-theres-ice-hiding-on-the-moon-and-a-host-of-missions-from-the-us-and-beyond-are-searching-for-it-216060)
In short, there’s more water-ice on the moon than expected but it’s not easily accessible. Logically, if Moon does not have atmosphere , any surface water would evaporate easily.
It’s just very interesting how many ancient traditions claimed association of Moon and water and the impact it has on water bodies on Earth, including our ( water body).
Would a “solid rock” have impact on our water ?
If some of the above is true , either way, could have the collision of “another planet” or cometary tail seeded water on Earth ( in major quantity) making it fertile and hospitable ?
So mysterious . Sometimes we get to see huge halo around the Full moon ( mostly), rainbow colored or just white circle growing in size .
While we think about it as atmospheric phenomenon , what if the Moon itself releases some water on occasions that evaporates fast but forms visible aura:)
Neptune7
5th May 2024, 13:02
Edge theory provides a possible solution to the strangeness of our Moon. It will take some time to generate the information architecture to explain the following, and this is just a strong intuition, but here goes.
We do not observe the moon rotating because it's axis points directly at us here on Gaia, and the period of rotation of the moon is exactly the same as the period of our rotation around the moon.
I know that sound impossible, but consider this. Edge theory shows that the entire In/Finite Universe is a toroidal field that divides an Infinite number of times into an infinite number of toruses. Both our solar system and Gaia are also toroidal fields.
The toroidal fields described by Edge theory have two poles. Perhaps the Sun is one pole and the Moon is the other pole. This neatly and simply explains why the Moon is identical in size to the Sun. In Edge theory I, posted here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?123005-Introducing-Edge-Theory.-It-s-like-String-theory-except...), figure 15 shows how the In/Finite time spans we observe in our Universe causes a change in the amount of energy parts of the toroidal field exhibit without any visible cause.
Edge theory II, which is almost done, demonstrates how the In/finite dimensions also change the amount of energy the toroidal field exhibits and generates infinitely high points sources of energy which explains the anomalies of the so called neutron stars.
When it comes to Gaia, the In/Finite dimensions requires the size of Gaia to appear both Finite and Infinite in size. The effects of embedding this duality causes the Moon to appear as it does.
I will start a new thread with the title 'Observations of Flatness' to discuss the mechanism that causes these observations.
Edge theory II, which is almost done, demonstrates how the In/finite dimensions also change the amount of energy the toroidal field exhibits and generates infinitely high points sources of energy which explains the anomalies of the so called neutron stars.
If you have some time and interest check out some of my findings which imply that there are no neutron stars.When astrophysical jet is pointing at our direction we see it as a star,round shiny object.Its like lazer pointing in your eye,you see the dot but dont see whats behind it. Most of those peculiar stars are end points of astrophysical jet at different stages which is an aftermath of an galaxy splitting into 2 new ones (toroidal field splitting into 2 new toroidal fields).
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120650-Alternative-theory-of-the-universe
There are great Youtube videos on the Primer effect and how this system of ours works. He has it nailed on the head and Tesla is correct. In the first video you can see this clearly in his demonstrations. NASA is either lying or doesn't follow the correct science for how this universe works.
Nasa is nothing more than the propaganda arm for all things space-orientated. The real stuff goes on in the shadows - secret space programmes and the like. I'll take Tesla any day.
As a kid and young adult and a complete disaster at maths (I was bullied by a terrible teacher and still have trauma issues over maths to this day) I nevertheless knew, with utter certainty that what Nasa told us about Light -'nothing travels faster than light' was a crock. I don't know how I knew this, I just felt it deep in my bones. Open any book about Astronomy today and, apart from stunning pictures, it's hardly moved forward from the old, tired mantras about how the universe works. It's all a guessing game dressed up as 'facts'.
Neptune7
5th May 2024, 14:03
If you have some time and interest check out some of my findings which imply that there are no neutron stars.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120650-Alternative-theory-of-the-universe
If I understand you correctly, we agree. Edge theory simply provides a mathematically rigorous model of what you have intuited. Black holes collapse the unified field into a singularity, White holes, or all parts of the Infinite Universe that exhibit expansion, 'release' the infinite energy collapsed into the Black Hole.
Curioulsy, in your post linked above, you begin by mentioning that you learned astral travel and out of body experiences. I started the same way, beginning with a book called Superlearning. I learned how to drop into a very deep trance state a few years before the Plasma beings stated talking to me. Very Interesting Co-incidence.
There are great Youtube videos on the Primer effect and how this system of ours works. He has it nailed on the head and Tesla is correct. In the first video you can see this clearly in his demonstrations. NASA is either lying or doesn't follow the correct science for how this universe works.
Nasa is nothing more than the propaganda arm for all things space-orientated. The real stuff goes on in the shadows - secret space programmes and the like. I'll take Tesla any day.
As a kid and young adult and a complete disaster at maths (I was bullied by a terrible teacher and still have trauma issues over maths to this day) I nevertheless knew, with utter certainty that what Nasa told us about Light -'nothing travels faster than light' was a crock. I don't know how I knew this, I just felt it deep in my bones. Open any book about Astronomy today and, apart from stunning pictures, it's hardly moved forward from the old, tired mantras about how the universe works. It's all a guessing game dressed up as 'facts'.
Yes the speed of light in every solar system depends on quality of solar photovoltaic emission which in turn depends on solar mass and energy and composition of Star and what else creating a constant usable within its EMG field that pertains to our observation.
We use it as unit of measurement but ..
We don’t really have good idea at this point “how fast does light propagate” from other Stars and bubbles of their solar systems as their nuclear parameters vary.
In turn , distances to other stars as claimed by modern astronomy aren’t that different from ancient astronomers estimates.
Space and Light also create lots of extra opacity and are bound by curvatures and waves of space, light gets “swallowed” by space and its appearance is diverted.
Some stars may be much closer than we see them and than claimed and some much further.
They still put lots of childish stuff to school books I dare to say but less than previously.
It’s important to credit all the historical scientific effort that’s been done by ancient cavemen and cave women but it’s equally important to acknowledge there’s so little we know about ants , ourselves and stars that our children should be allowed and encouraged to ask questions including big questions about our existence .
Thanks Mari
🙏
There are great Youtube videos on the Primer effect and how this system of ours works. He has it nailed on the head and Tesla is correct. In the first video you can see this clearly in his demonstrations. NASA is either lying or doesn't follow the correct science for how this universe works.
Nasa is nothing more than the propaganda arm for all things space-orientated. The real stuff goes on in the shadows - secret space programmes and the like. I'll take Tesla any day.
As a kid and young adult and a complete disaster at maths (I was bullied by a terrible teacher and still have trauma issues over maths to this day) I nevertheless knew, with utter certainty that what Nasa told us about Light -'nothing travels faster than light' was a crock. I don't know how I knew this, I just felt it deep in my bones. Open any book about Astronomy today and, apart from stunning pictures, it's hardly moved forward from the old, tired mantras about how the universe works. It's all a guessing game dressed up as 'facts'.
Yes the speed of light in every solar system depends on quality of solar photovoltaic emission which in turn depends on solar mass and energy and composition of Star and what else creating a constant usable within its EMG field that pertains to our observation.
We use it as unit of measurement but ..
We don’t really have good idea at this point “how fast does light propagate” from other Stars and bubbles of their solar systems as their nuclear parameters vary.
In turn , distances to other stars as claimed by modern astronomy aren’t that different from ancient astronomers estimates.
Space and Light also create lots of extra opacity and are bound by curvatures and waves of space, light gets “swallowed” by space and its appearance is diverted.
Some stars may be much closer than we see them and than claimed and some much further.
They still put lots of childish stuff to school books I dare to say but less than previously.
It’s important to credit all the historical scientific effort that’s been done by ancient cavemen and cave women but it’s equally important to acknowledge there’s so little we know about ants , ourselves and stars that our children should be allowed and encouraged to ask questions including big questions about our existence .
Thanks Mari
🙏
And that is precisely the trouble, Agape. Our children and indeed any of us who are on this journey have never been encouraged to ask real questions about our existence. 'Knowledge' these days is presented in a neat little box and anyone who talks and thinks outside this box in academia is very quickly frozen out. I'm a big fan of Graham Hancock for instance and have witnessed his demonization over the years by so-called 'experts', especially in Egyptology. The arrogance of academia is such that it seldom allows for the fact that they/we cannot know it all, and what they don't understand, they dismiss or ignore.
The cover up of human existence is something that truly needs to be dragged screaming into the light of day.
Denise/Dizi
5th May 2024, 22:02
I am going to unmask myself here and say that I just don't know anymore...
The math means nothing if the Moon is not actually "Orbiting" the planet... Once we assume it does, the equations can be ran assuming that variable... But it doesn't prove that it is true. It's a question of "IF?" - "THEN"....
I am tapping out to let my brain rest
Neptune7
8th May 2024, 22:32
I came across another strange anomaly today. According to Wal Thornhill, during an eclipse, Ra exerts twice the gravitational pull on Luna that Gaia does. How is that possible without Luna leaving our 'orbit'?
Jim_Duyer
9th May 2024, 23:53
So everything we know of in our entire Universe spins, except the moon according to Tesla. Hmmm
However, everything that we know of in our entire Universe may not be equal to our Moon, which many have posited is a shell containing spaces in its center used for various things by various groups, and others have claimed that our moon is a construct that was towed into its place sometime during human memory, thus the many reports of a 'time before the moon was in our skies'.
But you are probably correct. It's the less than 100% that is cognate with that "probably" that is the interesting part for speculation.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.1 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.