[Guille]

Originally Posted by michellemfry

Hey, Guille, twenty years from now you will still crank up the volume to that music, so enjoy. You are on the track of a lifetime. Ah, to see the next generation fall into the same great music, makes me nostalgic.

Well, of course if I have to choose between the horrible techno sounds and the pleasurable 60s, 70s, 80s rock/pop, I choose the second. I oftenlly believe that what we call the dark side of the moon is actually the less-dark of all of the moon's sides. Haven't humans learned that everything we don't know about, comes out to be the best things in life? Well so it happens in the astronomical-physical level.

[zeroca]

Spinning as a regularity of whole universe 1

In order to show all three animations, I divided the post into three parts:
Before solving the task of Earth-Moon spinning on their axes and around each-other, let’s recall a little about the reason of spinning generally, or about the locomotive force (the motive) of spinning generally, i.e. spinning as regularity of universe, arisen at starting stage of the latter;
I.e. my own explanation of this mechanism:
1. Space and body (I consider both of them as processes but not as a rigid events, i.e. space – as permanent expansion, happening within time, and body – as permanent contraction happening within time, i.e. space as 3d-space-time and body – as 3d-body-time, i.e. as opposite events, opposite processes), i.e. first of them - permanent centrifugal expansion from some center up to some distance, and the second – permanent centripetal contraction to the same center.
I.e. Body with its adjacent space is a unity, which we can call space-body …

Animation below:
1. Permanent centrifugal expansion (continuing within time) from the center determines a permanent centripetal concentration of matter (I mean the matter, which is placed inside this particular expansion) to the same center.




Spinning as a regularity of whole universe 2
2. Permanent centripetal concentration results in increasing of press on the center of planet from all sides, i.e. the center of planet is found in different condition in comparison with other parts of planet, as it experiences press from all consisting matter of planet radially from all sides to it.
3. Increasing of press on the center of planet from all sides results in increasing of repulsive force from the center of planet radially to all sides according to the Newton's well-known law, which states:
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."



Spinning as a regularity of whole universe 3

4. I.e. permanent increasing of expansion results in permanent increasing of centrifugal repulsive force within bounds of planet, which results in spinning of body, i.e. spinning of unity, called space-body…
See animation below:

Conclusion:
To say briefly in a popular language, the rotation of planet is the mechanism, which frees the center of planet from press of all consisting parts of planet on it, i.e. the center of planet “frees itself” from the press of concentration of matter from all sides with help of mechanism of rotation, as acquiring of linear speed lessens centripetal press on the center, i.e. the (permanent) rotation is passive process, conditioned by opposite (permanent) process of expansion, which makes rotate the matter, placed within the "bounds" of this same expansion.

[zeroca]

Let’s return again to the starting stage of world arising. I realize soberly that mechanisms and analysis, produced by me might be wrong, but let’s proceed with logical chain:
As we mentioned in previous post, permanent centrifugal expansion (i.e. space) determines permanent concentration of solid matter (placed inside of bounds of this space) to the same center; permanent concentration of matter to the center conditions increasing of centrifugal repulsive force, which exists within bounds of solid body and determines revolving of it. (See previous post).
Let’s assume that the universe consists of one body and this body is its smallest part, i.e. its elementary particle. Let’s conventionally call it atom.
If universe consists of one single atom, the adjacent space of which presents centrifugal rarefaction (expansion) from the center to all directions ideally, but the atom itself presents centripetal concentration (consolidation) from all sides to the same center ideally, then in such case press on the center of atom from all sides is equal, then centrifugal repulsive force (acting inside atom) is equal to all sides as well.
In which direction will start atom to revolve?
The mentioned question could be answered: in direction at random choice, but one can argue about it, as in ideal situation there isn’t any random choices, i.e. there isn’t any such opportunity despite existing of repulsive centrifugal force, which is equal to all spatial sides. Anyway let’s put off analyzing this theme a little (we’ll return to this subject in a while).
In any case after starting of spinning, the first pair of “opposite” points of atom, which in the “moment of starting were unmoved”, become poles at once, but the first peripheral point of atom, which circumscribes a longest circle, becomes part of equator at once, as spin-starting point on the periphery has chance only to circle ideally, and because of absence of frictional forces proceeds spinning in chosen direction; and I won’t trouble myself with explanations as that’s too easy to prove.
I.e. if atom begins to spin it must spin on its axes, i.e. must have poles and equator.
Spin-starting real motive, real cause can be appearance, birth of the second atom.
1. If birth of the second atom happens within the spatial bounds of the first atom, then the bodies of both atoms will unite and they will have common space, and arising of heterogeneity (of disturbance) within the spatial bounds of first atom at once becomes the stimulus for spin starting.(The first animation)
2. The birth of the second atom outside the spatial bounds of the first atom will result in arising of two independent spatial elementary particles, joining of those is prevented by spaces with opposite directions, i.e. barrier for joining is different directions of atoms’ spaces, placed between these two particles. At the point of touching the spaces have opposite to each-other directions. Joining of particles in this case can happen only by applying of outer force, i.e. must happen splitting of adjacent spaces of particles after getting them at some critical distance under influence of outer forces, which in our examined case doesn’t exist.(The second animation)
In the second case arises new opportunity: rotating movement of both particles not only on their own axes but around each-other.

[michellemfry]

I like your stuff, Zeroca.

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.
I don't remember. Looking forward to your reply.

[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.

Yes, I consider the simulataneous creation of particle/anti-particle pairs, but antiparticle is space according to me.

[dleviwing]

Zeroca;
Something to think about.
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.

[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.

[TinyTree]

Originally Posted by zeroca

Who can answer the question?

As we know only one side of the Moon is always visible, but the second – so called “Dark side of the Moon” is never seen from the Earth!

Is it really so?
And why it happens?

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.

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.

The moons rotation has been slowly conforming to the earth so that its "tidal waves" are stuck in one place and no longer disspiate energy. Presumably, although I am guessing here, the moon is slightly eccentric in its mass distribution and now a heavy part of the moon is facing us or on the opposite side.. looking at a reference here I see it actually points away from earth, not towards earth.

In fact, every "moon" of our solar system is tidally locked to the planet it circles, with the exception of one moon (extra credit - which moon)




Here is a reference for you:

http://www.digipro.com/Trials/moon.html

[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

[baudrunner]

In fact, every "moon" of our solar system is tidally locked to the planet it circles, with the exception of one moon (extra credit - which moon)

Of the moons around Saturn, Phoebe and Hyperion do not rotate synchronously.

Forgive me, zeroca. At times I write as I would speak to one in person, but I neglect to think that you are not present then to defend yourself. I assure you, no disparagement intended. Your posts are interesting to all of us, and at times enlightening. Not all of us are masters of diplomacy.