[zeroca]

Originally Posted by michellemfry

Could you consider the simulataneous creation of particle/anti-particle pairs? I think that was how I read it really happened. Maybe it was just a hypothesis.

Excuse me, Michelle, I had to go and gave you hasty reply.
To say generally, I consider this universe a unity of opposite phenomenon and opposite processes (phenomenon within time).
As for opposites, I consider the space as opposite to gravity, space – as rarefaction, and gravity – as consolidation, but in this regard opposite of positive particle is negative particle, opposite of heat – cold, opposite of solid state of matter – expended state of it and so on…
I.e. any phenomenon in the universe has its qualitative opposite one…
And this is enough for now about this subject, as I wouldn’t like to complicate consideration, otherwise I must emphasize that the whole space of universe is the sum, unity of space bubbles, within those the central parts are occupied by solid matter, and that any particular space (bubble) is heterogeneous itself (i.e. its central part is determined for solid matter, but periphery of it – for expended matter), and that any space bubble doesn’t exist without its content, i.e. to say otherwise: each body “generates its own space” (Tony Stanton’s expression), also the matter is heterogeneous as well, as it can be either in contracted or in expanded states, i.e. to say briefly, solid matter - gravity, expanded matter - levity, and space bobble's different parts: central and peripheral, i.e. the central part of space bubble is opposite to levity, but its peripheral inner part - opposite to gravity, but now I’m mainly concentrated on spinning as regularity of whole universe on the example of the pair Earth-moon.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

The core of the Earth is fluid and thus the center of mass can be maintained. The moon does not have a fluid center. If the "Center of Mass" of the moon is not perfectly centered then this would result in gravity retarding any rotation on its axis relative to the Earth.

Considered by me above (post #15) is about assumed ideal situation, which might exist at starting stage. Surely any kind of distortion plays its specific role, but I myself see clearly that main point, we must adhere to closely, is that any permanently rotating body has centrifugal permanent impact, which acts within bounds of body, and makes it rotate. I myself try to explain the reasons of this permanent centrifugal force. Rotating of pair Earth-Moon will tell us why their axes are disposed the way, they are presently and why they move the way, they do presently.
Both, fluid and solid state of matter in regard with gravity in my particular case can be considered the same (the matter in contracted state), as they are striving centrally regarding to adjacent space of the Earth, as the solid matter – centrally in case of Moon.

Originally Posted by baudrunner

That's a lot of wondering about a couple of silly ideas.
When a body is in close orbit around another body it will have a tendency to rotate once for every revolution around that body. The same pehenomenon is observed for the planet Mercury, which always keeps one side turned toward the sun. This occurs as a matter of fact and probably is analogous to some kind of quantum threshold connotation real physicists can perhaps better explain, but in short the speed of rotation is matched to the rate of revolution such that this is what is observed. Furthermore the axis of rotation of the moon is not vertical to the earth at all but in fact the two axes are closer to being parallel, otherwise we would see the man in the moon spinning around in circles all the time, which he doesn't.
As for your little cloud, when it is generally clear, they occur over geographical locations like lakes and damp regions that evaporate a lot of water when the sun's heat stimulates their production. They are localized over these areas and tend to vaporize away, ie. dry out, when the wind blows them off centre. No particularly unusual phenomenon can be observed with respect to their velocity in relation to any still point. It is just an effect.

Mr. Lussing,
Please, be so kind, as to restrain yourself with unkind expressions, like “couple of silly ideas”, even if this "couple" is really so.

As for tendency of rotation, it deserves explanation. You say that “When a body is in close orbit around another body, it will have a tendency to rotate once for every revolution around that body”, but don’t present your proving arguments. Do you mean that it will have a tendency to rotate once on its own axis for every revolution around that body?
I definitely assert that if from different points of the Earth we see only one and the same side of the Moon, and the latter is rotating on its axis as well, that means: the axis of the Moon is always vertical to the surface of the Earth (i.e. to tangential plane at any given moment, as David corrected me – animation at post#1).
As for little cloud of whatever origin, I wanted to show that the space adjacent to the Earth, spins with the latter together and little white cloud (which is at rest towards it) is illustrative picture of it. Any point on the equator spins with the velocity over 1600km/hour (over 460m/sec.), then cloud there, localized over evaporating area, and moving with such high speed, wouldn’t have preserved its shape for 20 minutes (as it actually happens) even in still, non-windy weather (i.e. it will at once dissolve in neighboring molecules), if the space adjacent to the Earth (with its content) hadn’t spun with the Earth together.
I.e. if the Earth had spun in an unmoved space, the water steam, moving with such high speed either would have lost its shape at once, or would have fallen behind to spinning of the Earth with mentioned speed.
No one can prove that water steam can preserve the inertia during the rising on the distance of over 2-3 km.
O.k. we can take for another example helicopter, which is risen from the surface and is in hanging position. You can assert that it preserves the inertia (linear speed) it had on the surface before rising. If we supply it with fuel permanently to keep it in risen hanging position, it will remain as is “permanently”, until we stop to fuel it. Don’t say that the air doesn’t influence as frictional force on it. If you say that the neighboring molecules of ear also move with the linear speed over 1600km/hour and so don’t influence as friction on moving helicopter with the same speed (i.e. all ear molecules never lose speed and preserve it), that means that the whole adjacent space moves also with mentioned speed and ear molecules are at rest towards it.
At least, I think so.

Originally Posted by TinyTree

You can verify this for yourself by going out and looking at the moon at different observation times, and looking at the features on the moon- they will be the same.

I really do it, but a lot of people assert that I see the same picture in Georgia, because the Moon ends one thorough revolution on its axis exactly when it ends its one thorough revolution around the Earth, so the picture at any given point of Earth's surface always coincides.

Originally Posted by TinyTree

This is because the moon is tidally locked to the earth- the moons rotational inertia has been lost due to tidal effects of the earth. Just as now, the moon causes tides on earth and this causes a slowing of the earths spin. In fact, on Dec 31 2005 at 7:00 eastern time they added a single second because the earth is slowing down due to tidal forces caused by the moon.

As you know, I assert that all heavenly bodies have their own adjacent spaces.
Let’s conventionally call it space bubble. This space bubble makes solid matter to concentrate to the center within it, but attracts the solid matter, placed outside it, so I don't believe that the Moon attracts the Earth and vice-versa, but their adjecent spaces do:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showth...1&page=5&pp=10
post#50