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

[Blastolabs]

From what I can tell NASA and Tesla are saying the same thing with different words.



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]

So everything we know of in our entire Universe spins, except the moon according to Tesla. Hmmm

[Jaak]

Posted by Neptune7 (here)
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.

[Agape]

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]

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 ...

[Jaak]

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.

[Neptune7]

How do we know where the moon's axis even is if it is 'not rotating'?

[Agape]

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

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]

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, 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.

[Jaak]

Posted by Neptune7 (here)

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/sho...f-the-universe

[Mari]

Posted by Ratszinger (here)
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]

Posted by Jaak (here)
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/sho...f-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.

[Agape]

Posted by Mari (here)

Posted by Ratszinger (here)
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

🙏

[Mari]

Posted by Agape (here)

Posted by Mari (here)

Posted by Ratszinger (here)
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]

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]

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]

Posted by Neptune7 (here)
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.