Does the Moon rotate on its Axis? Tesla says No, NASA says Yes. What say you?

[Jim_Duyer]

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-tes...tion-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.




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]

Fascinating question. If you accept that our Sun Moon pair move through space, would the motion be like this?




which suggests to me that we rotate as a couple pair?

[Jaak]

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]

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]

Posted by Jaak (here)
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]

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]

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]

It's all about rotating frames of reference. (It's complicated!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame

[Ernie Nemeth]

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]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
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]

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]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
It's all about rotating frames of reference. (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]=¤

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
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]

Posted by Jaak (here)
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]

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]

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)

Posted by Jaak (here)
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]

Posted by Jaak (here)

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)

Posted by Jaak (here)
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]

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FUHkTs-Ipfg

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
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

Source: https://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]

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/ima...ig%20smile.gif

[Denise/Dizi]

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
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-tes...tion-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.

Attachment 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.