Of course it is and can! All moons I believe are destined to be tidally locked in time, as well as the planet tidally locked to the Moon, which is Earth's destiny. But whether we, humanity will be around then, and whether the Sun has become a red giant and whether M31 has merged, are other questions to consider.
Corona Virus 2019-nCoV
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Admittedly I haven't done the research but I wonder if it has actually been proven that the moon "freely"rotates on it's axis or is it something similar to a guy doing a hammer throw...
Like, attaching an invisible rope to a bucket of water and swinging it around your body. Does the bucket rotate on it's axis or can it only be logically concluded that it does...
I am confident that the boffins have worked all this out so I will just have to wait until I find the explanation and evidence for the difference... I guess
The Bucket is "orbiting" it isn't rotating on its axis. [unless of course some other outside force or potential was initiated] But for a bucket on a string being twirled around someones head, it is I believe not rotating on its axis.
And neither are our thousands of satelites, rotating on their axis...
The question is why the moon is any different?
If you use the sun as reference point all our satelites are rotating on axis once they complete an orbit....
As I posted earlier, I am confident this has been resolved, but have yet to research it properly.
Sort of funny, in a way ... if you include the axis rotation by virtue of orbiting the sun, the Earth rotates up to 366 times year.... lol...(if you use Galactic center as a RF)
Eh what?
Eh what?
Anyhow, the video game I have been playing for a couple of years involves a flu pandemic... ironically enough. An act of bio terrorism released on a dollar bill in NYC.
One to think on... until one educates oneself, at least.
The moon is tidally locked and is rotating on its axis.
- It is tidally locked because there is no net change in its rate of rotation each orbit around the Earth.
- It is rotating about its axis because from the point of view of that axis, it rotates about it (sort of the definition).
It is of course a logical conclusion, deducted from the observed facts. And once you know the facts (that the earth is rotating about the sun), it can also be observed, and is observed every time you look at the moon.
Bear in mind that everything depends on the frame of reference for the axis. When one talks about something rotating about its axis, the frame of reference needs to be inertial with respect to that axis - or it is meaningless. So when you spin on your axis, you do so with reference to a wall, etc, or the compass directions. Our compass settings on Earth are with reference to the north pole, etc - we don't rotate with reference to that frame. But that is because on the earth we are only really concerned with our position relative to other places on earth. When the earth rotates about its axis, however, it does so with reference to a similarly inertial frame for that axis (e.g. the sun).
So once you understand the frame of reference obviously being referred to, it should be quite clear.
Yes, the bucket rotates on its axis. It's not rocket science, just an understanding of what it means for something to be rotating about its axis.
Let's say the bottom end of the bucket initially points north. Later in the motion it will point east, then south, then west, then north again. It is therefore rotating reference to an inertial frame.
As an exercise, put an object on your desk. Then, with your finger pointing down on the desk, describe a circle around the object, with your finger-nail always pointing in the same direction (e.g. use a certain wall as your inertial frame in this example). Your finger, as you will notice, is not rotating around its axis (the line that goes down the length of your finger).
Now, do the same but try to keep your finger-nail always pointing toward the object it is moving around. Hopefully, even before you get too far, you will see that it becomes awkward, because you are having to rotate your finger about its axis. And to complete an object you would probably have to climb onto the desk or become a serious contortionist.
If the moon is rotating around the earth, and is tidally locked and always showing the same face to the Earth, do you now see that the moon is definitely rotating about its axis?
Technically the bucket is not "orbiting" as in physics the term orbit is reserved for gravitational trajectories.
And yes, the bucket really is rotating on its axis (w.r.t. an inertial frame such as the ground, or a distant building): it starts pointing, say, north, then moves to pointing east, then south, then west, etc. i.e. rotation. The fact that it is caused to do so by the forces exerted upon it by the wire is neither here nor there in terms of whether the bucket can be said to be rotating or not.
That would actually depend on the type of satellite, and whether it is always pointing in the same direction relative to the earth or not. Geostationary satellites (almost) always point toward the earth and so do rotate about their axis in completing an orbit of the earth. Some satellites are designed to always point at the same distant star (i.e. not the sun) and thus will not rotate about their axis as they orbit the earth, or as the earth orbits the sun. But they may well rotate about their axis as the sun rotates about the galactic centre, depending on where the object is located, and what reference frame is taken etc.
It's not. It's exactly the same as a satellite that is always pointing toward the earth.
No, not all. It depends on what they are tasked with.
I suggest you do, because reading the exchange between you and paddoboy is (unintentionally, I presume) quite humourous... the blind leading the blind.
Whether the earth is said to be rotating about its axis or not is nothing to do with orbiting the sun, but with the axis being relative to an inertial frame of reference, e.g. the sun. If you ignore the Earth's orbit around the sun, the erath is rotating about its axis (relative to an inertial frame such as the sun). This gives us our day/night cycle, and why you can see the day/night transition move around the earth. Surely you were taught this almost as soon as you could read and write?Sort of funny, in a way ... if you include the axis rotation by virtue of orbiting the sun, the Earth rotates up to 366 times year.... lol...(if you use Galactic center as a RF)
Eh what?
We also happen to be rotating about the sun, but that is neither here nor there with regard the earth's rotation about its axis. The rotation about the sun gives us our seasons, due to the inclination of our axis to the ecliptic.
Maybe in ancient days of ignorance we thought the universe rotated around the earth, and that the only true inertial reference point was indeed the Earth itself. And if treated as its own inertial frame, of course it doesn't rotate with respect to itself.
Seriously, open up Wiki, have a read on this. It's not rocket science. It doesn't take boffins to work this through.
But none of this has anything to do with CoVid-19
Last edited:
If you just want to post unsupported opinion, heresay, rumour, then probably Twitter or Facebook might be more your scene. Or maybe the Philosophy forum here?
Otherwise it should be expected that when you attempt to promote something above your mere opinion that you provide support for it. That way there can actually be discussion rather than just seeing who can shout their opinion loudest.
You're the one raising these ideas, so you need to support them. If you can't, don't bother posting them.
Fine, but then post the actual link to where you saw the article etc. Otherwise it is no better than you making shit up, and no way for others to tell the difference.
Excuse me for trying to improve the quality of your posting by pointing out an obvious deficiency.
There's no ego involved, QQ. Improving the quality of your posts is for the benefit of all, yourself included, as it will actually promote meaningful discussion - either by reducing the amount of unsupported noise (should you decide you can't support your claims and so not post them), or by improving the quality of the support (from nothing to even just a link to the discussions you claim are occurring, for example).But as said, if small-talk and shallow waffle is all you're interested in, Facebook and Twitter will no doubt be pleased for your company.
And once again you utterly fail to provide any support that it has been discussed by "many erudite scientists". How do you honestly expect to have informed discussion if you post claims with no substance attached. Do you really think discussion is about throwing around simply the idea of things and expecting others to do all your homework?
And stop playing the victim: you only have yourself to blame. Just post support for your claims and everyone can be happy.
That's not an excuse to not support one's claims, QQ. You have claimed four times in the previous post, and at least once in this latest, that certain ideas are being discussed... yet not once have you supported that claim... so why should we take those claims seriously? Why are you expecting others to search for those discussions when the onus should be on you to provide links etc?
You talk about how it is difficult to have discussion here, QQ, but what is actually difficult is honest and intelligent discussion. Without sources to examine, without support for claims being made, yes, such discussion really is difficult in a science forum. So look to yourself as part of the problem.
Gosh I wish you would read a post all the way through before you attempt to ridicule.One to think on... until one educates oneself, at least.
The moon is tidally locked and is rotating on its axis.
- It is tidally locked because there is no net change in its rate of rotation each orbit around the Earth.
- It is rotating about its axis because from the point of view of that axis, it rotates about it (sort of the definition).
It is of course a logical conclusion, deducted from the observed facts. And once you know the facts (that the earth is rotating about the sun), it can also be observed, and is observed every time you look at the moon.
Bear in mind that everything depends on the frame of reference for the axis. When one talks about something rotating about its axis, the frame of reference needs to be inertial with respect to that axis - or it is meaningless. So when you spin on your axis, you do so with reference to a wall, etc, or the compass directions. Our compass settings on Earth are with reference to the north pole, etc - we don't rotate with reference to that frame. But that is because on the earth we are only really concerned with our position relative to other places on earth. When the earth rotates about its axis, however, it does so with reference to a similarly inertial frame for that axis (e.g. the sun).
So once you understand the frame of reference obviously being referred to, it should be quite clear.
Yes, the bucket rotates on its axis. It's not rocket science, just an understanding of what it means for something to be rotating about its axis.
Let's say the bottom end of the bucket initially points north. Later in the motion it will point east, then south, then west, then north again. It is therefore rotating reference to an inertial frame.
As an exercise, put an object on your desk. Then, with your finger pointing down on the desk, describe a circle around the object, with your finger-nail always pointing in the same direction (e.g. use a certain wall as your inertial frame in this example). Your finger, as you will notice, is not rotating around its axis (the line that goes down the length of your finger).
Now, do the same but try to keep your finger-nail always pointing toward the object it is moving around. Hopefully, even before you get too far, you will see that it becomes awkward, because you are having to rotate your finger about its axis. And to complete an object you would probably have to climb onto the desk or become a serious contortionist.
If the moon is rotating around the earth, and is tidally locked and always showing the same face to the Earth, do you now see that the moon is definitely rotating about its axis?
Technically the bucket is not "orbiting" as in physics the term orbit is reserved for gravitational trajectories.
And yes, the bucket really is rotating on its axis (w.r.t. an inertial frame such as the ground, or a distant building): it starts pointing, say, north, then moves to pointing east, then south, then west, etc. i.e. rotation. The fact that it is caused to do so by the forces exerted upon it by the wire is neither here nor there in terms of whether the bucket can be said to be rotating or not.
That would actually depend on the type of satellite, and whether it is always pointing in the same direction relative to the earth or not. Geostationary satellites (almost) always point toward the earth and so do rotate about their axis in completing an orbit of the earth. Some satellites are designed to always point at the same distant star (i.e. not the sun) and thus will not rotate about their axis as they orbit the earth, or as the earth orbits the sun. But they may well rotate about their axis as the sun rotates about the galactic centre, depending on where the object is located, and what reference frame is taken etc.
It's not. It's exactly the same as a satellite that is always pointing toward the earth.
No, not all. It depends on what they are tasked with.
I suggest you do, because reading the exchange between you and paddoboy is (unintentionally, I presume) quite humourous... the blind leading the blind.
Whether the earth is said to be rotating about its axis or not is nothing to do with orbiting the sun, but with the axis being relative to an inertial frame of reference, e.g. the sun. If you ignore the Earth's orbit around the sun, the erath is rotating about its axis (relative to an inertial frame such as the sun). This gives us our day/night cycle, and why you can see the day/night transition move around the earth. Surely you were taught this almost as soon as you could read and write?
We also happen to be rotating about the sun, but that is neither here nor there with regard the earth's rotation about its axis. The rotation about the sun gives us our seasons, due to the inclination of our axis to the ecliptic.
Maybe in ancient days of ignorance we thought the universe rotated around the earth, and that the only true inertial reference point was indeed the Earth itself. And if treated as its own inertial frame, of course it doesn't rotate with respect to itself.
Seriously, open up Wiki, have a read on this. It's not rocket science. It doesn't take boffins to work this through.
But none of this has anything to do with CoVid-19
You tend to believe that I am that stupid hey? Yet in doing so make an even bigger fool out of your self.
Of course rotation is reference frame specific.
Of course it can't be self referencing.
and that is part of my point... there is not evidence that the moon rotates on it's axis and no different to orbiting satellites.
That said, the rotation of the moon is or at least could be a logical illusion, based only on perspective and not actuality.
It certainly isn't rotating on it's axis like the Earth does...
Your condescension is truly amazing...as all you have posted as what I had already stated...and claimed that I didn't.
Is your deluded sense of intellectual superiority so important to you?
and true this has nothing to do with the threads topic...
Last edited:
uhm radio? Live TV? uhm ... making shit up ..eh... ok...
I think most people have heard about evolutionary leap frog, but perhaps not applied to a case such as this.
If I wish to claim ownership of an original idea don't you think I would?
The claim that it has/had been suggested by some, is all I am making...
Take it for what it is...nothing more and nothing less...informal speculation...
In other words it is a subject that may be open for discussion...if one wishes to, if not then who cares?
Meanwhile while Sarkus fumes over his vanity,
The TV news tonight suggested that the global hit from this COVID-19 is about 5% to global GDP and if a second wave come about it will be closer to 6.8% and that most nations are in recession already. In Australia with it's relatively tiny economy a significant second wave would cost about 26 billion AU.
They also referred to a report from the UK that if the UK had gone into lock down 1 week earlier the death toll would have been about half of what it was.
backed up by another source:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06...cut-by-half-if-lockdown-came-earlier/12342560
The TV news tonight suggested that the global hit from this COVID-19 is about 5% to global GDP and if a second wave come about it will be closer to 6.8% and that most nations are in recession already. In Australia with it's relatively tiny economy a significant second wave would cost about 26 billion AU.
They also referred to a report from the UK that if the UK had gone into lock down 1 week earlier the death toll would have been about half of what it was.
backed up by another source:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06...cut-by-half-if-lockdown-came-earlier/12342560
A former member of the UK Government's scientific advisory group says Britain's coronavirus death toll could have been halved if lockdown regulations were introduced one week earlier.
You mean evidence other than as the earth rotates the moon, and some satellites (e.g. those in geostationary orbit), always hold the same face to the earth? That is not just evidence but proof, QQ. Actual proof. Unless you want to dispute the assumption that the earth is rotating??? Feel free to do that, but I suggest you take such a dispute to the Cesspool.
Sure, you could take a perspective from ignorance, not understand that the earth rotates around the sun, that the moon rotates around the Earth, etc, and claim everything rotates around the moon.
Is that what you want to do? Or do you want to head back to reality?
If you mean at an inclination to the ecliptic identical to that of the Earth, no, it's not as pronounced, something like 5-degrees rather than c.24-degrees.
If you mean at the identical rotation of 1 revolution per day like the earth, no, it's more like 1 revolution every 27 days.
Other than in magnitude, in what way is it not rotating about its axis like the earth? Seriously, in what way do you honestly think "it certainly isn't rotating on it's [sic] axis like the Earth does..."?
No, you posted a confused mess of ignorance. If in your addled brain you honestly think you made sense, while doubling down by saying "it certainly isn't rotating on it's axis like the Earth does..." when in all matters other than the magnitude it rotates in exactly the same manner about its axis as the Earth rotates about its own, then the issue may not be with your apparent ignorance but with your utter inability to communicate what you intend. It's one or the other, QQ. If someone writes "yes" when they sometimes mean "no", for example, then communication will be a struggle.
In this case, QQ, it's not delusional when you yourself provide all the evidence required. And it's neither here nor there to me. You posted crap. I've tried to help you understand the error in your thinking. Take it or leave it, QQ. Remain in ignorance of rather basic physics, or don't. Ultimately up to you.
But seriously, do some reading on a topic before you post such garbage in the future.
And it ideally needs to be supported. Where has it been suggested? What have you read, or seen, where it has been suggested, so that people can get the detail and, you know, further discussion?
So you making shit up, then. 'Cos that's all it amounts to without support.
So it was an utterly vacuuous contribution by you, then. Fair enough.
Details, QQ. Just claiming "oh, I saw it on TV" or "I heard it on the radio" is as weak as you can get. But if that is all you really have, at least state that so people know how seriously to judge your contribution.
Eh? It's nothing about claiming ownership. It's about supporting your claims, pure and simple. If you claim that something is being discussed, have the decency to post a link to such a discussion. If you can't be bothered, then why should people bother with what you claim?
But I see that in your latest post you have actually posted a link to support what you have said. Well done. Seriously, well done.
Because the Moon is a natural Satellite, formed from the spinning accretion disk that was responsible for the formation of the Sun and all the planets, and a little thing called conservation of angular momentum.
I believe there is a distinction with regards to a body rotating [as on its axis] and one that is orbiting [as about the Sun] at least in my book.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/sun/in-depth/
"The Sun rotates as it orbits the center of the Milky Way. Its spin has an axial tilt of 7.25 degrees with respect to the plane of the planets’ orbits."
Rotation can be logically substituted for spin.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html
"An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one. An object in an orbit is called a satellite".
[the blind leading the dumb
]
Last edited:
Perhaps when you start posting links your self to support all of your claims others may choose to do similar...eh?
Last edited:
and I would think you will find that a constant Earth facing satellite is not deemed to be rotating on it's axis every time it completes an orbit. Because the Earth is it's RF not the Sun.
If the satellite was spinning in orbit using Earth as the RF as it orbited then it would be considered as rotating on it's axis.
To conclude that the moon or other satellites are rotating on their axis the sun or other relatively fixed object ( galactic center for example) has to be used as a reference frame. If you use Earth, then they are not rotating on axis.
If Sarkus and others wish to abuse the use of reference frames then they can claim just about anything...
Using the same logic the Earth rotates on it's axis about 365 times a year + one ( simply because it orbits one cycle) which frankly strikes me as an abuse of RF perspective because you have to switch your reference frame to the galactic center or other than the sun.
Last edited:
I was watching TV and this guy, said something about it...(sarc)
Emotionally healthy people are hopefully more focused on the topic raised than the person raising it and they will make up their own minds as to whether to take the topic on...
The topic raised was how evolutionary leap frog may be involved in the evolution of a deadly new coronavirus. That evolutionary leap frog may be a key aspect to why this virus is so deadly to humans.
It is not a new idea...and certainly not original.
Last edited: