# Thread: Two faced Moon

1. How many times do we gaze at the moon in wonder? For me it is an on-going venture. With a desire to know more, and a inquisitive mind wondering if this or that might be true. Knowing that I am following a long line of people that have asked very similar questions. And they too took a stab at postulating the possibilities. One would think that we would have made great strides in the development of our understanding of the moon. So thinking that all of the easy questions have already been answered, I investigated to see where we stood. Knowing that sometimes it takes the right person to ask the right question at the right time, I began my inquiry. I had barely begun my investigation when I started making remarks of the nature of “that isn’t right”. So hoping that I had found the lone kink in the thinking, I began.
The first kink was a statement that the Moon’s orbit was in synchronous rotation around the Earth. And that is why one side of the Moon always faced the Earth. My response was “No”, the reason that one side of the Moon always faces the Earth is that as the Moon orbits the Earth, the Moons kinetic energy is tugging on the moon using the centripetal force generated by gravity. The key to these forces coming into balance is the motion of the moon. That motion is acted upon by the two gravitational fields that produce the centrifugal and centripetal forces. The Earth’s Gravity provides the centripetal force on the Moon that holds the Moon in its orbit around the Earth. The kinetic energy produced by the Moon’s motion rotates the Moon on its axis until it finds stability with the portion of the Moon with the most mass pointing in the direction of the centrifugal force. The synchronous rotation of the Moon is an effect, and not a cause. What holds the Moon to a position where one side of the Moon always faces the Earth is the kinetic energy produced from orbital motion, and the resulting centrifugal force acting on the Moons axis of rotation.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Jack1941
How many times do we gaze at the moon in wonder? For me it is an on-going venture. With a desire to know more, and a inquisitive mind wondering if this or that might be true. Knowing that sometimes it takes the right person to ask the right question at the right time, I began my inquiry. I had barely begun my investigation when I started making remarks of the nature of “that isn’t right”. So hoping that I had found the lone kink in the thinking, I began.
An interesting post!
Perhaps, in the near future, you might be willing to elaborate on the concepts of "beadlingism" and "starom" which you introduced, to this forum, recently.

4. That's a cool theory. It's hard for me to grasp though. Could you provide a model? BTW, centrifugal "force" doesn't exist :P

5. My response is... "No".

Seeing as you posted this in the mathematics forum, are you going to show us any mathematics that might lend weight to your ideas?

Oh, and as has already been stated, centrifugal force is a fictitious force.

6. Why then, Jack, does the moon wobble so that we see not just 50% of its surface over time, but closer to 60%?

7. Halliday:
I will be glad to provide information "elaborate" on the concepts of "Beadlingism" and "Starom". At this moment I had opened my email after a friend had telephoned and asked me the send some data to him. That will occupy most of my evening. So I will try to get back to you sometime tomorrow. I can give you some insight to Beadlingism. I have over twenty years of engineering experience as a Instrumentation/Process Controls Engineer. Many years ago I was working with a group of very bright individual’s, and we would often collaborate on the physics aspect of a dynamic system in trying to provide the best monitoring and control approach. Often, we found that a clear idea of the dynamics of the system was an essential aspect to providing the best monitoring and control schemes. During the collaborations I would find that the clearer we all understood the dynamics of the system, the better the control scheme would perform. I often found myself clarifying exactly what was at play in the dynamics of the system. A friend started referring my insights to clarify the situation as a Beadlingism. The name stuck, and I was comfortable with it. As the years passed I found a need to write down some of the Beadlingism, and continued with the use of the name. There are Beadlingism statements for a great many of the relationship’s that I was trying to clarify. Some of those relationships were the first stab at trying to gain a clear concept of the specific relationship. While others were an attempt to undo relationship that were misrepresented by their definition. Science is far from a complete and well understood definition of the events that take place in nature.

8. I will provide a little insight into the use of Math to clarify an event. Some relationships have clear and easy to understand mathematical relationships. Math is a good tool. But it can be used to define a relationship that has no relationship to reality. In the hands of someone that cannot differentiate between the two realms, they will surely make statements that extend far beyond reality. It is therefore not a good tool to use in an attempt establish thet ruth or the validity of a concept. But I see that you have an inquisitivemind. Perhaps you can review the mathematical relationship of E=MC2 with that same inquisitive mind.

9. Conceptual concepts escape many. The image in the looking glass, does not exist. But a force that is not accellerating must have a reactionary force. I might point out that many concepts in physics are extrapolations.

10. Originally Posted by Jack1941
Perhaps you can review the mathematical relationship of E=MC2 with that same inquisitive mind.
Perhaps you can answer my question in post #5. Once you have done that perhaps you will review the mathematical relationship of E=MC2 for those of us whose minds have been damaged by training in the scientific method, natural scepticism and an unreasonable requirement for evidential support.

11. Stay with me on this, for we aretalking about two separate sets of conditions that affect two separate sets of orientationrelationships.
One set of conditions define relationshipsinfluenced by gravitational fields, and corrects the orbital path to hold theradius constant as the Moon travels about the orbital plane.

Another set of conditions define relationships influenced by the kinetic energygenerated through the motion of the Moons travel along its orbital path, whicheffects its axial orientation so that the side containing the most mass ispivoted outward to point away from the center of orbital rotation.

12. Could you clarify your comment?
Are you implying that the moon wabbles as it orbits the earth?
Or, are you stating an effect that appears over time?
The equipment that I have access to does not support your observation.

Might you be implying a wabble, or it it a measurable observati

If you can provide accurate data of a known phenomina the relatioships driving the event can be established. You must understand the nature of an implied force, or event.

13. I am still waiting for you to answer post number 5. It appears that you cannot. That pretty well demonstrates that your thesis is wrong, since it cannot explain a basic observation.

14. John
I recently received an email from the science forum letting me know that you had provided feedback.
Did you intend to have the antagonistic tone, or is that just part of your personality?

“I am still waiting for you to answer post number 5. It appears that you cannot. That pretty well demonstrates that your thesis is wrong, since it cannot explain a basic observation.”

Your post at the Forum: Why then, Jack, does the moon wobble so that we see not just 50% of its surface over time, but closer to 60%?

Do youthink that this approach will stimulate good conversation?
I would need a little clarification to give your response adequate consideration. Your intent isn’t in the inquiry, it is an attempt to stir me up. It would be laughable, but I am not looking for laughable feedback.

I will speak first of the implication that my thesis is wrong. I want to thank you for the recognition of the fact that it is a thesis. I have posted more than one rendition, trying to add clarity to the concept. So let me restate the latest rendition:
Stay with me on this, for we are talking about two separate sets of conditions that affect two separate sets of orientation relationships.
One set ofconditions define relationships influenced by gravitational fields, and corrects the orbital path to hold the radius constant as the Moon travels about the orbital plane.
Another set of conditions define relationships influenced by the kinetic energy generated through the motion of the Moons travel along its orbital path, which effects its axial orientation so that the side containing the most mass is pivoted outward to point away from the center of orbital rotation.
Please take the time to give this concept due consideration. I don’t know what kind of environment you normally function in, but the environment of this forum does not receive antagonistic and insulting comments acceptable, and neither do I.
As for mathematical proof that these relationships are true, I offer the following:
What Iwanted to accomplish with my post was to generate discussions identifying some of the old and true Newtonian physics through the identification of the relationships involved. This would include items like: Aristotelian physics, classical mechanics, kinetic energy, rotational kinetic energy, inertial energy, classical mechanics, angular velocity, Rotating bodies, moment of inertia, and Newtonian(classical) mechanics. We have had many great minds considering these relationships and making determinations of cause and effect. I would like to bring their thinking back onto center stage and clarify the truths of what is actually going on. And I still want to achieve this. I will put disparaging comments aside, where they belong. And focus on bringing out the truth.

15. Originally Posted by Jack1941
John
I recently received an email from the science forum letting me know that youhad provided feedback.
Did you intend to have the antagonistic tone, or is that just part of your personality?
This is indeed a science forum. When you make a claim, especially one that is contrary to current theory, you are expected to provide justification for it. This includes describing how your thesis explains observations that are well explained by current theory.

Avoiding answering these questions is both rude and, I believe, against the forum rules. Asking that these questions be answered when they have been ignored is not only within the forum rules, but is an essential part of ensuring that new hypotheses are properly considered.

When the proposer of a new idea refuses to address such questions it is generally evidence that their idea is wrong. Rather than berating me for an antagonistic post, which it was not, why did you not defend your hypothesis by answering the question?

Originally Posted by Jack1941
Originally Posted by John Galt
“I am still waiting for you to answer post number 5. It appears that you cannot. That pretty well demonstrates that your thesis is wrong, since it cannot explain a basic observation.”
Yourpost at the Forum: Why then, Jack, does the moon wobble so that we see not just 50% of its surface over time, but closer to 60%?

Do youthink that this approach will stimulate good conversation?
If you genuinely wished to discuss your thesis in a scientific manner then of course this would stimulate good conversation. You seem blithley unaware not only basic science facts, but of how science is conducted. It is not only normal, but essential that any new ideas be attacked vigorously and rigorously. If it is sound it will survive these attacks. If you come onto a science forum, a science discussion forum, and then post your idea and ignore valid questions and berate those who ask them, then it is you who is acting in an antagonistic manner.

Now please answer my question from post number 5.

16. Originally Posted by Jack1941
Could you clarify your comment?
Are you implying that the moon wabbles as it orbits the earth?
Or, are you stating an effect that appears over time?
The equipment that I have access to does not support your observation.

Might you be implying a wabble, or it it a measurable observati

If you can provide accurate data of a known phenomina the relatioships driving the event can be established. You must understand the nature of an implied force, or event.
Research term: Lunar libration

17. Originally Posted by Jack1941
Stay with me on this, for we are talking about two separate sets of conditions that affect two separate sets of orientation relationships.
One set ofconditions define relationships influenced by gravitational fields, and corrects the orbital path to hold the radius constant as the Moon travels about the orbital plane.

The radius is not constant. The Moon's orbit, like all others, is eccentric.

Originally Posted by Jack1941
Another set of conditions define relationships influenced by the kinetic energy generated through the motion of the Moons travel along its orbital path, which effects its axial orientation so that the side containing the most mass is pivoted outward to point away from the center of orbital rotation.

The side of the moon containing the most mass is the near side - the side that points towards the Earth.

18. Speed Freek
Theinformation that NASA provides is that the moon has a bulge, they refer it tomountains, but definitely a higher elevation. This higher elevation"mountains" is the FAR side of the moon. They state that the nearside of the moon is more rugged, but they are valleys, and gorges. The nearside of the moon is lower in elevation. I will look for the URL to the NASA webpage and include it with this message. I was surprised when I first learnedthis also. But now I understand what is going on.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/lro-farside.html
Of course, thecause of the farside/nearside asymmetry is an interesting scientific question.Past studies have shown that the crust on the farside is thicker, likely makingit more difficult for magmas to erupt on the surface, limiting the amount offarside mare basalts. Why is the farside crust thicker? That is still up fordebate, and in fact several presentations at this week's Lunar and PlanetaryScience Conference attempt to answer this question.

19. Originally Posted by Jack1941
Could you clarify your comment?
Are you implying that the moon wabbles as it orbits the earth?
I am not implying it, I am stating it very clearly. The moon wobbles. The technical term, as speedfreek explained is libration.

Originally Posted by Jack1941
Or, are you stating an effect that appears over time?
How can you possibly identify a wobble if you do not examine an object over time? Your question makes absolutely no sense. Of course this is an effect that appears over time.

Originally Posted by Jack1941
The equipment that I have access to does not support your observation.
The only equipment you need is reasonable eyesight, a pair of binoculars, a pencil and a sketch pad. I can only presume the equipment you are using is a blindfold and a dark cellar.

Originally Posted by Jack1941
Might you be implying a wabble, or it it a measurable observation
Of course it is a measurable observation. How do you have the audacity to pontificate about the physics of the moon's orbit when you are almost totally ignorant of the character of that orbit? That is wholly unacceptable behaviour! If you were to do this in the real world you would be thrown out of university, or laughed out any conference. You ought to be banned from this forum unless an apology for acting dumb is made immediately.

You will find many here willing to help you gain a proper understanding of science, but not if you are going to spew nonsense and refuse to take any guidance.

Originally Posted by Jack1941
If you can provide accurate data of a known phenomina the relatioships driving the event can be established.
Here is visual evidence:
Moon libration.jpg
Go here for an enlarged view

Originally Posted by Jack1941
You must understand the nature of an implied force, or event.
Zero semantic content.

20. You or Me? BOTH!
So whats new?
What I wanted to accomplish with my post was to generate discussions identifying someof the old and true Newtonian physics through the identification of the relationships involved. This would include items like: Aristotelian physics, classical mechanics, kinetic energy, rotational kinetic energy, inertial energy,classical mechanics, angular velocity, Rotating bodies, moment of inertia, and Newtonian(classical) mechanics. We have had many great minds considering theserelationships and making determinations of cause and effect. I would like tobring their thinking back onto center stage anfd clarify the truths of what isactually going on. And I still want to achieve this. I will put disparaging comments aside, where they belong. And focus on bringing out the truth.

Now,what I would ask you to do is consider the truth of these statements. Thes imple fact is that my presentation of the relationships is accurate and true.Some of our scientific community has strayed from these concepts, and no longer profess their truth. Those members require re-direction. It would appear that you are among them. Or you can continue to think the relationship that determines these events is the Synchronous Rotationof their bodies. Good luck with that, bring a flashlight along, you will require it to find your way out of the dark ages.

21. Originally Posted by Jack1941
Thesimple fact is that my presentation of the relationships is accurate and true.Some of our scientific community has strayed from these concepts, and no longerprofess their truth.
Can you explain what you think is wrong with the usual explanation that this is due to tidal locking?

22. Originally Posted by Jack1941
Speed Freek
Theinformation that NASA provides is that the moon has a bulge, they refer it tomountains, but definitely a higher elevation. This higher elevation"mountains" is the FAR side of the moon. They state that the nearside of the moon is more rugged, but they are valleys, and gorges. The nearside of the moon is lower in elevation. I will look for the URL to the NASA webpage and include it with this message. I was surprised when I first learnedthis also. But now I understand what is going on.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/lro-farside.html
Of course, thecause of the farside/nearside asymmetry is an interesting scientific question.Past studies have shown that the crust on the farside is thicker, likely makingit more difficult for magmas to erupt on the surface, limiting the amount offarside mare basalts. Why is the farside crust thicker? That is still up fordebate, and in fact several presentations at this week's Lunar and PlanetaryScience Conference attempt to answer this question.
But we are talking about the centre of mass, and the thickness of the crust isn't the issue here, it is the interior.

Moon

The mass of the Moon is not evenly distributed; mass concentrations, called Mascons, lie beneath many of the lunar basins, and the center of mass of the Moon is displaced several kilometers towards the Earth. The non-uniform mass distribution creates orbital stability problems for spacecraft orbiting the Moon.
(My bold) i.e. we have measured it.

23. The moons has more of its mass on the farside. NASA says:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/lro-farside.html
Of course, thecause of the farside/nearside asymmetry is an interesting scientific question.Past studies have shown that the crust on the farside is thicker, likely makingit more difficult for magmas to erupt on the surface, limiting the amount offarside mare basalts. Why is the farside crust thicker? That is still up fordebate, and in fact several presentations at this week's Lunar and PlanetaryScience Conference attempt to answer this question.

24. Yes, you already posted that link. It says nothing about the centre of mass of the moon. Most of the mass is below the crust, you know.

We have measured the mass concentrations of the moon, due to us having things orbit it. Their orbits show the mass to be concentrated on the near side.

25. I have experienced the same confusion that each of you experience.
For clarity, we all need to revisit the available data.
Feedback containing snide remarks should stop. And try to stay on the subject.
I have a wide range of scientific relationships that we all could collaborate on. And I would like to start discussions.
I am no fool, and I resent snide comments. Some of my scientific concept present totally new concepts, so if I start feed them out, don't freak. Try to absorb the concept and provide a thoughtful response.

26. Originally Posted by Jack1941
And I would like to start discussions.
I am no fool, and I resent snide comments. .
This was not a snide comment, but a question: "How can you possibly identify a wobble if you do not examine an object over time? Your question makes absolutely no sense. Of course this is an effect that appears over time." Will you now, in the spirit of starting a discussion, tell what your question meant?

Originally Posted by John Galt
The only equipment you need is reasonable eyesight, a pair of binoculars, a pencil and a sketch pad. I can only presume the equipment you are using is a blindfold and a dark cellar.
This was a snide comment. You may not appreciate snide comments, but I do not appreciate someone lecturing us on the orbital mechanics of the moon and suggesting we are living in the dark ages, when they are so profoundly ignorant of the basics. If you maintain such an arrogant and unscientific approach you may expect more of the same.

Originally Posted by Jack1941
I have experienced the same confusion that each of you experience.
We are not confused. You are.

27. Originally Posted by Jack1941
I have experienced the same confusion that each of you experience.
Hmmm, methinks your confusion is in it's own orbit on it's own plane, since most others here understand physics and gravity....

28. Originally Posted by Jack1941
I have experienced the same confusion that each of you experience.
For clarity, we all need to revisit the available data.
Feedback containing snide remarks should stop. And try to stay on the subject.
I have a wide range of scientific relationships that we all could collaborate on. And I would like to start discussions.
I am no fool, and I resent snide comments. Some of my scientific concept present totally new concepts, so if I start feed them out, don't freak. Try to absorb the concept and provide a thoughtful response.
Have you heard of the correspondence principle?

29. Originally Posted by Jack1941
I have experienced the same confusion that each of you experience.
For clarity, we all need to revisit the available data.
Feedback containing snide remarks should stop. And try to stay on the subject.
I have a wide range of scientific relationships that we all could collaborate on. And I would like to start discussions.
I am no fool, and I resent snide comments. Some of my scientific concept present totally new concepts, so if I start feed them out, don't freak. Try to absorb the concept and provide a thoughtful response.
Can you explain what you think is wrong with the usual explanation that this is due to tidal locking?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement