UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2020: +0.53 deg. C

December 1st, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2020 was +0.53 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the October, 2020 value of +0.54 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).

For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com was +0.52 deg. C.

With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started, it will take several months for that surface cooling to be fully realized in the tropospheric temperatures. Typically, La Nina minimum temperatures (and El Nino maximum temperatures) show up around February, March, or April. The tropical (20N-20S) temperature anomaly for November was +0.29 deg. C, which is lower than it has been in over 2 years.

In contrast, the Arctic saw the warmest November (1.38 deg. C) in the 42 year satellite record, exceeding the previous record of 1.22 deg. C in 1996.

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 23 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.03 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.49 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.13 +0.65
2020 02 +0.76 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30
2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.40 +0.66
2020 08 +0.43 +0.47 +0.38 +0.59 +0.41 +0.47 +0.49
2020 09 +0.57 +0.58 +0.56 +0.46 +0.97 +0.48 +0.92
2020 10 +0.54 +0.71 +0.37 +0.37 +1.10 +1.23 +0.24
2020 11 +0.53 +0.67 +0.39 +0.29 +1.57 +1.38 +1.41

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November, 2020 should be available within the next few days here.

The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt




2,884 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2020: +0.53 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    No more “moon’s axial rotation” argument, please. That has been definitively settled in the “Non-Spinner’s” favor, so it’s time to move on.

    • David says:

      Debates aren’t settled by decree. The moon rotates about its axis. Why don’t you ask any astronomer.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        David, is a wooden horse bolted towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round rotating on its own axis, as it moves? Or is it merely rotating about the center of the merry-go-round?

        Correct answers are “no”, then “yes”.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Which means the "moon on the left" in the gif David linked to, is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not rotating about its own center of mass. It is "orbiting", and not "rotating on its own axis".

          That means the "moon on the right" in the gif David linked to, is rotating on its own axis, clock-wise, at the same rate that it is orbiting, counter-clockwise, so that it appears as though it is not rotating on its own axis. The two motions sort of visually cancel each other out.

        • David says:

          As I’ve explained before, yes, it is rotating. You can see that because it faces all 360 degrees as it goes around the track. If it weren’t rotating it would face in the same direction throughout, the direction it started in.

          It’s shown clearly in this animation:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

          It is impossible for an astronomical body not to rotate, unless its surface is perfectly smooth and its density is symmetric about some axis. Otherwise in a uniform gravitational field the body will experience a net torque, causing rotation.

          Instead of your endless hand waving arguments, I dare you to write to the Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Association and ask him this question, and report his response back here.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It is as I explained above, at 3:07 PM. The “moon on the left” faces through 360 degrees because it is “orbiting”, and not “rotating on its own axis”. It is “only orbiting”. An object that is “only orbiting” keeps the same face always pointing towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves.

          • ClintR says:

            David, you appear new to this issue. Unfortunately, like many others, you have an opinion, but no knowledge to the relevant physics. Without any knowledge, you go to wikipedia to support your opinion. (You’ve linked twice to the same wiki link, without any understanding of why the link is wrong.)

            If you’re serious about getting educated, you must first learn the two motions DREMT mentioned– “orbiting” and “rotating about its own axis”.

            If you prefer to offer your opinions, without understanding the science, we offer a free “idiot” test.

          • David says:

            You’re wrong. Look at the moon on the left of the Wikipedia animation. IGNORE THE EARTH. IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE MOON IS ORBITING.

            Just look at the Moon. Focus on its vertical axis, which is coming straight out of the page.

            See the black section as it moves through 360 degrees?

            That’s because the Moon is rotating. Just like a merry-go-round.

            Orbiting is a completely separate motion that is unrelated to the presence of rotation or the lack of rotation. This is basic kinematics.

          • David says:

            ClintR, I go to Wikipedia because it has the best animation that I’ve found that clearly illustrates the argument.

            Orbiting and rotation are completely separate motions.

            I made a physics-based argument above, about torques — why don’t you address that instead of slinging insults?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "That’s because the Moon is rotating."

            Sure, it’s rotating…but not on its own axis. It’s rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle. It is not rotating about its own center of mass. Same as the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round, and not on its own axis.

            It is "orbiting", and not "rotating on its own axis". You’ll get there.

          • ClintR says:

            David, you’re still confused by the wiki graphics. You don’t understand the two motions.

            Pure orbital motion is demonstrated by you walking CCW around a tree. Your left side will always face the tree. You are NOT rotating about your own axis. You are “orbiting” around the tree.

            If you understand that one motion, then you will realize that is Moon’s motion. It always keeps one side facing the center of its orbit.

            And gravity does NOT produce a torque on Moon. But that’s a separate issue, after you understand orbital motion.

          • David says:

            DREMT:

            Again, IGNORE THE EARTH, the white circle.

            Focus solely on the Moon. Ignore its motion around the white circle. It’s a completely separate motion that can be subtracted out.

            The dark patch is circling the Moon’s axis. Because the Moon is rotating.

            If it helps, imagine a coordinate system centered on the Moon’s axis. That’s what we do on Earth, after all.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            As I said, David, yes, the moon is rotating…but not on its own axis. You cannot center your coordinate system on the center of mass of the moon…that is precisely what leads you astray. Center it on the middle of the white circle, instead. The moon is rotating about an axis in the center of that white circle, and not about its own center of mass. The moon is “orbiting”, but not “rotating on its own axis”.

          • Nate says:

            DREMT the Master Baiter strikes again. Successfully polluting another thread with the same tired, oh so tired, arguments.

          • David says:

            ClintR, explain why gravity doesn’t exert a torque on a nonsymmetric astronomical body (not a point body).

          • ClintR says:

            David, before you go down the “torque” trail, do you now understand orbital motion? Do you understand that a ball on a string, swung around in a circle, is a model of orbiting?

          • David says:

            ClintR, here is how you orbit the tree without rotating.

            Image the usual coordinate system around the tree, with tree at the center. North, South, East and West (NSEW)

            Face N the entire time.

            Start to the right. Walk curved, a little N and a little W. After 90 deg youre facing N but walking sideways to the west.

            Keep going, backwards and sideways now. After 180 deg youre walking purely backwards. Still facing north.

            After 270 deg youre facing north, walking sideways to the east.

            You walk curved again, back to your original position. Facing north still.

            This is orbiting the tree without rotating.

          • David says:

            ClintR – Don’t patronize me.

          • David says:

            DREMT wrote:
            You cannot center your coordinate system on the center of mass of the moon

            I can put my coordinate system anywhere I damn well please!

            Seriously, this is Minute 5 of Day 1 of Baby Physics 101.o

            Now answer the question, focusing on the Moon’s axis, ignoring the white circle completely.

          • ClintR says:

            See David, there’s your problem. You don’t understand orbital motion. No one but an idiot would walk around a tree that way.

            And, that’s not patronizing you. That’s bringing reality to you.

          • David says:

            DREMT wrote:
            Center it on the middle of the white circle, instead. The moon is rotating about an axis in the center of that white circle, and not about its own center of mass. The moon is “orbiting”, but not “rotating on its own axis”.

            The Moon is orbiting around TWO axes of rotation.

            Not a problem at all.

            This is the very essence of your error — you don’t seem to understand the motions are separate and the two rotations are independent. Two axes of rotation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sure, you can center your coordinate system there if you like…but then you lose the correct context in which to understand that the moon is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not on its own axis.

            You have to be able to correctly separate the two motions – “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”. The moon is only orbiting. The Earth is both orbiting and rotating on its own axis.

          • David says:

            No one but an idiot would walk around a tree that way.

            You sure do evade debate.

            Someone could certainly walk around a tree like that.

            So address the situation — that’s orbiting without rotation, right?

          • David says:

            DREMT, there is no “correct” context.

            The result is the same in all coordinate systems, e.g. in all contextes.

            Again, you do not seem to understand there are two axes of rotation in the Wiki animation on the left.

            On the right animation, there is only one.

          • David says:

            The moon is only orbiting.

            If the Moon is only orbiting, why is that black patch spinning around the Moon’s polar axis?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong way round, David. There are two axes of rotation in the Wiki animation on the right, and only one axis of rotation in the animation on the left.

          • ClintR says:

            No David. Your ridiculous way of walking around a tree has two motions. You are both orbiting and rotating about your axis.

            A simple way to understand is to walk around the tree as a normal person would. Not as someone trying to confuse the issue. Walk CCW around the tree so that your left side is always facing the tree. THAT is orbiting but NOT rotating about your axis.

            If someone is so uninformed they still deny that simple motion, tie one end of a rope to the tree. Then hold the other end of the rope in your left hand. Walk (as a normal person) CCW around the tree. The rope does not wrap around you, because you are NOT rotating about your axis.

            Now, walk around the tree as an idiot would, always facing north. Notice the rope wraps around you because you are both orbiting AND rotating about your axis.

            Are you going to accept reality, or reject it?

          • David says:

            ClintR says:
            Your ridiculous way of walking around a tree has two motions. You are both orbiting and rotating about your axis.

            Where is the second axis of rotation?

          • David says:

            DREMT wrote:
            There are two axes of rotation in the Wiki animation on the right

            Specify them.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            One in the center of the white circle, one through the center of mass of the moon.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            By the way – you are David App.ell. Right?

          • David says:

            DREMT wrote:
            One in the center of the white circle, one through the center of mass of the moon.

            If the second axes of rotation is the Moon’s center (in the Wiki animation to the right), why isn’t the dark patch moving around it?

            Instead it always faces in the same direction. Someone standing on it would always see the same few stars.

          • David says:

            Like you, I prefer to remain anonymous.

            Did you write the Exec Officer of AAS yet?

          • ClintR says:

            In the way an idiot would walk around a tree, the axis of rotation about his axis is the vertical line though his center of mass. The axis of the orbital motion is the tree.

            David, if you want to reject reality, just admit it. We’re happy to add your name to the list, as several are now avoiding the issue, for obvious reasons.

          • David says:

            Sorry, I’m not going back to read previous links.

            My questions are simple. You can answer them here as asked, or copy and paste your answer from before.

          • David says:

            ClintR, explain how the walker is rotating around the vertical axis through her center of mass if she’s always facing the same direction.

            Insults are a sign of insecurity.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Click on the link, App.ell.

          • David says:

            You’re just repeating old, already disproven arguments. While avoiding new questions.

            I gather you do a lot of that here. It’s typical of deniers, of whatever ilk.

          • David says:

            ClintR, what happened to the torque argument?

            (It’s a real winner.)

          • ClintR says:

            David, the person doing the idiot walk around the tree is YOU. Unless you are a female, or worse.

            But to answer your question — There are two motions involved in the idiot walk.

            BTW, you never answered my question:

            Do you understand that a ball on a string, swung around in a circle, is a model of orbiting?

          • Bart says:

            Can’t believe this argument is still going on here. Forget it David. It is futile. They do not understand.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So you agree with David that there are two axes of rotation in the left-hand gif!? If so you also do not understand rotation. There is only one axis of rotation in the left-hand gif, right in the center of the white circle. That is what an object rotating about an external axis looks like. See Fig. 2(b) in the below:

            https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf

            The plate is moving like the left-hand gif, with all its particles moving in concentric circles. The plate also has only one axis of rotation, going through point O.

            The plate is “orbiting” and not “rotating on its own axis”.

          • ClintR says:

            Where is David? He seemed so sure of himself yesterday.

          • ftop_t says:

            I find this polarized topic fascinating.

            It amazes me that something so simple can be impossible to resolve and entrenched positions can be codified.

            The horse on a merry-go-round and tree analogies would seem to suffice to put to rest the argument and yet the idea that the moon is spinning about its axis still persists.

            I would offer this perspective. Instead of the moon/earth (where axis are parallel), replace the orbiting object with a spinning top where the axis is perpendicular to the orbital path. Assume the sides of the top are wide enough to see the colors and that the top makes one rotation about its axis for each full orbital distance.

            Like the one in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysXvxiDWp64

            The axis is always pointing to the center of the orbit, but the top is rotating about its own axis so the colors as seen from the ground are always moving and the spinning top is always flat since it orbit is perpendicular to the ground.

            The top is clearly rotating (spinning) around an axis that points to the center of the earth.

            Is the top rotating? Yes
            Is it rotating about its own axis? Yes

            But the key question becomes, is its perpendicular axis rotating about itself?

            If the answer is yes, then if the top remained stationary (its orbital motion stopped), a person should see the bottom, the side, and the top (side pointing away) at some point. Instead, you would just see the bottom and the colors rotating in a stationary position.

            Now, leaving all things the same, turn the axis 90 degrees so the axis points in the direction of the orbit. From the ground, you see the side of the top. You see the side changing colors since the axis is following the orbital path, and it is rotating relative to the ground. Again, the questions become

            Is the top rotating? Yes
            Is it rotating about its own axis? Yes

            But is its parallel axis pointing along the orbital path rotating about itself?

            If we stop its orbital path we would see it spinning on its side but the axis pointing down the orbital path would not be spinning about itself. If it were, we would again see the bottom, the side, then the top like a baton flipping.

            Lastly, we change the axis to be perpendicular to the orbital path, but parallel to the ground (like the moon). The view from the ground would be similar to when the axis is traveling along the orbital path (but its orientation would change by 90 degrees from the ground).

            Is the top rotating? Yes
            Is it rotating about its own axis? Yes

            But is its perpendicular axis following the orbital path rotating about itself?

            If we stop its orbital path we would see it spinning on its side but the parallel axis to the orbital path would not be spinning about itself.

            Revisiting the speed of the axial rotation of the top, a person on the ground would see all the colors if the orbital motion was stopped as well as if it continued.

            The only way to ensure the same side color was facing the ground would be to stop the top rotational motion (spinning of the top).

            In each scenario, the only change is the orientation of the axis for the spinning top. The orbital motion and rotation about an axis never changes.

            If somehow new motions are introduced in the 3rd scenario, then uniformity of motion is arbitrary based on orientation of the axis.

          • ClintR says:

            Yes ftop_t, if Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.

            The reason the idiots have fought this so long is that they must defend their cult. If all of the “science” institutions believe in, and tout, such nonsense, then what happens to the rest of their false religion? If the “Moon rotation” nonsense goes away, what happens to the AGW nonsense?

            That’s why some of the rats have already deserted the sinking ship.

          • David says:

            ClintR says:
            David, the person doing the idiot walk around the tree is YOU.

            ClintR, since you are unable to debate civilly and scientifically, I’m done with you.

            PS: the Moon isn’t attached to a rope.

          • David says:

            ClintR says:
            Yes ftop_t, if Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.

            Not true for tidal locking.

            Go learn the physics instead of repeatedly showing your ignorance.

            Or ask any astronomer in the world. I dare you.

          • David says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
            There is only one axis of rotation in the left-hand gif, right in the center of the white circle.

            You are just wrong and there’s no other way to say it.

            That’s crystal clear. Everyone here knows it.

            I conclude you are being wrong on purpose just to stir up a debate. The situation is so simple a child can see it, and there’s no other explanation for your continued obstinacy.

            That, and trying to claim the debate is over, clearly indicate you are nothing but a troll of the highest order.

            You know the correct answer here. I guess you’ve gotten some laughs. Strange way to get your jollies, but, in the end, I hope it makes you some kind of happy, even if I can’t imagine it.

            Cheers.

          • ClintR says:

            David returns!

            But, he is still unable to answer simple questions. I have answered his. But he can’t answer mine.

            It’s almost like he’s a typical troll….

          • MikeR says:

            This zombie argument will never die.

            A new zombie , or possibly just another sock puppet has joined the fray and they think have found a new victim who fortunately knows more than enough to see through the b.s..

            The zombies at least admit the merry-go-round was just an analogy.

            There are at least two distinct types of analogies, useful and useless.

            For examples of useless and misleading , see “false analogy fallacy” .

            https://examples.yourdictionary.com/false-analogy-examples.html

            and as applied to the merry-go-roun analogy for the Moon’s motion see –

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-561751

          • David says:

            ClintR wrote:
            Do you understand that a ball on a string, swung around in a circle, is a model of orbiting?

            Astronomical bodies aren’t attached to strings.

            Now, about that torque argument?

          • David says:

            ftop_t says:
            I find this polarized topic fascinating.

            It amazes me that something so simple can be impossible to resolve and entrenched positions can be codified.

            I’m afraid you’re mistaken.

            This issue is not at all “impossible” to resolve. It’s quite easy to resolve, and was hundreds of years ago. The science is very easy to understand.

            What you have are smart people who understand this, and a few people who desire to be trolls for the sake of creating argument for the sake of argument. That’s all they are doing. (Well, DREMT clearly is. ClintR, I believe, is genuinely ignorant and does wish to learn.)

            DREMT is an agent of Dr Spencer, or he clearly would have been banned by now. Because far better people have been banned for far less. Not sure what game Roy is playing here, but there it is.

          • David says:

            CORRECTION: ClintR clearly does *NOT* wish to learn….

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David is just upset, because he was banned.

          • ftop_t says:

            This link demonstrates rotational motion and even provides an interactive tool where you can visualize rotation around an axis.

            https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/rotation.html

            With rotational motion, there is one (1) axis.

            If the axis of rotation is within the object, the rotation is about its own axis.

            If the axis of rotation is external, the rotation is around some fixed external point.

            Select the rectangle and use these values
            Angle = 360 degrees
            X = 40
            Y -20

            The rectangle rotates around its center axis

            Now, change the x value to -80 which is a rotation point outside the shape

            The rectangle rotates around the external axis with the same side of the rectangle always facing the axis point

            There are not two (2) rotational axis. Only one that is either inside the shape or outside the shape.

            To prove there are not two (2) axis of rotation, reset the values but change the Angle to 90 degrees

            Angle = 90 degrees
            X = 40
            Y -20

            Now move the axis back outside the object and again rotate 90 degrees
            Angle = 90 degrees
            X = -80
            Y -20

            After rotating 90 about the rectangles internal axis and a similar rotation about the external axis; a new side (length of the rectangle) faces the external axis.

            There is only one axis for the moon. It is rotating about an external axis (earth).

      • spike55 says:

        “The moon rotates about its axis”

        Yep, just like a ball at the end of a piece of string. 😉

    • Nate says:

      “Settled, lets move on”

      What a Trollish move!

      • Nate says:

        DREMT: Im just posting to let you know that the debate is over. And I won.

        D fashions himself moderator, referee, and on the winning team!

        So sorry, you have a conflict of interest, and no credibility.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Don’t feed the idiot anti-science troll.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I wasn’t planning to.

        • Bindidon says:

          You didn’t need to plan: you are yourself one of these idiot anti-science trolls.

          J.-P. D.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nah, I’m good.

          • Magnus says:

            Misconception
            The Moon does not rotate.

            Reality
            The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around the Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.

            If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then all sides of the Moon would spend some time facing Earth.

            Copied from:
            https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, they’re wrong. If the moon were rotating on its own axis, at any rate and in either direction relative to the orbit, we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.

    • MikeR says:

      I think it is a good sign that DREM wants to move on now that he realises that he has been routed (or as we say around these parts “totally rooted”).

      It turns out that essentially his primary arguments are just another example of the “false analogy fallacy”. For further details see –

      https://tinyurl.com/y4gdezqt

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Sorry for your loss.

      • MikeR says:

        Dr Roy’s Emergency Mad Troll (zombie division) starts the new month off with a unilateral declaration that he has won and thinks debate should now stop! This is clearly guaranteed to ignite further debate, rather than encouraging it to cease.

        Anyway it is a magnificent example of a troll at work. A bit of a textbook play from the “Advanced Trolling for Idiots” manual.

        “Sorry for your loss.”, Also from the manual.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          As usual, people just cannot stop responding to me.

          • MikeR says:

            Praise be the Lord! DREM finally raises something relevant.

            It is a good question as to why I or anyone else bothers to respond to you.

            Perhaps, despite the repetive boring nature, it is a subliminal desire for you to continue your rampage through the comments section. The amount of collateral damage you do to the climate change denial community is a joy to behold. Witness the current attempts by those across the ideological divide (SkepticGoneWild, Eben etc..) to restrain you.

            I don’t think they will have any better luck as your ego driven desire to never admit to losing ( who does that remind* one of ?) always gets in the way.

            * http://www.loser.com

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            Trying to get your PST quota up.

            DREM, you have been rather slack with your PST trolling lately.

            Not like you. Too busy dreaming up false analogy fallacies, perhaps or just depressed by the scale of your losses.

            Maybe demand a recount.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            I need to make you aware that obsessive compulsive disorders are a significant indicators of depression. Rather than posting the same comment over and over, maybe you should be addressing the fundamentals.

            In this case, one of the many fundamentals is your lack of a sensible response to your , soon to become famous, fallacious analogy regarding wooden horses and the Moon. I think you need to change tack.

            Accordingly you might it useful to formulate a response other than ‘see he doesn’t understand’ ( I suspect very, very few do) or link back to some previous comment that has already been thoroughly debunked.

            Looking forward to a change in approach as a continuation of your PSTs would indicate that you have learnt nothing and you remain in a state of depression.

            Cheer up you and hopefully you will eventually transition from denial to acceptance.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            Keep trying but your repetition is not helping your case and just reinforces everyones impression of you.

            Even Donald Trump will eventually realise he is a total loser when he is dragged kicking and screaming from his current domicile.

            Maybe someone in your family can drag you away from the keyboard. It will be for your own good.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #4

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM, aren’t you sick and tired of being ridiculed for your behaviour?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #5

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            Clearly not.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #6

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM, I think your intellectually unimaginative * comments are wearying so I will terminate this exchange and do something much more useful than monotonously engaging with a troll.

            It is a Covid free start to summer down under so I am going out to enjoy the sunshine. I gather things are grimmer where you are so maybe it is best you stick to your keyboard. Take care.

            * this is the man who claims he is much more imaginative than the brainwashed members of the physics and the astronomy community!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #7

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

        • MikeR says:

          “As usual, people just cannot stop responding to me” from Justifying Your Existence – Chapter 2 of the manual.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Seems like you wrote the manual, MikeR.

          • MikeR says:

            Nah, just checked the content of the Wiki on Internet Trolls.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • David says:

            Roy puts up with DREMT’s obvious and obnoxious trolling because he and Roy are in cahoots.

            *WHY* is a much more interesting question than responses about the Moon. What is Roy getting out of this??

          • MikeR says:

            No David, I am almost certain that Dr Spencer would have banned DREMT if he could have. I can’t imagine that Roy, who I am sure values his reputation as a scientist, enjoys having crackpots running amok on his web site.

            Roy has tended, in the past, to ban vexatious commenters via keywords. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team has avoided this fate by judicious use of a pseudonym that makes banning via the keyword approach difficult, if not impossible.

            Anyway that’s about the only reason I can think of why Dr Roy hasn’t banned him. If anyone has any other suggestions as to why DREMT hasn’t met the same fate as his predecessors, I am all ears.

            p.s. because, DREMT is so annoying I think he performs one useful service. That is to trash the climate change denial movement.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, MikeR, please stop trolling.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” That has been definitively settled in the Non-Spinners favor, so its time to move on. ”

      Certainly it hasn’t.

      See for example Tobias Mayer’s ‘Treatise on Moon’s rotation about its axis’, published in 1750, unfortunately in old German:

      https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg

      I read the entire document and when I have time to do, I’ll write here a comment about the work of this great guy, who was not only an outstanding astronomer and mathematician, but a smart engineer as well.

      Your problem, as well as that of all the other moon spin deniers who endlessly post their prepubescent, unscientific nonsense on this blog: you won’t accept Mayer’s results (e.g. due to ‘appeal to authority’ and the like).

      Doesn’t matter! Other, more intelligent people will understand AND appreciate what Mayer did. THAT matters in fine, DREMT.

      J.-P. D.

    • MD says:

      You are aware that the moon’s axis is not perpendicular to its orbit, which is why over time we can see 59% of the moon’s surface from earth? Show me a merry go round that does that!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Yes, very aware, thank you. The analogies have limits. They are only intended to get across a very simple, fundamental point about rotation around an axis that is external to the body in question.

        • MD says:

          So… if the moon’s axis of rotation is not perpendicular to it’s orbit around the earth, then it’s axis of rotation can’t be around the earth. Now that seems like a very simple, fundamental point!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The moon has no axis of rotation going through its body. Since astronomers believe the moon rotates about its center of mass, they think otherwise. Therefore it is no surprise that they have identified where exactly they think this axis is located. Based on the way the moon moves in its orbit, they think it is tilted 6.7 degrees from the lunar orbital plane.

          • MD says:

            “they think it is tilted 6.7 degrees from the lunar orbital plane.”
            lol what exactly is it that is tilted???
            So yes, the moon and earth ‘rotate’ about their common center of mass (which by the way is located a small distance from the earth’s surface), which we refer to as orbiting, which you seem to confuse with axis of rotation.
            Since your so fond of analogies, what do you think of ‘Nero fiddled while Rome burned’ for todays current climate response?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If the moon were actually rotating about its center of mass, we would see all sides of it from Earth. The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, which as you say is a motion commonly referred to as “orbiting”.

            The Earth is both rotating about its own center of mass, and>/b> “orbiting”. The moon is just “orbiting”.

            You’ll get there.

          • Nate says:

            MD got you there DREMT. Its a simple fundamental point.

            “The moon has no axis of rotation going through its body.”

            as discussed many times, this model simply doesnt agree with the well replicated observations.

            We have your model, we have observations. What to do next is a fundamental question.

            We can:

            a. Keep the model. Deny the observations.

            b. Change the model to account for the observations.

            Science has no choice but b.

            Religion is allowed to choose a.

            DREMT chooses a. Therefore DREMTs model is religion not science.

        • Nate says:

          And by denying observable facts, he has, for the 47th time, offically lost the debate.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Made a bit of a mess of the formatting there:

          If the moon were actually rotating about its center of mass, we would see all sides of it from Earth. The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, which as you say is a motion commonly referred to as “orbiting”.

          The Earth is both rotating about its own center of mass, and “orbiting”. The moon is just “orbiting”.

          You’ll get there.

          • Nate says:

            “If the moon were actually rotating about its center of mass, we :
            would see all sides of it from Earth. ”

            Obviously not.

            As Newton explained, the Moon is simply rotating on its (tilted) axis in the same period as its orbit. Just not that difficult to understand.

      • Nate says:

        HA! DREMT has evolved. Now he admits the analogies are worthless. But he wants us to accept them anyway. Very strange.

        • MikeR says:

          Absolutely detest fake analogies, irrespective of how simple they are.

          With regards to the saying, “to a simpleton everything appears simple”. DREM thinks the moons motion is simple. Ergo ….

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Here, MD. I get bored repeating myself, so here is a link:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556462

        • MikeR says:

          DREM, yes you are indeed boring. We have been through this so many times*.

          An analogy can be useful or alternatively useless and misleading , see “false analogy fallacy” . For examples –

          https://examples.yourdictionary.com/false-analogy-examples.html

          and applied to the merry-go-round/Moon analogy –

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-561751

          * it is amazing how many times DREM will be debunked and he will just brazenly ressurect the same old nonsense for a new audience.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            My dog has no nose. How does he smell?

            Answer:Awful.

            Question: DREM has no brains, how does he think?

            Answer: Terribly.

            There’s an analogy for you DREM.

            Likewise your analogy of the wooden horses on a merry-go-around with the Moon’s orbital motion absolutely stinks to high heaven.

            The two have just one thing in common, a body (or bodies) that show the same face to the centre.

            In contrast they have four things that are definitely and substantively not in common. These are –

            1. the Moon, unlike the horses on merry go around, is not physically connected to the centre of rotation (i.e. the Earth) with either a string , spokes or any other mechanical constraint that we know of.

            2. The Earth does not rotate on its axis at the same rate as the Moon orbits . In contrast the entire platform of the merry-go-round, and the motor that drives it, plus the attached horses, unsurprisingly always rotates at the same speed.

            3. The Moon orbits in an elliptical path. This contrasts with the constrained circular motion of the rigid body of the merry-go-round.

            4. As a consequence of its elliptical orbit, the Moon orbits more rapidly at perigee than at apogee (see Kepler’s Laws of orbital motion). The merry-go-around would disintegrate if any part decided to rotate at a different rate at any to its neighbours at any time ( alsk see point 2 above).

            This ridiculous analogy therefore fits the key criteria for being a “false analogy fallacy*” and needs to be consigned to the nearest dustbin or shredder.

            * see https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So your strategy is to just keep repeating yourself until you have the last word? You already have responses to what you are saying. You had them before you wrote it all out again.

          • MikeR says:

            No DREM , this has been a long running saga, spanning several years and there appears to be some new protagonists for this month’s edition that might need to be brought up to speed.

            Rather than ploughing through thousand of comments, I thought it might be useful precis some of the most salient points (there are many more – see below*).

            Accordingly you should do likewise to do justice to the strengths of your argument. Why not Let the court of public opinion adjudicate the merits of your arguments?😅

            * even if we accept DREM’s analogy that the Earth and the Moon can be considered to be embedded in a rigid disk (or maybe supported by elephants and turtles) then the Moon still rotates on its axis with respect to the inertial sidereal reference frame.

            Again for those new to the debate the following might be of some utility regarding this latter point.

            1. For an elliptically orbiting and rotating moon, including longitudinal libration curve –

            https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif

            2. For an elliptically orbiting non rotating moon –

            https://i.postimg.cc/0yWN667H/No-Rotation-Ellipse-Eccentricity-0.gif

            3. For a moon with the orbital parameters corresponding to the Earth ‘s Moon, including longitudinal libration curve –

            https://i.postimg.cc/SRBsxH8Q/Ellipse-Moon-Eccenricity-0.gif

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, MikeR.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            I am glad you have taken up the challenge to reveal the full extent of your arguments. 😂

            Do you have anything further to add? Your traditional farewell of a burst of PSTs* perhaps?

            * this is a reliable sign that DREM has forfeited the debate. Any repetition just reinforces the message.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Odd.

          • MikeR says:

            Yes you are extremely odd.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Actually, I’m extremely even.

          • MikeR says:

            What ever you say DREM. You are just another even tempered stable genius. A legend in your own mind.

            Don’t you wish that Newton, that other genius, had access to your advice about the motion of the Moon.

            Considering the apocryphal story about the insights Newton obtained from a falling apple, then the whole of Physics could have gone down a different path, if only Newton had access to a merry-go-around.

            Ah the vicissitudes of history.

            p.s. by the way DREM do you have anything more to add to bolster your wonderful wooden horse analogy other than that outlined in the 2 links you provided above?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wow, those simple analogies really bother them.

          • MikeR says:

            Yes DREM, Newton is rotating on his axis in his grave as we speak.

            Any sudden inspiring insights regarding your analogy? Don’t hold back. The world awaits holding its collective breath.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Why do you keep calling me “DREM”, without the “T”?

          • MikeR says:

            Saves on space. The team suffix was superfluous any way as you seem to be have been abandoned by almost all, other than sock puppets that mysteriously appear from time to time.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            In what way have I been abandoned? By whom? What sock puppets? What are you talking about!?

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            ClintR only puts in an occasional perfunctory appearance. Bill has gone off on some tangent and Gordon always has his own unique trajectory.

            So snowflake, essentially Y.O.Y.O. except for the rumoured sock puppets (could the spontaneous appearance of ftop_t be another one?).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You’re so weird.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM, your so vain, you think this blog commentary is all about you.

            However, what is really very weird is your incessant masochistic desire to be lampooned, but cool, whatever rocks your boat.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Try becoming obsessed with someone else. Just try it! Give it a go. I see you at least managed to write one other comment, to somebody else, this month. That’s a start.

          • MikeR says:

            No need to get paranoid DREM.

            As you are the most prolific purveyor of misinformation then it is natural that you get to be lampooned most prolifically. Anway you seem to thrive on the attention and I get to enjoy the spectacle of the collateral damage you do to the reputation of the climate change deniers. A bit of a win/win for both of us. Keep up with the good work.

            Accordingly think we need to get you back on track as you tend to get easily distracted.

            DREM, have you managed to think of another reason why your favourite wooden horse analogy is appropriate with regard to the Moon’s motion? We still have only one aspect where it is similar while we have four that make the analogy as stupid as it has always been. See –

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-563368

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Stalk somebody else.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            I think I have seen you use this exit strategy before when you can’t cope with the debate.

            However if you are indeed that delusionally paranoid that you think people are stalking you, then you can just simply change your pseudonym or take your comments elsewhere.

            I think this was the advice I gave you last time you tried this tactic.

            So why not give it a go this time. Start afresh and pretend none of this happened.

            Just a suggestion and have a nice day.😀

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            There is no debate to exit, I gave you the links to the responses ages ago. Since then you have just been doing your usual trash talk and nonsense, because you cannot get over your obsession. Move on to somebody else.

          • MikeR says:

            Ok DREM,

            As you could be on the way to another of your meltdowns and as you have done sufficient damage to the climate denial community, I am happy to terminate this particular exchange.

            As a parting gift I will refer to an extract from one of your seminal links that you posted above which neatly summarises your position.

            “That isnt the point of the analogies. The point is to recognize that the motion of the moon is similar to that of an object that physically cannot rotate on its own axis.”

            Yes DREM it is vaguely similar, in one respect only (very vaguely similar as horses on a MGR cannot librate). In every other respect it is totally different .

            This is exactly why this piece of nonsense is a brilliant example of a false analogy fallacy.

            In your defence you do concede the inherent weakness of your position by acknowledging some of the differences, but you plough on regardless recycling the same bull shit, over and over,

            To finish off this thread ( trigger warning for sensitve snowflakes – trash* talk follows) with a similar analogy to the above, this time between DREM and a companion of mine.

            My cat has a nose, DREM has a nose, therefore DREM is a cat ( apparently there are intellectual and behavioural similarities as well),

            Of course, this is also clearly a false analogy, as among the many differences, my cat cannot use a keyboard and doesn’t think he is being stalked ( he is more of a stalker than a stalkee) .

            Bye DREM and take care.

            * one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            They really hate the simple analogies.

          • MikeR says:

            I absolutely detest fake analogies, irrespective of how simple they are.

            With regards to the saying, “to a simpleton everything appears simple”. DREM thinks the moons motion is simple. Ergo ….

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Must be because they so effortlessly get the point across to people. They despise anything that brings clarity to the debate, and long to obfuscate the issue.

          • MikeR says:

            Yes your simple analogy would be effortlessly illuminating if the analogy wasn’t simply wrong, for the 4 reasons described above!

            Actually make it 5 reasons, as the non rotating moon doesn’t even get the correct coverage of the Moon visible from the Earth!!

            So in reality there is not even one aspect of your analogy that is correct.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Seems to be helping people understand though, MikeR…so it can’t be all bad.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM, yes you may have misled a few gullibles but most people have enough insight to see through your crap.

            Accordingly , I am happy to see you continue on your mission to obliterate the credibility of the climate change denial community. Keep up the good work

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If you genuinely thought that was the case, you actually would leave me to it!

          • MikeR says:

            No DREM, heaven forbid.

            Don’t let my criticisms discourage you. I am just adding them as a counterpoint to emphasise the “magnificence” of your argument by simple analogy.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            See? He responded.

            And he will again, no doubt.

          • MikeR says:

            But of course, mon petit chou. As lunar night follows lunar day this exchange will continue indefinitely until one of us tires.*

            Over to you now DREM.

            * Nearly always myself as the law of diminishing returns comes in to play with regard to the damage and havoc you create for the deniers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Blah, blah, blah.

          • MikeR says:

            Finally after all this debate we get a comment of intellectual profundity from DREM.

            Perhaps even more profound than a PST.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Blah, blah, blah, blah.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM’s consistent intellectual approach is, as always, via argumentum ad nauseum. Accordingly last comment wins , no matter how inane or how many blahs.

            Off on your victory lap. Don’t forget to rotate on your axis at the corners. Your destructive efforts may still be required. 🙃🙂

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

          • Svante says:

            I think we have found the essence of your argument.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, the essence of MikeR’s “argument” is: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It’s just endless trash talk.

          • MikeR says:

            Is my tinnitus playing up? Do I hear the sound of whimpering? Maybe it’s a canine running away with it’s tail between its legs?

            Perhaps it’s just DREM totally lost in a musically induced bewildered trance – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blah_Blah_Blah_(Armin_van_Buuren_song) or perhaps it’s all the above.

            Sorry DREM , I just had to satisfy your insatiable desire to be on the receiving end of some trash talk. More to follow if you like.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM why don’t do something more creative than increasing one blah at a time. Show that you are indeed a thinker not bound by the usual conventions of rational thought*.

            Why don’t you surprise everyone with a Fibonacci sequence.

            * the only innovative thought DREM has ever had (extrapolating backwards in time to include his previous incarnations) originated in the depths of DREM’s ileum, traversed his cecum and emerged via his back passage.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            Ah, the Fibonacci sequence was too difficult for DREM.

            Back to the old trusty PSTs. Who would have thought?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            Please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            Why don’t we continue our discussion about analogies for the Moon’s orbital motion?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I have nothing more to say, and no desire to talk to you.

          • MikeR says:

            What a shame. I am distraught.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #4

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

    • JK says:

      “And yet it moves” …

      I’m a newbie here. Maybe someone in the past has used similar explanation to mine below, but I did not have the opportunity and ability to read everything previously written on this topic (many more discussions here and elsewhere), so maybe you know it already.

      Consider the Earth-Sun case:
      Our Earth rotates around its own axis and at the same time orbits the Sun, you (probably) agree with that.
      And the case of Moon-Earth:
      Our Moon rotates around its own axis and at the same time orbits the Earth, but you (strongly) disagree with that.

      Why? Both cases are generally qualitatively identical physical situations, ie a symmetrical relationship between them, with one general explanatory approach and uniform terminology. No need for distinctive redundant terminology, no need to binary distinguish between rotates/does not rotate.

      The two cases mentioned above, ie Earth-Sun vs Moon-Earth, are qualitatively the same, only quantitatively different in relation to the number of sidereal vs synodic axial rotations of aorbiting (to a central) body.
      One sidereal day on Earth (i.e. a full 360° rotation around its own axis relative to a very distant star/galaxy – we need to neglect the annual parallax) lasts 23 hours and about 56 minutes. Not exactly 24 hours, because it is the time of the Earth’s complete rotation around its own axis for the observer from the Sun. This so-called the synodic day is slightly longer than the sidereal day because the earth needs almost another 4 minutes to turn at an angle to show the sun “the same face as yesterday”. (For simplicity, we assume a circular and neglect the real elliptical orbit of the Earth and the unevenness of the orbital and angular velocity of the Earth during the year and the resulting need to introduce so-called mean solar time; details can be found on the Internet or in the literature).

      Thus, during time required for 365 synodic revolutions of the Earth, the Earth will make 366 sidereal revolutions (4 min * 365 = 1460 min =~ 1440 min = 1 mean solar day).

      So far, I hope everything is clear, we are following a quantitatively simplified model, but qualitatively correct. We will now do a thought experiment and try to approach both the Earth-Sun and Moon-Earth cases to see a direct physical analogy.

      Suppose that the Earth rotates around its axis much more slowly, so that one turn around its axis (relative to a distant star) corresponds to a half of its annual orbit around the Sun. In this case, the Earth will make one complete turn around its axis to a distant star in one half year, but this corresponds to exactly half a turn relative to the Sun and an observer from the Sun sees the opposite face of the Earth than seen by half year ago (please draw this situation on paper, it’s very simple ). In one year (completing its orbit around the Sun), the Earth will turn twice relative to the stars but only once relative to the Sun! But the same relationship between the number of sidereal vs synodic revolutions applies here as in the real case (366 vs 365): The number of sidereal revolutions around its own axis is exactly one greater than the number of synodic revolutions around its own axis in a period of one complete year.

      And now, as you can guess, the finale is coming. Our Moon orbiting the Earth has such a special feature that its sidereal rotation lasts exactly as long as its orbital period. This empiric fact has its own physical causes that we won’t mention now. It didn’t have to be that way, and in some ancient past it really wasn’t – the moon rotated at a faster speed and showed the Earth periodically all its faces round and round (it periodically shows slightly different faces during its orbit even now – see lunar libration and its causes mentioned elsewhere). But the general relationship between the number of sidereal and synodic turns is the same: the number of sidereal turns is exactly one more than the number of synodic turns. Specifically, for the Moon, it will make exactly one (1 as a number) sidereal rotation about its axis with respect to the system defined by distant static stars during one orbital period around the Earth. And in the same time he makes no (0 as a number = sidereal minus 1) synodic turn towards the observer on Earth, which means that he still sees the same face of the Moon (neglecting libration), although differently illuminated depending on the relative position of the light source, that is the Sun.

      Q.E.D.
      (and I apologize for my English, maybe somewhere not used as a native speaker, because I’m not)

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        The problem lies in "sidereal rotation" – i.e. defining axial rotation as relative "to a distant star".

        It all comes down to how you describe "orbital motion without axial rotation". How do you describe an object that is orbiting another body, whilst it is not rotating on its own axis? My guess is, that you would describe it as keeping one face always oriented towards the same distant star, whilst it moves, correct?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Well, motion like that is not rotation about an external axis. An object that is rotating about an external axis always keeps the same face oriented towards that axis, whilst it moves. We established that, here:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-562394

        …and orbiting, or revolution, is just another word for a rotation about an external axis.

        https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287

        “Revolution

        It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”

        So, by definition, “orbital motion without axial rotation” should be described as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout. In which case, the moon is orbiting and not rotating on its own axis, and the Earth is orbiting and rotating 365.25 times on its own axis, per orbit.

        • JK says:

          As for the “problem of definition”, atronomy, theoretical, and practical astronautics do not recognize such ambiguities.
          Synchronous rotation like the Moon in the Earth’s orbit is not possible without own axial rotation with respect to inertial reference system (ie static stars). An illustrative example is the International Space Station. The ISS is mostly oriented in the LVLH (Local Vertical Local Horizontal) reference frame, which means its “bottom” side always facing the Earth and the “top” side into the open space, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aF7zwhlDDU
          This is a perfect demonstration of synchronous rotation in the low Earth orbit. The actual rotation of the ISS is maintained against disturbing external factors, controlled or changed as needed by actuators such as gyroscopes and thrusters. Actuators are able to stop or start the rotation of the whole satellite with the required angular velocity around the respective axis by generating the required torque.
          Most operational remote sensing, mapping and meteorological satellites work in the same mode on polar orbits.
          And of course, geostationary satellites operate in a similar way, they have both synchronized rotation and synchronized orbit above some point of the Earth’s equator. The Moon is physically just another satellite of Earth of natural origin with synchronized rotation in its own orbit at a distance about 10 times further than artificial geostationary satellites.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, the ISS is also mostly orbiting without rotating on its own axis.

          • JK says:

            And some other practical implications: If the artificial satellite/vehicle is operating in orbit in synchronous rotation mode, the angular rate of rotation of the vehicle must also be changed when the change of height of the operating orbit is required. This is done by means of actuators and by generating a torque with respect to the axis of rotation.
            At low orbits, this rotational speed is relatively high, so resulting centrifugal forces contribute to the microgravity factors.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sure, if it is not rotating on its own axis and then starts rotating on its own axis, for whatever reason, you need something in place to correct for that.

          • Svante says:

            JK says:
            “the angular rate of rotation of the vehicle must also be changed when the change of height of the operating orbit is required.”

            DREM and sockpuppet, how does that agree with your auto-turning cannonball?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante, try to understand that for a vehicle that is orbiting without axial rotation as you see it (i.e. something like the Hubble Telescope) it still needs to adjust itself in order to remain orbiting like that.

            And ftop_t is not a sock-puppet. You people are so pathetic that if anyone agrees with me, you assume it’s me posting as somebody else. Get a grip.

          • It is probably worth mentioning that the moon DOES NOT face uniformly towards the Earth. Slightly more than half of its surface is visible from Earth due to an apparent “wobble”, due to the eccentricity of its orbit. The moon’s own rate of rotation is fixed, whereas its orbital velocity is higher at the lower part of its orbit. As a result, its orientation moves slightly “ahead” and “behind” the direct Earth-facing orientation as its orbital velocity rises and falls.

            Further worth mentioning tidal forces. The bulges of the Earth’s marine tides are dragged slightly ahead of the positions directly under the moon and opposite by the Earth’s faster rotation. The bulge facing the moon is slightly ahead, and also closer, amounting to a net accelerating gravitational influence on the moon. The Earth is gradually slowing in its rotation as a result, and the moon being thrust further from the Earth. A similar force acted on the moon’s own tidal bulge over several billion years, braking its rotation until it matched the (average) speed of its orbit, at which it remains synchronised. The moon used to rotate much faster, as do many other moons in the solar system still.

            Needless to say, a moon visibly rotating wrt the Earth would render the discussion moot. We happen to live in a time when the moon’s own rotation has been slowed so as to exactly match its orbital period. Hence the confusion shown by those also not too clever with temperatures and suchlike.

            If we sent them to Saturn for a few centuries everyone would be better off, not least because its moons’ axes of rotation are not all even aligned parallel to its own. If our moon had been decent enough to lie on its side we wouldn’t have to put up with this nonsense. I’d like to see them argue that Phoebe is orbiting rather than rotating.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Elliott apparently believes it is the first time libration has been discussed. Oh dear.

          • I ĥave no difficulty whatsoever believing that it could be discussed 100 times without you grasping it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, Elliott, be unpleasant.

          • ftop_t says:

            You can literally model rotation about an axis with this simple website

            https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/rotation.html

            You can move the axis to be internal to the shape or external to the shape.

            Select a 360 degree rotation and watch the object to see how it moves.

            The earth is rotating about two axis (itself and the sun)

            The moon is rotating about one axis (the earth)

          • ftop_t – A good site for fooling yourself. It can show you rotation about a single axis that LOOKS LIKE an orbit and you thereby reinforce a pre-existing conviction. Show me a site that can model any other moon, rotating about its own axis while also orbiting around a planet, and you’ll be closer to being able to falsify your claim.

            You’ll find that for all rotation speeds EXCEPT that synchronised with the orbit, the two separate motions will be quite obvious. It’s only when you pick ONE SPECIFIC rotation rate that you can maintain this delusion.

            By the way, a single body rotating in space could not rotate about an external axis. It would rotate about its centre of mass. So that’s not a useful “model”, it’s a moving picture.

          • ftop_t – Hells, that site even calls the movement “rotation”!

          • Try running a model in your head that shows the triangle rotating about an external point but always remaining oriented with the same face horizontal and at the top. Will you concede that the triangle is then not rotating about its own axis?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Elliott, the website shows that an object that is rotating about an external axis always keeps the same face pointed towards that axis whilst it moves, and that this is one single motion.

            Revolution, or orbiting, is just another word for a rotation about an external axis. See:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-563746

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Try running a model in your head that shows the triangle rotating about an external point but always remaining oriented with the same face horizontal and at the top. Will you concede that the triangle is then not rotating about its own axis?”

            Since rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards that axis whilst it moves, if the triangle was oriented the way you describe whilst moving then it would have to be both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, in opposite directions and at the same rate.

          • “Elliott, the website shows that an object that is rotating about an external axis always keeps the same face pointed towards that axis whilst it moves, and that this is one single motion.”

            And as I said, that makes it an excellent tool with which to fool yourself. You’ve just picked a “model” which consists only of your own false assumption. Come up with a tool that allows one to input the axial rotation separately from the orbital rotation and you have a chance.

          • “Since rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards that axis whilst it moves”

            Thus circularly introducing your false conclusion as a premise…

            “if the triangle was oriented the way you describe whilst moving then it would have to be both rotating about an external axis and rotating on its own axis, in opposite directions and at the same rate.”

            Wrong. Badly and embarrassingly wrong. If the triangle were always oriented the same way towards the sides of the bounding rectangle it would NOT be rotating, as any external observer would see simply by keeping a telescope trained on its centre of mass.

            It would have the motion one would expect of a non-rotating triangular spaceship entering from deep space and being parked in orbit: An elliptical orbit with no axial rotation.

            If the little green men wanted artificial gravity they would have to spin the ship up separately.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            There are none so blind as those who will not see.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Thus circularly introducing your false conclusion as a premise…”

            Incorrect. That rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards that axis is proven by using the tool ftop_t found, and by studying Fig. 2(b) of the Madhavi text I linked to further upthread.

          • ftop_t says:

            @Elliott

            Rotation about an internal or external axis is a mathematical calculation. For 2D (planar geometry) the math is produced via matrix calculations

            [x]
            [y]

            To calculate the location of a point for rotation about an axis you use the rotational matrix

            [COS(theta) -SIN(theta)]
            [SIN(theta) COS(theta)]

            Where theta is the degrees of rotation

            If I place a triangle at points A =(1,1) & B=(3,1) {flat top} and C=(2,-1); Point A is closest to the origin. To model the moon, point A should always be closest.

            The mathematical formula for rotating that triangle about its own axis (90 degrees) and about an external (90 degrees) would be as follows

            Line A-B = (1,1)(3,1)

            Start by moving the triangle points two units to the left so you can rotate over the origin -> A=(-1,1) B=(1,1) {flat top} and C=(0,-1) to place the triangle’s center at (0,0)

            Line A-B = (-1,1)(2-1)

            Rotate 90 degrees about its own axis

            [COS(90) -SIN(90)] [-1] A transforms to [-1]
            [SIN(90) COS(90)] [ 1] [-1]

            [COS(90) -SIN(90)] [1] B transforms to [-1]
            [SIN(90) COS(90)] [1] [ 1]

            [COS(90) -SIN(90)] [ 0] C transforms to [1]
            [SIN(90) COS(90)] [-1] [0]

            Line A-B = (-1,-1)(-1,1)

            Line A-B is now perpendicular and the flat side that was pointing up is not pointing to the left.

            Now we move the triangle back two units to the right
            A=(1,-1) B=(1,1) flat top points to the left instead of up the point of the triangle that was at (2,-1) is now at C=(3,0)

            Line A-B = (1,-1)(1,1)

            Now we rotate about the external axis (0,0) by 90 degrees

            [COS(90) -SIN(90)] [ 1] transforms to [1]
            [SIN(90) COS(90)] [-1] [1]

            [COS(90) -SIN(90)] [1] transforms to [-1]
            [SIN(90) COS(90)] [1] [ 1]

            [COS(90) -SIN(90)] [3] transforms to [0]
            [SIN(90) COS(90)] [0] [3]

            The triangle has now switched from pointing up to pointing down after a synchronous 90 degree rotation about its own axis and about an external axis.

            The A-B line is now (1,1)(-1,1) and the point that was below the triangle is now above this line at (0,3)

            This is 2D planar geometry applying the universal calculation for rotation. In this scenario, we rotated the object 90 degrees about its own axis while at the same time rotating 90 degrees about an external axis.

            The only way to keep the line A-B oriented the same way to the origin is to remove the internal rotation about the triangle’s axis. By applying just the external rotation we get:

            [COS(90) -SIN(90)] [1] A transforms to [-1]
            [SIN(90) COS(90)] [1] [ 1]

            [COS(90) -SIN(90)] [3] B transforms to [-1]
            [SIN(90) COS(90)] [1] [ 3]

            [COS(90) -SIN(90)] [ 2] C transforms to [1]
            [SIN(90) COS(90)] [-1] [2]

            Now line A-B = (-1,1)(-1,3) and the side points to the left vs up

            This keeps point A closest to the origin and models the moon’s rotation.

            If you can prove your position mathematically, I am interested to see the calculation. If you transform the triangle to A=(-1,3), B=(1,3), C=(0,1) by just sliding it up and to the right and then rotate only on its own axis you have removed the orbiting motion (rotating around an external axis) from the mathematical model

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix

          • ftop_t says:

            If you can prove your position mathematically, I am interested to see the calculation. If you transform the triangle to A=(-1,3), B=(1,3), C=(0,1) by just sliding it up and to the right and then rotate only on its own axis you have removed the orbiting motion (rotating around an external axis) from the mathematical model

            Should read

            If you can prove your position mathematically, I am interested to see the calculation. If you transform the triangle to A=(-1,3), B=(1,3), C=(0,1) by just sliding it up and to the *left* and then rotate only on its own axis you have removed the orbiting motion (rotating around an external axis) from the mathematical model

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop_t,

            Your talents are clearly wasted as you are aware of rotational matrices and consequently I think you should try your hand at coding.

            Here are some examples where these matrices have been applied to display the orbital and rotational motions of the Moon.

            https://i.postimg.cc/DyH9nSfX/Orbiting-and-Rotating-ABC.gif

            This should explain visually the decomposition of the moon’s motion into

            1. motion of the centre of mass of the Moon ( the base of the red arrow in the main part of the display).

            2. Rotation of the moon around the centre of mass ( shown in the left hand frames).

            Of course the only case where the red arrow faces the Earth over the entire orbit is for case B which corresponds to one lunar rotation per orbital period. Case C obviously corresponds to zero rotation of the Moon on its axis while for A the moon rotates at twice the rate that it orbits.

            I hope this clears up your confusion.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Case A = one counter-clockwise axial rotation per counter-clockwise orbit.
            Case B = not rotating on its own axis.
            Case C = one clockwise axial rotation per counter-clockwise orbit.

            I hope that clears up your confusion.

          • ftop_t says:

            You are going to have to provide the mathematical proof as I have done. Otherwise this is just an attempt at obfuscation.

            In the graphic you posted, B can only be modeled with a single rotation (orbit) around an external axis.

            If you believe you are correct and there are two rotations, provide the number of Radians (or degrees of rotation) in the rotations for both the internal axis and external axis at any point in the orbit.

            One can easily overlay a triangle on the moon with a flat side facing the external axis (center of rotation) and the point outward.

            Like the equalateral triangle depicted here:
            https://owlcation.com/stem/Calculator-Techniques-for-Circles-and-Triangles-in-Plane-Geometry

            You should be able to mathematically predict the location for each point (A, B, C) in the triangle by applying the radians (or degrees of rotation) for each axis.

            I contend you can only accurately predict the location of the points on the triangle at an orbital location by applying a single external rotation to the radian measure you provide, I can accurately predict the location of all three points on the triangle anywhere on the orbital path via this method.

            After applying the rotations you specify mathematically for each axis, we can determine if your combined rotational calculation (internal and external axis) accurately specifies where points A, B & C of the triangle will be.

            Or do you reject the validity of planar geometry?

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop_t (can I call you ftop for short?),

            I am not sure what the point of your calculations are other than to demonstrate that you can successfully employ a 2 x 2 matrix to geometrically rotate co-ordinates.

            I am sure you are mathematically correct (assumption based on I can’t really be bothered checking your work) but your conclusions regarding the moon’s orbital mechanics are clearly wrong (see Elliot Bignell’s comments regarding your premise).

            If you want to do something useful with your talent then you could readily simulate the moon’s motion* using software such as Matlab**( assuming you are running a Windows PC).

            The major advantage of employing this approach is twofold.

            Firstly you can readily visualise where you may have made a mistake with either your premise or conclusion and secondly, and more importantly , acquired a life long skill that could benefit you intellectually and lead to career development.

            * my depiction of the Moon’s motion above, was for historical reasons ( old dog’s avoidance of new tricks, and having pre-existing code and relevant licenses) coded in C++.

            ** You can download a trial version of Matlab for one month’s use for free from https://www.mathworks.com/downloads/.
            All you basically need is these two commands , ” imread” and “imrotate” and a screen capture of a graphic and, as they say around these parts, ” Bob’s your uncle”.

            A very good free alternative, if you use Linux, is Python and the SciPy libraries.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR writes an awful lot but actually says very little. He artfully avoided responding to any point at all made by ftop_t.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            Are you stalking me?

            Just joking.

            p.s. Unless you have developed some mathematical and software skills that no one until now has been aware of, I think Ftop can respond to my comment perfectly adequately for himself.

            In the meantime go and take a Xanax and have a good lie down. Better still take a good book on introductory physics and peruse it until you nod off. Good night and sweet dreams.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You inserted yourself into another discussion that I was already taking part in. So no, if anything you are still stalking me I’m afraid. I was just pointing out to anyone interested that you had avoided responding to any point that ftop_t had made. Personally, I would advise anyone not to bother talking to you, since you do not debate in good faith. But that’s up to ftop_t.

          • MikeR says:

            No DREM,

            I inserted my comments directly after Ftop’s comment in all cases and then you interceded, before Ftop could reply.

            DREM, why does it always have to be about you?

            As for your good faith comment, this is very amusing coming from the keyboard of someone who normal response to defeat is to emit a tantrum of PSTs and blah blah. I have seen this kind of behaviour in my kids when it was age appropriate to do so. Accordingly I forgave my kids when they grew out if it. DREM, what’s your excuse and do you have a formal diagnosis?

            On that note it’s way past your bedtime and time for a bed time story.

            Here is one for you that you would find very educational –

            https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38135581-my-little-golden-book-about-the-solar-system

            DREM, good night again. Don’t come out even if you just want a glass of milk.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “DREM, why does it always have to be about you?”

            I don’t know why 95% of your comments are about and addressed to me but it seems you are completely obsessed.

            “who normal response to defeat is to emit a tantrum of PSTs and blah blah”

            No, there has been no “defeat”. This is just you lying again. You never stop. I ask you to stop trolling because all you ever do is troll, and you are starting again now. Lying and trolling.

            So, MikeR, please stop lying and trolling.

          • Nate says:

            FTOP,

            I think most of us agree with what you show. We understand that a pure rotation of an object around an external point keeps the object oriented to the center of rotation. And we understand that all points on the object move in concentric circles.

            But I hope you can agree that this does not apply in general to orbiting planets or Moons, which

            a. move in elliptical orbits
            b. all points on them DO NOT move in concentric circles around an external point.
            c. rotate around internal axes that are often TILTED to their orbital plane, as is the Moon’s

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ftop_t, I assume you know that most of the Spinners do not agree with what you show. There are a whole group of them who do not understand that a pure rotation of an object around an external point keeps the object oriented to the center of rotation. And they do not understand that all points on the object move in concentric circles. I have spent an enormous amount of time arguing with these people. It would have been nice if any of the Spinners who thought differently had at any point helped out, but of course they did not have the integrity to do so.

          • Nate says:

            Well, ftop, I cant speaK for all, but what several have argued, including me, is that an object like your triangle can be understood as doing a pure rotation around an external axis, or EQUIVALENTLY, as a translation of the CM of the object around the external axis, ie a circular orbit, plus rotation around its own axis.

            This latter description is more general, and is therefore applied to elliptical orbits by astronomers, while the former description is NOT.

          • MikeR says:

            This is as good a place as any to show a minor update to a depiction of mine.

            In the following depictions, it should be obvious that the orbiting circle represents the Moon and the stationary circle, the Earth.

            I have added a red line joining the centre of the Moon’s uniform axial rotation (shown as a red cross) to the centre of mass of the Moon. This makes the longitudinal libration more apparent.

            I have also added axes, as dashed lines, that accompany the Moon on its orbit, to illustrate how the Moon rotates with respect to the external frame of reference.

            These depictions clearly illustrate Nate’s point about how the Moon’s orbital behavior can be described as,

            1. motion of the centre of mass around the Earth (at one of the focii of an elliptical orbit) accompanied by

            2.uniform rotation of the Moon around it’s centre of mass.

            The following depicts a rotating moon orbiting elliptically (e = 0.0549) –

            https://i.postimg.cc/FRysxn5Z/Lunar-Orbit.gif

            The corresponding case for a non rotating moon is shown here –

            https://i.postimg.cc/Ss2t0wN6/Non-rotating-Lunatic-Orbit.gif

            Finally I note that Ftop appears to have some mathematical aptitude that others sorely lack. Therefore I hope I don’t need to elaborate for Ftop regarding these depictions as, stand alone, they should be convincing that the moon does indeed rotate on its axis.

            n.b. It should also be obvious from these depictions that any attempt to make a simple analogy between the Moon’s motion to a merry-go-around is simply bordering on lunacy.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ftop_t has proved an important point…that rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards that axis, throughout. In other words, a ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. This is apparently accepted by some Spinners, so I will be expecting them to contribute upthread, where the idea that a ball on a string has two axes of rotation is still being put forward by SGW and others. I look forward to seeing Spinner argue against Spinner.

          • Svante says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
            “that rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the same side of the object remaining oriented towards that axis, throughout.”

            Unlike the Moon which has longitudinal libration, as modeled by MikeR’s gif.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …but, generally speaking, the same side is oriented towards the axis of rotation.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            I see you have abandoned your simple merry-go-around analogy. Good move as it was batting 0 out of 5.

            Unfortunately your ball on a string is not going to fare any better, particularly if the string is of constant length . Yes you could have two people involved to draw out an ellipse by winding the string about a person at each focus*. However keeping the ball in motion would be quite a task, made even more complicated by trying to have the ball move faster at one focus and slower at the other.

            But lets stick to the simplest analogy for a circular orbit.
            see-

            https://i.postimg.cc/RVtcKvN5/Ball-on-a-String.gif

            As per the previous description, the motion again can be described as simply as follows,

            1.the centre of mass of the ball is rotating around the centre of revolution and

            2.the ball is rotating on an axis centred on the centre of mass.

            The latter concept is way too difficult for some, but they can use the NSWE axes that tracks with the ball to check this. People with vision impairment may need to have the assistance of a guide dog. Again a Braille version can be made available upon request.

            * https://www.thisiscarpentry.com/2013/09/06/drawing-an-ellipse-the-string-method/

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “As per the previous description, the motion again can be described as simply as follows,

            1.the centre of mass of the ball is rotating around the centre of revolution and

            2.the ball is rotating on an axis centred on the centre of mass.”

            Incorrect, MikeR. The motion can either be described as:

            1. center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle and

            2. the ball is rotating on an axis centred on the center of mass.

            Or, more simply, as ftop_t has proven:

            1. A rotation of the ball around a central axis.

            Unfortunately for the Spinners, the motion of the ball on a string, wooden horse on a merry-go-round, and chalk circle on a merry-go-round, can all be described more simply as one single motion, a rotation about a central axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Or, more simply, as ftop_t has proven:

            1. A rotation of the ball around a central axis.”

            For greater clarity:

            1. A rotation of the ball around a central, external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball.

          • Nate says:

            “In other words, a ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. This is apparently accepted by some Spinners, so I will be expecting them to”

            DREMT reads selectively again.

            Read the part from EQUIVALENTLY onward.

            What do you find there to disagree with?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So, to elaborate, the Spinners need to realize:

            1) I no longer respond to Nate. So there is no point in him asking me questions, or responding to my comments. I haven’t been responding to him for nearly two years. He just needs to get over it.
            2) There is no “axis” for translation. An “axis” is specific to rotation. So for those that believe the motion of a ball on a string can be broken into two components, a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation of the ball about its own axis, they still only have one axis of rotation.
            3) Because of what I explained in 2), the statement “the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation” is an absolute truth, regardless of which way you want to describe the motion.

          • MikeR says:

            It is clear that DREM cannot process visual information, so trying to explain anything to him via graphical depictions is entirely useless. However others, such as Ftop, may not be as severely impaired as DREM, so these depictions may have served some purpose.

            Any way the immediate discussion is all related to circular motion which is not pertinent to the Moon.

            On the latter issue, upstream we find DREM trying to explain away the problem with “but, generally speaking, the same side is oriented towards the axis of rotation.”

            Generally speaking Bob’s my uncle. Except when Bob is my aunt and is also 50% pregnant.

            Accordingly , maybe DREMT meant to say “generally speaking more than one side is oriented towards the axis of rotation (or axis of curvilinear translation in DREM’s innovative terminology)”.

            Speaking specifically, rather than generally, there is no conceivable explanation for libration that does not require a moon, uniformly rotating on its axis , while orbiting at a variable rate.

            If DREM has contrary concrete evidence then he should produce it. By concrete I mean via maths and/or diagrams or a reference to a paper or article that attempts this feat. . Explanations via hand waving* don’t really cut the muster for those of us who have a scientific background.

            So DREM show us what you are made of.

            * I fully expect DREM to link back to some previous hand waving b.s. of his.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR tries to divert again.

            MikeR:

            1) the ball on a string, wooden horse on a merry-go-round, and chalk circle on a merry-go-round all have only one axis of rotation. Do you agree? Yes or no? If no, why?

            2) if they had two axes of rotation, we would see all sides of the object from the center of revolution. Do you agree? Yes or no? If no, why?

          • Nate says:

            “1. center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle and

            2. the ball is rotating on an axis centred on the center of mass.

            Or, more simply, as ftop_t has proven:

            1. A rotation of the ball around a central axis.”

            I see DREMT is making progress, even quoting me.

            Now he just needs to rebut the rest of it:

            “This (first) description is more general, and is therefore applied to elliptical orbits by astronomers, while the (second) description is NOT.”

          • Nate says:

            But of course, being this close to ending the debate once and for all, he will demur.

            But let’s note the DREMT progress.

            He now promotes rigorous mathematical models, thanks to FTOP, rather than analogies.

            He now acknowledges the mathematical EQUIVALENCE of the spinner model to the non-spinner pure-rotation model for a circular synchronous orbit.

            He now just needs to take the next logical step, and acknowledge that for real orbits, that are elliptical, the pure rotation model is simply not mathematically rigorous, while the MORE GENERAL spinner model IS rigorous (as noted in Madhavi a general plane motion).

            He then would appreciate why astronomers and aerospace engineers, who require rigorous mathematical models in their work, will have little use for his model (analogy).

            And then we could be done with the debate.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR? What is your answer to those two questions?

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            With reference to 1).

            No, I do definitely do not agree, as per the relevant depiction. I will try once more as DREM might have had his cataracts removed in the last few hours.

            https://i.postimg.cc/RVtcKvN5/Ball-on-a-String.gif

            One axis at the location of the person holding the string and one axis with respect to external frame of reference. That makes two, unless you demand a recount. Likewise of course for the MGR.

            With reference to 2).

            Obviously no. We will not all sides if the object is revolving and rotating at the same rate and in the same direction. Visual confirmation from the above depiction. Maybe ask your seeing eye dog for an opinion.

            Returning to my immediately preceding comment, do you have a waffle free explanation for libration that does not require a moon, uniformly rotating on its axis , while orbiting at a variable rate?

            How will DREM respond to this challenge? Just another rehash of old material as per his last comments? A link to a hand waving argument or just a PST? Stay tuned…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR, we will not be proceeding any further until you have answered “yes” to both questions. Your first mistake was in saying that there are two axes of rotation for the ball on the string. Have you not paid any attention to what has been said, even by people on your own side of the argument!?

            There are only two ways you can describe the motion of the ball on a string:

            Spinner way:

            1) a translation of the center of mass of the ball, plus
            2) a rotation of the ball on its own axis.

            Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of mass of the ball.

            Non-Spinner way:

            1) A rotation of the ball about a central, external axis, with no rotation of the ball about its own center of mass.

            Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of the revolution.

            So, correct your previous answer from “no” to “yes”, and we will proceed to the next question.

          • MikeR says:

            So DREM,

            you will not provide a detailed response to my question unless I answer appropriately and agree with your nonsense!

            Interesting debating technique. Where did you learn that one, Oxford or Cambridge?

            So I will answer yes,yes mein kommandant to your questions. Anything you say.

            Anything to get you to provide the details of your libration model.

            Give it a go DREM, we desparately need to hear your words of wisdom and be exposed to the brilliance of your unique insights.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sorry, MikeR, it has to be a genuine response. You have to actually understand why you are wrong to say that the ball on a string has two axes of rotation. Did you pay any attention at all to what others have been saying?

          • MikeR says:

            Can we just chose to disagree about those two points regarding circular motion and move on?

            You are obviously terrified to reply with your own theory regarding libration. Confront your deepest fears and let us all be privileged to hear the details of your model.😀

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, we cannot agree to disagree, sorry. This is completely fundamental to the entire debate. What you could do to start with, is explain what I have written that you disagree with. That would be how debates usually work…

            …and there is nothing for you at the end of this. I have explained the Non-Spinner perspective on libration dozens of times, and will not be doing so again. In fact, you can just scroll down-thread to where Tim Folkerts brought it up, if you like. I am not discussing it here. This is just me, grilling you on these two questions, until you stop responding, or agree.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM your terror is palpable. Maybe that is why your discussion following Tim Folkerts comments is such a convoluted confused morass.

            The world needs clarity. Nations are sending space probes to the Moon without the necessary information.

            Surely DREM, with minimal effort, you can just cut and paste the appropriate material regarding libration, so we can see your explanation in its full glory.

            Otherwise you are just confirming my opinion ( and presumably nearly everybody else’s) that, heaven forbid, you are just another bloviating blowhard.

            Prove us all wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Baiting and goading is not going to work, MikeR.

            What did I write that you disagreed with?

            Here it is again:

            There are only two ways you can describe the motion of the ball on a string:

            Spinner way:

            1) a translation of the center of mass of the ball, plus
            2) a rotation of the ball on its own axis.

            Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of mass of the ball.

            Non-Spinner way:

            1) A rotation of the ball about a central, external axis, with no rotation of the ball about its own center of mass.

            Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of the revolution.

          • MikeR says:

            Thank-you DREM for confirming your status as a bloviating blowhard (armchair variety). Your confirmation will be mailed to you with a card that can be used at a relevant clinic of your choice.

            As for your two questions, once again an emphatic No and No for both, based on my previous comments such as,

            The depiction clearly illustrates Nate’s point about how the Moon’s orbital behavior can be described as,

            1. motion of the centre of mass around the Earth (at one of the focii of an elliptical orbit) accompanied by

            2.uniform rotation of the Moon around it’s centre of mass.

            The following depicts a rotating moon orbiting elliptically (e = 0.0549) –

            https://i.postimg.cc/FRysxn5Z/Lunar-Orbit.gif

            DREM, if you would reconsider your position, at the risk of losing your blowhard status, then you are welcome to respond appropriately regarding the Moon’s libration.

            Have we exhauseted the full repertoire of DREM’s evasion techniques that he has honed over the past year or two?

            Will he move on beyond the “I am being goaded to reveal the state of my ignorance”? Stay tuned, answer coming up…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Look at how he evades!

            MikeR…

            what did I write that you disagreed with?

            Here it is again:

            There are only two ways you can describe the motion of the ball on a string:

            Spinner way:

            1) a translation of the center of mass of the ball, plus
            2) a rotation of the ball on its own axis.

            Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of mass of the ball.

            Non-Spinner way:

            1) A rotation of the ball about a central, external axis, with no rotation of the ball about its own center of mass.

            Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of the revolution.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM ,   Actually you are almost correct, nothing is wrong with your point 1) other than your inclusion of “Note that there is only one axis of rotation, in the center of mass of the ball.” which I have already vehemently objected to previously by stating that there are two axes of rotation.

            Remove that and I will change my answer to a Yes and that should be the end * of the dispute and we can move on from the circular to the more appropriate elliptical orbit . Hopefully you can then enlighten us with a coherent description of libration from your viewpoint.

            With respect to  your original question 2) “if they had two axes of rotation, we would see all sides of the object from the center of revolution. Do you agree? Yes or no? If no, why?” ,

            My answer remains obviously No as per my depiction above.

            * I will disregard your strange use of the general term “translation” rather than the more specifically appropriate term, revolution or rotation.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            With the ball on a string problem I solved, Point A at the center of mass of the ball had an angular velocity about the origin “O”. That is an axis of rotation, and it had a given orbital angular velocity of 1 rad/s. You use that data to solve for V(A). The other rotation axis is about the COM of the ball.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            SGW said of his own “proof” regarding the ball on a string:

            “So there is your proof that the ball on a string can be described as a translation plus a rotation of the ball about its center of mass.”

            Well, SGW, a translation is a translation. It does not involve an axis of rotation. So you only have the one axis of rotation, going through the center of mass of the ball. This is what I keep trying to explain to MikeR. Even from the Spinner perspective, the ball on a string does not have two axes of rotation. From the Non-Spinner perspective (as proven by ftop_t) the ball on a string also has only one axis of rotation, this time at the center of the revolution. It does not rotate about its own center of mass.

          • Nate says:

            Here’s DREMT:

            “The motion can either be described as:

            1. center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle and

            2. the ball is rotating on an axis centred on the center of mass.

            Or, more simply, as ftop_t has proven:

            1. A rotation of the ball around a central axis.”

            Now for some reason, when SGW says the same thing:

            “So there is your proof that the ball on a string CAN BE described as a translation plus a rotation of the ball about its center of mass.”

            SGW is wrong???

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            SGW, you are wrong because you are arguing that the ball on a string has two axes of rotation. Just thought I would clarify in case you were incapable of following the discussion. The ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, either way you describe its motion.

          • Nate says:

            DREMT takes a deep dive into a semantic rabbit hole in hopes of distracting us..

            ‘center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle’

            OK with DREMT

            ‘the ball is rotating on an axis centered on the center of mass’

            OK with DREMT.

            ‘Rotation = translating in a circle around a central axis.’

            OK with DREMT.

            All together, two axes. OK for the Earth.

            Not OK with DREMT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Another reason I stopped responding to Nate, besides his inability to follow a discussion, was his tendency for misrepresentation.

          • Nate says:

            Standard TEAM technique when caught saying something erroneous:

            Claim you’ve ‘been misrepresented’. No need to explain how.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            SGW, if there were two axes of rotation for the ball on a string, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the ball would have to be wrapping up in the string. Just like how there are two axes of rotation for the Earth, and you see all sides of the Earth from the sun.

            P.S: rotation is not “translating in a circle around a central axis”, just in case someone had confused you about that. Translation in a circle would be curvilinear translation.

          • ftop_t says:

            An excellent combination of the math and visual aspect of rotating around an external axis while also rotating around a internal axis is the carnival ride – the scrambler.

            Each arm of the scrambler creates an external axis that a group of four cars travel around. (Some versions have three cars in a group)

            It is the addition of the rotation around an internal axis to the four cars that gives it the unique motion.

            As you sit in a car, there are time during the ride when you are farthest from the external axis and closest because you are rotating around an internal axis to the other cars.

            The bar to the center is a consistent length but your distance to the center only changes because of the second axis of rotation

            Regardless of the speed of rotation of the grouping of cars, even if it is the same as the bar’s rotation around the center. A riders distance from the center will change.

            http://archives.math.utk.edu/CTM/SIXTH/McMullin-2/paper.html

            Compare that with a rotation around a central axis depicted here

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/srwgzppqte

            If you turn on the circles, you see each point of the triangle follows its own sized orbital path based on its unique distance from the external axis and it never strays from the circle as it traverses.

            The reason MikeR’s graphics are not correct is his small image of the moon and the orbiting image are from two different frame of references.

            If I stand on the side of the road as a bus drives by, I get a different experience than if I stand in front of it.

          • ftop_t says:

            To amplify on the frame of reference issue in the diagrams MikeR posted.

            The static box is a snapshot of the position of the rotating object. In a view consistent with the broad view of the entire orbital path, the snapshot would only see the object pass through once on each 360 degree orbit.

            The view provided by the small object rotating in the square would only be available if you were floating above the object and following its orbital path. While you were following the object you would have to maintain your visual point of reference in the same direction as some distant object outside of the orbital motion even as you changed direction on the orbital path.

            Think of a race car driver who regardless of where he was on the track, he would have to keep his car pointing in the same direction as it was at the starting line up.

            The wheels of the car would have to turn to follow the track while the frame of the car stayed in the same direction.

          • ftop_t says:

            Nate,

            A rotation is defined as being unique from general translations because it requires a fixed whereas general translations have no fixed point.

            If the motion of the orbiting object includes a rotation about its axis, this motion should be prevalent even if the orbital motion stopped and it could be modeled regardless of rotational speed.

            If you doubled the rotational speed of the orbiting object and stopped its translational speed along the orbital path, would its orientation to the external axis still be consistent?

            This fails because the substituting the external rotation for an internal rotation combined with an orbital path is form fitting vs. modeling the motion poorly.

            In this link, there is an option to change the rotational rate
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/srwgzppqte

            Regardless of the rotational speed, the orientation remains consistent around the external axis.

            This goes back to my comments on uniformity. The model should allow decomposition to its parts and still be consistent. Motion vectors should be additive (including rotational matrices)

            This is only achievable with a single rotation around an external axis.

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop,

            Good to see you back. I have just had a look at your first post after your absence.

            Thanks, your scrambler example is an excellent test of my software!

            The following depiction shows an orbiting object that is simultaneously rotating on its axis through the centre of mass, in both the opposite and in the same direction, at various multiples, corresponding to the different values of p in the article by Lin McMullin.

            https://i.postimg.cc/RF3YWgJS/Scrambler-Lin-Mc-Mullin.gif

            As you can see my software very closely matches the results presented in that article which is very pleasing.

            This is the same software that allowed me to simulate the Moon’s elliptical orbit and calculate a longitinal libration that matches the measured value.

            https://i.postimg.cc/FRysxn5Z/Lunar-Orbit.gif

            As you can see the only way can get any semblance of agreement is if the Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit in the same direction as it orbits.

            I hope these examples are convincing enough to change your mind regarding the Moon’s rotation. It can be hard to change one’s mind when faced with contrary evidence but as a wise man once said When facts change, I change my mind.

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop,

            Regarding your other point in your first comment after your break.

            Your point about the changing radius is valid except for one case p =1, i.e. when the rotational period matches the orbital period.

            For p = 0 (no rotation) the radius changes as the sides swap over.

            See https://i.postimg.cc/RF3YWgJS/Scrambler-Lin-Mc-Mullin.gif

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “As you can see my software very closely matches the results presented in that article which is very pleasing.”

            It doesn’t match it at all, what on Earth are you talking about!?

          • Nate says:

            “This fails because the substituting the external rotation for an internal rotation combined with an orbital path is form fitting vs. modeling the motion poorly.”

            Im not sure what this means, FTOP.

            But the point of the combination is to make it generally applicable to orbits other than circular, eg elliptical, with internal rotations around tilted axes.

            Thus astronomy uses the combined internal rotation plus orbital path model to describe the Moon’s motion.

            Make sense to you?

          • Nate says:

            “P.S: rotation is not ‘translating in a circle around a central axis’, just in case someone had confused you about that. Translation in a circle would be curvilinear translation.”

            And DREMT continues his erroneous ways. We’re talking about a POINT (CM) moving in a circle around another point. How is that not a rotation???!!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I take it back, I see it now. It was the red and blue mixed together that confused me. I needed to focus on the shapes made by just the red or the blue. Yes, it matches fine.

            The mistake being made is the same as always, McMullin is not correctly separating the axial rotation from the orbital motion.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Going back to what we were discussing previously, I hope people can see the sleight of hand that is going on, regarding the ball on a string. This is what they do:

            1) In general plane motion, you decompose a motion into a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation of the object about that center of mass.
            2) So for the ball on a string, they argue the center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the ball is then rotating about that center of mass.
            3) Then they claim that since the translation of the center of mass is in a circle, it is actually a rotation about an axis at the center of revolution.
            4) Hey presto! Suddenly the ball on a string has two axes of rotation!

            No. A translation is a translation. It involves no axis of rotation. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string, even if you do look at it as a general plane motion.

            A ball on a string is more simply and accurately described as a case of pure rotation about an axis in the center of revolution, with no rotation about the balls own center of mass. One single motion.

            Either way, the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. If it had two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the string would have to be wrapping around the ball.

          • ftop_t says:

            @MikeR

            As I mentioned earlier, the frame of reference in your small box is non-physical. There is no view of that motion that would appear in a static window.

            You would have to display the box following the object above it in an orbital path to accurately model the motion.

            I love your model structurally, but you need to provide options for decomposition.

            You should have a counter for:

            # of orbits
            # of internal axis rotations

            That way, you can set the axis rotations and orbits independently since they are two distinct motions

            In the scrambler ride, the operator could turn on the rotation of the cars without turning on the center rotation of the ride. Now the cars are rotating about an internal axis. He could also turn on the center rotation and keep the cars static.

            If you revise your model to allow initiative of the independent motions (internal rotation & external rotation) it would allow you to decompose the separate motions.

            By keeping the orbit at zero and rotating the external object, you would draw a circle representing the rotation of the object about its axis. If you set the orbit to 1 and the internal axis rotation to zero, you create the internal two circles showing the inside and outside of the orbital path.

            As your model is currently, you can’t decompose the motions.

          • ftop_t says:

            DREMT,

            Yup.

            Think about a roulette wheel. At the end of a spin the ball is sitting in a slot with no rotation inside the number only the wheel is spinning.

            You could argue that the ball got there by accelerating on an orbital path from the previous number to the current number and draw that translation as an arc; but that is not how the ball got there. Is it equivalent to dropping the ball watching it bounce a random number of times and end up in a slot?

            Similarly, you could argue that the ball walked to the middle of the wheel, chose an angle, and walked back out to the new number. Again, this is not physical, but is it equivalent?

            The idea that you can ignore the rotation around an external axis, describe orbital motion as two linear translation vectors and an internal rotation is a mathematical equivalent to the final positioning, but its decomposition is not uniform to the physical motion you are modeling.

          • ftop_t says:

            @Nate,

            “This fails because the substituting the external rotation for an internal rotation combined with an orbital path is form fitting vs. modeling the motion poorly.

            Im not sure what this means, FTOP.”

            Just a typo, apologies.

            Should read “modeling the motion properly”

          • Nate says:

            Ftop, point is, your external rotation model is not correct for the Moon for the Moon for the reasons stated. Yes or no?

          • Nate says:

            “1) In general plane motion, you decompose a motion into a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation of the object about that center of mass.
            2) So for the ball on a string, they argue the center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the ball is then rotating about that center of mass.”

            Yes, and this is the KEY point. Once you accept that then you should un

            “3) Then they claim that since the translation of the center of mass is in a circle, it is actually a rotation about an axis at the center of revolution.
            4) Hey presto! Suddenly the ball on a string has two axes of rotation!”

            Well yes, but this is a side issue, and just semantics.
            An object following an orbital path without internal rotation also has orbital angular momentum.

          • Nate says:

            ..should understand why Astronomy uses this combination model, which applies to elliptical orbits and accounts for tilted internal rotational axes, like the Moon’s.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            ftop_t, I don’t think they’re ever going to get it. Until they start acknowledging that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, and not two, there is not going to be any progress.

          • Nate says:

            calling ftop…

          • Nate says:

            Ftop seems unwilling to answer.

            Another point you made

            “there is an option to change the rotational rate
            https://www.desmos.com/calculato

            Regardless of the rotational speed, the orientation remains consistent around the external axis.”

            Of course we know that the Moon doesnt behave that way. Its orientation doesnt pointt consistently to the external axix. It wobbles quite a lot, due to its noncircular orbit, and tilted rotional axis.

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop,

            I gather from your comment , that before you are happy to accept the results of my depictions, you want my software to be able to vary the two rotation rates independently.

            This is clearly pointless as the results only depend on the parameter p which is the ratio of the rotation rate to the orbital rate ( using celestial mechanics nomenclature). If Ftop you insist on a demonstration, I can do this, by doubling , or halving both rotations simultaneously, but it is clearly a waste of time.

            However If you have the time to waste, I strongly suggest you do this yourself.

            On that note have you, followed my suggestion and tried learning to code? Lin McMullin’s article even includes code that can be run on a graphical calculator. Do you, or perhaps a member or your family, own a TI-85 calculator or similar, the type that was extremely popular in schools a decade or so ago? If not, you can get them on Ebay for about $10.

            The other aspect of your comment is that, perhaps you have now decided that the McMullin analysis that uses two independent rotational motions is incorrect. In that case you have joined the “eccentrics” (being ironically* polite here ) that believe the astronomical and physics communities, since the time of Newton, has been grossly incorrect about their understanding of the Moon’s motion.

            If indeed that is the case, then you should definitely extend your capabilities and program that calculator to graphically depiction libration for an elliptical orbit with and without the Moon rotating on its axis.

            Publish this and possibly fame and fame and fortune awaits . You may end up on the dais in Stockholm one day. Maybe a Fields medal as well.

            The burning of Newton’s Principa and all the astronomical textbooks will then follow in due course. As auto-de-fes have gone out of fashion, due to excessive greenhouse emissions, rotating heretics will be terminated with extreme prejudice, by some other means. I am not sure how censorship will work with the Internet , but A.I. could be used to simply add “non” to every mention of the word “rotation”.

            Finally I must apologise to Ftop for the latter light hearted tongue in cheek, comments that might cause offense. At least Ftop has made a brave attempt to employ a small modicum of mathematical analysis, unlike the rest of the arm chair eccentrics.

            For this he deserves credit and if he is capable of changing his mind then he will be deserve even more credit.

            * ironic, as the “eccentrics” fly off on tangents at the mere mention of elliptical orbits.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Lets see…how can we get this message across…

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/srwgzppqte

            Next to the number 21, is a slider. Move the slider and watch the triangle rotate about an external axis in the center of the screen. This is one single motion. The triangle is not rotating about its own center of mass, it is rotating about the external axis in the center of the screen. There is only one axis of rotation.

            Understand?

          • ftop_t says:

            @Nate,

            You asked for my POV on this comment
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-569406

            The items you mentioned include:

            Tilted axis
            Elliptic vs circular orbits

            In regards to tilted axis, from my perspective, this point is moot. If you ignore the perspective of the earth, the moon’s orbit can be referenced as planar. Replace the earth with a dot to remove any bias from the earths tilt and the moon follows a 2D planar elliptical orbit.

            In regards to Elliptic vs. circular orbits. All circles are ellipses, as a circle is just an ellipse where both foci are at the center and can be algebraically reduced to x(2) + y(2) = 1

            Because of the significant mass of the moon vs a satellite like the space station, the elliptical center is not at the center of the earth.

            The fact that the moon stays oriented along its orbital path with the same side facing the direction of its orbit is consistent with a rotation around a center and not a rotation about its axis. Because the orbital path is not uniform and the earth is not at the center. Our viewing angle changes like a car going into turn one shows more of the rear of the car to someone in pit row.

            It is understood that the moon accelerates and slows at different points in its orbital path.

            Is it your contention that the rotation of the moon changes speeds? Do you think it is possible for a rotating object to slow down and then speed up consistently at just the right time? Is it coincidence?

          • ftop_t says:

            @MikeR says,

            “This is clearly pointless as the results only depend on the parameter p which is the ratio of the rotation rate to the orbital rate ( using celestial mechanics nomenclature). If Ftop you insist on a demonstration, I can do this, by doubling , or halving both rotations simultaneously, but it is clearly a waste of time.”

            The purpose is to be able to isolate the motions and run them independently. Typically, in science, you want to isolate a variable and not have two variables intertwined.

            For examples, if I put four (4) chemicals in a mixture at once, I don’t know which one is the reactant. Changing the amount of each by 1/2 and still pouring them all in at once doesn’t lead to discovery.

            My preference would be to:

            Hold the orbital rotation at 0
            Set the rotation about its axis for the object to:
            Value = 1, Run Test
            Value = 2. Run Test
            Value = 3, Run Test
            Value = 4, Run Test

            Set the orbital rotation to 1
            Set the rotation about its axis for the object to:
            Value = 1, Run Test
            Value = 2. Run Test
            Value = 3, Run Test
            Value = 4, Run Test

            Compare results from each orbital rotation

          • MikeR says:

            Hi Ftop,

            I hope you would be able to try your hand programming so you could get an immediate answer for yourself, rather than waiting for myself to get around to providing the answer.

            Anyway as requested, for a range of speeds for axial rotations and orbital speeds –

            https://i.postimg.cc/yNW8kXvv/Circular-Orbits-Varying-Orbital-Speed.gif

            It is obvious, from the above, that just the value of p dictates the curves. For the rotational speed of zero all the curves for different orbital speeds were identical as p = 0 for all cases.

            For a rotational speed of one the curves change as expected for p=1 (orbital locking) , p =1/2, p=1/3 and p =1/4.

            In the end the exercise was a bit of a waste of time other than just seeing what the curves looked like for p<1.

            Ftop,if you still haven't changed your mind about the Moon's rotation then you need to address the elliptical orbit plus obliquity issues that Nate raises. Both of these issues have caused untold grief to the non rotators.

            Accordingly I can, upon request, post depictions for elliptical orbits for the above cases, if this is any help moving from grieving denial to acceptance.

          • ftop_t says:

            @MikeR

            I work in the cyber-security industry and have both a computer science & math degree.

            I moved into sales growth many years ago which is very lucrative. With the SolarWinds challenges, it has been an amazing financial windfall over the last two weeks.

            I work full-time and this site is a passing hobby.

            In this note, I want to specifically address the concept of axis rotation (internal and external) leaving @Nate questions about the moon to a different reply.

            My contention is that there are unique ways to model these actions and the behavior is different for:

            Rotation around an internal axis
            Rotation around an external axis
            Rotation around both an internal and an external axis

            Motion (rotational) can be modeled mathematically. To that end the link below provides a graphics calculator that has options to initiate each of those motions.

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/btcyls4vi6

            Click on “Rotating on Axis” to see the object rotate in a fixed position

            Click on “Orbiting Figure” to see the object rotate around an external axis (the origin 0,0)

            Click on “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting” to see the object rotate on its axis while orbiting around an external axis.

            If both rotations are active, different sides of the triangle point at the origin

          • ftop_t says:

            Adding a little more features to this graphic calculator view:

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5

            I have two separate rotational values

            r = rotation speed around the origin
            s = rotation speed around the internal axis

            With these separate values. Anyone can to go to line 29 and alter the rotation speed of the internal axis.

            Initially, s = r since the counter argument is that the rotation around the external axis and the rotation of the internal axis are synchronized. As demonstrated above, all points of the triangle would point inward at some distance on the orbit

            Setting s = 0, the orbiting triangle keeps the same point facing the origin (my argument that the object has one rotation around an external axis

            Setting s = -r, the orbiting triangle has to rotate at a negative rate equal to the orbital rate to keep the same point of the triangle on the top

            Setting s = 365r would model the earth rotating around the sun. Don’t get dizzy.

            If I have time later, I’ll equate this back to the scrambler ride mentioned earlier.

          • Ball4 says:

            ftop_t, your link is way, way too complicated. For an arbitrary mass in circular orbit about Earth, better to first: click on the 3 bars top left. Then click on: new blank graph. Then click on: Trigonometry: Unit Circle, open graph and click arrow to start a=30 moving about on the circular orbit.

            THAT is the correct desmos graph for any circular motion of an Earth’s moon mass (black non-zero radius dot) rotating once on its own internal axis (as shown by the line connecting to the origin) per orbit while orbiting center mass on the external axis through 0,0.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • ftop_t says:

            @Ball4

            Geometry is challenging so there is an inherent complexity.

            If you don’t build a model that allows the rotations to be managed independently, then the internal axis existence/movement is conjecture.

            After having modeled rotational motion mathematically using the rotational matrix, the definition of a rotation can be validated easily

            “A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or “spin”. The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation

            The argument that there is an external AND an internal axis of rotation when the same side faces an external axis of rotation can be proven false mathematically.

            The desmos equations in the model has several unique values that allow the falsification of the assertion that there are two axis of rotation active for an orbit where one side always faces inward.

            r = rotational orbit in degrees
            s = internal axis rotation in degrees
            Point (o,p) is a fixed internal axis
            Point (u,w) is the orbiting axis that models (o,p) as it moves

            This creates some easily verifiable proofs:

            Proof 1
            There is no value for (r = s) where the same point of the triangle points inward. This would have to be true for synchronous orbit = internal axis rotation rate

            Proof 2
            Point (o,p) is meaningful for a rotation around its axis and meaningless for a rotation around an external axis
            The desmos tool allows you to drag points on the graph. For the orbiting object, you can move the fixed axis anywhere either within or outside of the object and there is no effect on the orbital motion. If you move the internal axis up close to a point (still inside the triangle) the internal axis rotation changes, but the orbit is the same.

            Example: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/4jdqpqr7zu

            Further, if you move the internal axis outside of the figure, the axis trails the object around its orbit, but the object rotating around a fixed axis begins to “orbit” like the object orbits around the origin

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/nk24aa7zov

            Thus, an object orbiting around an external axis of rotation has no internally defined axis and each part of the object rotates similarly to the external point based on its radian to the point of rotation

            In this view, I have moved the internal axis to another quadrant and it simply trails/leads the object around its orbital path

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/uzw6fwjpsc

            If there is no value where r=s that exhibits the behavior of a common face pointing to the center of rotation and the internal axis location is moot; the object rotating with the same face pointing to an external axis of rotation is not rotating on an internal axis.

            Revisiting the scrambler ride,

            This view shows two ways the ride could be operated.

            If you turn on the axis the cars are connected to, a person sitting on the points away from the fixed point of rotation would feel the rotational motion as their inertial force tries to launch them at a tangent line to the circle of rotation.

            Whereas if they were sitting on the fixed access they would only feel a spinning motion like an ice skater.

            If the operator turned on the external axis, the person sitting on the fixed axis would now feel the rotational motion like the points away from the fixed axis.

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/icnb0egsru

            If the operator turns on both motions, an interesting experience happens. riders who are sitting at points away from the internal axis of rotation experience varying speeds.

            Faster motion as the internal axis sits between their seat and the axis of rotation at the origin, and slower motion when their seat is between the two axis of rotation

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bezpkapb3t

            This is because vectors are additive and there are points in the ride where the direction of the internal axis rotation and external axis rotation have the same sign (faster motion) and points where they are opposing (slower motion). This gives the scrambler ride its unique acceleration characteristics.

            If an orbiting object (like the moon) had two active rotations (internal and external), there would be times during the orbit where a point on the surface would experience this similar vector calculations.

          • Ball4 says:

            ftop_t, your “proof” 1 is definitely faulty because I have already shown the desmos steps 4:06pm that there does exist an r=s where the same point of the non-zero radius black ball (and for any arbitrary non-zero radius object) points inward for the entire orbit. That means for my demo. r=s so I have shown & proven it true with desmos synchronous orbit = internal axis rate.

            The black ball is rotating with the same face pointing to an external axis of rotation for the entire orbit by the brown line showing black ball rotating once per orbit on an internal axis. This simple baked-in, basic, easily understood demonstration also shows ftop_t “proof” 2 is faulty.

            The scrambler ride discussion is irrelevant to the moon motion. Have fun with that; it doesn’t help the 2 ftop_t faulty “proofs”.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • ftop_t says:

            @Ball4

            Post the link.

            Or is that too “complex” for you?

            The reality is your vague directions without a link only contains one (1) rotational axis at the origin and the other is imaginary.

            One (1) does not equal two (2)

            That is not a response to my Proof #1 – it is sophistry

            Post a link with two (2) axis that can be managed through the equations or do not claim there are two (2) axis.

            I understand geometry is complex, but counting from one (1) to two (2) should be approachable for you.

            Good luck!!

          • Ball4 says:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-575922

            That should have not been too complex for ftop_t to find. There are two nonimaginary axes of rotation demonstrated- commonly called two degrees of freedom showing r=s. The program manages the eqn.s of motion as they are so basic that they are built in.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop,

            I am very pleased to see you return and also pleased for your good fortune.

            I assume you are still pursuing the idea that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. Unfortunately your attempts at modelling rotation are undermining your case.

            Firstly your rotating triangle provided some further inspiration and I have modified my previous depiction to allow the rotation around the centre of mass of the triangle ( i.e. spin for a rigid body) to be independent of the the rate of rotation of the centre of mass around the origin (i.e. revolution).

            Here is my new depiction.

            https://i.postimg.cc/j5pDWgDK/Triangle-Rotation-General.gif

            In this depiction, the rate of rotation per revolution ( p ) is adjusted over a range of from p = -2 to p = +2. For the non rotating case (p =0) the centre of the revolution at the origin sees all sides of the triangle as it orbits. For the other cases likewise, except of course, for p =1 where the triangle’s orientation with respect to the centre of revolution is fixed.

            The analogy with the Moon’s motion should be obvious.

            I did indicate earlier that the other fatal flaw in the non rotating hypothesis involves elliptical orbits and the corresponding total inability for thus hypothesis to account for longitudinal libration. This is where depictions of elliptical orbits can be useful as an aid to understanding.

            Here is a depiction that clearly illustrates libration for an ellipse of large eccentricity ( e = 0.6 ) and for an eccentricity appropriate for the Moon’s actual orbit ( e =0.0549).

            https://i.postimg.cc/L6Bc9406/Lesson-1-A-Elliptical-Orbit.gif

            https://i.postimg.cc/g2zfn9fy/Lesson-2-A-Moon-Orbit.gif

            For a non rotating moon we get this depiction

            https://i.postimg.cc/0yWN667H/No-Rotation-Ellipse-Eccentricity-0.gif

            Again, I don’t think I need to provide additional commentary as it should be patently obvious that the non-rotating Moon shows all sides to the Earth as it completes an orbit.

            By the way the site that you have been extensively employing is excellent and has some rudimentary programming facilities.

            I have not had a good look at it but it may be possible to duplicate elliptical orbits that also allow a rotation rate that varies* with the polar angle of the centre of mass of the triangle w.r.t to the origin. The difference in angle between a line drawn from the focus of the ellipse to the centre of mass and a line drawn from the origin to the centre of mass gives the longitudinal libration angle. I hope you can program this accordingly so that we can reach some agreement.

            Finally to hopefully make the case convincing that the non-rotating hypothesis is terminally ill, here are some additional comments in reply to the chief protagonist for the non -rotators.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-563368

            * see Kepler’s 2nd law for orbital motion.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR goes for the “completely ignore every single word ftop_t said” option.

          • ftop_t says:

            @MikeR

            I have purposely avoided the specifics about the moon in this thread. My intention is to resolve the mathematical issues in this thread and then turn to the unique issues about the moon under this comment

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-570411

            In that thread, I will address:
            Libration
            Elliptical Orbiting
            Barycenter
            Cassini Laws
            Axial tilt
            Orbital elements
            Nomenclature
            Equivalence

            Here I want to specifically focus on the mathematics of rotation (both orbital and axial) as a baseline before transitioning to unique observational elements of the moon that obfuscate the unsettled math.

            This link provides a model that should be simple enough for everyone (although I shudder at that assumption):

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hlapebzffp

            The tool is designed with folders so elements can be turned on and off to demonstrate motions. If someone can click on the circles in the box to the left, they should be able to follow along.

            For each iteration, someone can turn all the features off or simply reload the link.

            1st Concept – Rotation around a fixed axis
            Click on “Original Triangle” (you should see a triangle with the long side facing the origin 0,0)

            Click on “Axis of Rotation” (You should see three labeled dots 1) the origin 2) Fixed Axis 3) Orbiting Axis (based on fixed))

            This only represents two axis of rotation, the origin and the center of the triangle, but since the triangle is going to orbit, a movable axis is necessary.

            Click on “Rotating on Axis” (you should see red lines appear from the triangle to the origin. These represent the radius from each point to the origin)

            Now go to the top left and click on -> (arrow) next to degree of rotation to start the motion.

            In rotations, the distance from any point to the center of rotation stays constant, (think of grooves on a record player) but the distance to a point outside of the rotational field will change during the rotation (think of kids on a merry-go-round – sometimes they are near you and sometimes farther away as you stand beside the ride)

            The red lines are changing length relative to the origin because the origin is external to the rotation

            Now,

            Click on “Rotating on Axis” to turn off the fixed rotation
            Click on “Orbiting Figure”

            Notice the green lines to the origin stay constant. This is because every point on the triangle is within the rotational field and it stays exactly the same distance from the center of rotation.

            This is one rotation around a fixed point (the origin)

            Now, click on “Orbiting Figure” to turn off that element
            Click on “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting”

            This element is rotating on its own axis and orbiting a center point – the origin.

            Because the internal axis rotation is external to the orbit, the green lines change length for the internal rotation and cross over each other for the external point.

            This is an example of an axial rotation and an orbital rotation.

            Now click everything off accept the degree counter.

            I added two options at the bottom for “Viewing Box”. I was going to try to explain to you why your GIFs are incorrect, but without the visual support I don’t think you would understand.

            What you are representing with this general view is flawed because the view does not exist that you are depicting.

            Click on “Viewing Box”

            A blue box will appear
            Now click on “Orbiting Figure”
            The view you are representing in the box only exists when the object is in that position of the orbit

            Now click on “Viewing Box” to remove the static box
            Now click on “Viewing Box in Motion”
            Now the blue box will follow the orbiting triangle WITH NO INTERNAL AXIAL ROTATION around the orbit

            In order to make the blue box follow the object, you have to set the rotation “t” to t = -r.

            In other words, the box is rotating in the opposition direction to the orbit at the same rotational speed. This gives the illusion that the object is rotating because the box is rotating backwards to maintain the frame of reference.

            You can click on the arrow beside “Rotating Degrees” to see that t= -r.

            Conclusion
            For an object rotating on an internal axis the radius from any point to the center of rotation remains constant
            For an object rotating around an external axis, the radius from any point to the center of rotation remains constant
            For an object rotating around an internal axis, the distance to an external point varies for any point on the object

            Thus, if there is an internal and an external axis of rotation, the distance from any point on the object to the external axis of rotation must vary.

            If the distance varies, all sides of the object will face the external center of rotation at some point regardless of axial rotation speed or orbital speed.

            Therefore, an object with both an internal and external axis of rotation will not keep the same side facing the external axis.

            Again, issues about the moon will be addressed separately.

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop,

            As a skeptic I don’t tend to trust the work of others and like to do the work myself. It does help in my understanding.

            I have had a very cursory look at your work.

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5

            Your model is overly complex and I am not sure exactly what, if anything, is wrong with it.

            However I am puzzled by the fact that when you simply do, as you suggest, a rotation on an internal fixed axis, the shape of the triangle changes. This looks horribly wrong as my understanding is the triangle (like the Moon) is supposed to be a rigid object and is invariant to rotation.

            Maybe I am misconstruing something? Ftop can you please clarify.

          • MikeR says:

            I can see from the latest example from FTOP ,

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hlapebzffp

            that the triangle rotating about a fixed axis appears to be not rotating around an axis normal to the plane or parallel to the plane but at some angle, maybe 45 degrees?

            Why? Is this an attempt to tackle the problem in 3D or is there something wrong with yor code?

            With regard to the rest where you claim that motion with respect to the centre of mass cannot be separated out, seems to me to be a garbled mess. Similarly for your model and the viewing box, it is very unclear to me how you are arriving at your conclusions.

            Perhaps its not you, rather it could be just my inability to grasp exactly what you are trying to convey (maybe your anticipatory shuddering is reasonable). However, is anyone else able to follow Ftop’s explanations?

            Sorry to be a bit dubious about your work but this is actually fairly basic physics which doesn’t need elaborate models. Here is a similar problem from an introductory physics book for parabolic motion that illustrates motion about the centre of mass.

            https://postimg.cc/xkg4zgr9

            Here is another example where this type of analysis is employed.

            https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/week-12-rotations-and-translation-rolling/35.2-rolling-wheel-in-the-center-of-mass-frame/

            p.s. you might find it much easier to stick to 2D which I think the App is designed for. The cycloid option would be the easiest to modify, so rather than rolling back and forth horizontally, the wheel could rotate about a second axis.

            Also here is a slight modification to my depiction which includes a viewing box that moves with the centre of mass.

            https://i.postimg.cc/bYLRwv23/Triangle-Rotation-CM.gif

          • MikeR says:

            Just had another look at Ftop’s calculations. It turns out the change in shape of the triangle as it rotated was simply due to the difference in scaling in the horizontal and vertical directions when viewing the depictions on a phone.

            When viewed on a PC, the scales in the horizontal and vertical are identical and the triangle’s shape does not change as it rotates. Sorry my bad.

            Ftop’s last depiction above looks correct except for a couple of things.

            1. the centre of the moving viewing box follows the triangle for t = r not t = -r. This is to be expected as the centre needs to rotate in the same direction and at the same angular speed as the triangle.

            2. The moving viewing box also rotates as it follows the triangle so , in this case, relative to this box, the triangle is not rotating. This is different to my depiction where the orientation of the the moving viewing box is fixed.

            This latter point is the crucial fundamental point that explains the difference between the lunar rotators and the lunar non-rotators.

            For Ftop’s depiction the rotating viewing box is an accelerating non-inertial reference frame.

            In contrast for my depiction, the fixed orientation viewing box is an inertial reference frame that corresponds,in astronomical terms, to directions N,S,W,E (i.e. N and S defined by the celestial poles at +90 degrees and at -90 degrees respectively in Declination and E and W defined by 0 and 180 degrees Right Ascension).

            Alternatively, with reference to the viewing screen of the device , the directions corresponds to the fixed top, bottom and left and right of the screen.

            In either astronomical and screen coordinates, Ftop’s viewing box rotates as if follows the triangle, while mine in the previous comment maintains its fixed orientation as it follows the triangle.

            I highly recommend Ftop reads the relevant WIKIs about inertial and non-inertial frames and why the former is nearly always preferred by physicists and astronomers to describe celestial mechanics,

            This Wiki should explain the reasons for the preference –
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

            Finally I must say that Ftop has done an excellent job programming up his demonstration. I just wish the other adherents to the non-rotating thesis had even 1 percent of his competence. In that case these interminable discussions could have been terminated quickly and amicably, and the discussions here wouldn’t be dominated by this largely irrelevant content.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “The argument that there is an external AND an internal axis of rotation when the same side faces an external axis of rotation can be proven false mathematically.”

            And you have done so, many times over now. Well done, ftop_t.

          • ftop_t says:

            @MikeR

            You are so close to understanding, so I am not going to give up on you. You are almost there…

            I want to focus on the MIT video you posted because it will help you understand what is happening

            In this comment, I describe near the bottom, the addition of vectors for the scrambler:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-576334

            Although I think you understand, I want to be explicit. In a coordinate plane there are four quadrants (x is +, y is +), (x is +, y is -), (x is -, y is -), (x is -, y is +)

            This is important when you add vectors for motion.

            In the video, the professor shows two motions,
            Linear motion (let’s call it moving to the right so x is + and y is a constant) of the center of mass of the wheel’s axle

            Rotational motion of a point on the wheel (this is important because the point is moving through the four quadrants referenced above). Relative to the wheel’s center of mass, sometimes a point on the wheel is moving in the + direction relative to the axle, and other times it is moving in a negative direction.

            Let’s assume the axle is at the origin (0,0). When the point is directly in front of the axle (let’s say the point is at x=2 y=0), its motion relative to the axle becomes negative.

            We now have a wheel wit
            Radius of 2
            Circumference of 4(pi)

            Thus, the rotational vector and the linear vector have different signs. If you stand facing the wheel at the point (x=2, y=0) with the point directly in front of you, as the wheel moves 90 degrees, the axle is now at x=3.14, y=0 but the point that was in front of you is at x=3.14 y=-2

            The axle has moved forward 3.14, but the point on the wheel has only moved forward 1.14 (calculated by 3.14-2). The center of the wheel moved further than the point in front of the wheel because the x value for the point was rotating in a negative direction relative to the quadrants.

            Conversely, the point at (x=-2, y=0) is moving to 3.14,2 so it has moved 5.14 while the axle has moved 1.14.

            Note: after a 90 degree rotation, all three dots are in a vertical line at x =3.14

            These calculations are for vector addition of a linear motion and a rotational motion.

            Now, replace the linear motion with another rotational motion, you have four (4) quadrants for each rotational motion causing situations where a point is accelerating dramatically when both rotational vectors are entering the (+,+) quadrant and almost appear to be standing still when the signs oppose.

            In the model, the green lines of the orbiting object show a single rotation vector. The purple lines show a combination of two rotational vectors which causes the shortening and lengthening as signs change based on the quadrant a triangle point is moving into.

            I will post another comment on the t=-r point because you are not looking at the right value.

          • ftop_t says:

            As I mentioned, I am going to get to the moon in another thread, @MikeR.

            In the comment above I resolved the issue of vector addition and why the views in the model are different based on number of axis of rotations.

            There are three rotational values:

            r = rotation in degrees about the origin
            s = rotation in degrees about the center of the triangle

            And then there is “t”. I created this especially for you @MikeR so you could understand why the box in your model is non-physical to the problem.

            “t” = the rotation of the box, like “s” is the rotation of the triangle

            In this view, I have expanded the folder for rotational degrees to you can see these three values:

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/n8rf7zsosa

            Focusing on the rotational motions:

            Zero rotational motions:
            Click “Original Triangle”
            This is a view with zero rotations. The triangle is static
            Click “Original Triangle” to remove it from view

            One(1) rotational motion
            Click “Rotating on Axis”
            This is a view of the triangle remaining in place and rotating around its own internal axis
            Click on “Viewing Box”
            You should see the triangle rotating in the box
            Click “Rotating on Axis” to remove it from view

            One (1) rotational motion
            Leave the “Viewing Box” showing
            Click “Orbiting Figure”
            This is a view of one rotational motion around the origin

            Note: the view box only sees the object when it passes through. Your small window in the software incorrectly assumes you can see the object in this view constantly. That is not true in the physical world. Imagine you are at a car race on a bridge over the track. When you look down, you can only see the car every time it passes under you.

            Click “Orbiting Figure” to remove it

            Two (2) rotational motions
            Leave the “Viewing Box” showing
            Click “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting”
            This is a view of two (2) rotational motions. (1 about an internal axis and 1 about the origin)

            Note: again the view box would see the object only when it passes through. If it was a bridge looking down on the track, you would see the car spin out (internal axis rotation) as it flew by (external axis rotation) on the track.

            Again, I built the View Boxes specifically so you would understand the flaws in your model

            The degree of rotation “t” is for the Viewing Window which right now is set to -r which means it is rotating opposite the rotation around the origin

            Let’s go to the moving window
            Click “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting” to remove
            Click “Moving Box in Motion”

            The view box is moving around the origin in the opposite direction to the orbital motion (r) around the origin.

            This represents the box in your model.

            If I add a figure with one (1) rotation into the viewing box
            Click on “Orbiting figure”
            Because the view box is rotating on its own axis opposite the origin rotation, it looks like the object is rotating inside the window, but the object is rotating around the axis only and it is not rotating within the box, rather it is the box that is rotating around the object at -r

            If you set the rotation t = 0, now the box is not rotating on its own axis and the view is consistent. Neither the box or the triangle are rotating on their own axis.

            If you leave t=0, and…
            Click “Orbiting Figure” to remove
            Click “Rotating on Axis and Orbiting” now the View Box is rotating around the axis and the triangle is rotating on its own axis in the view window which is why you see the triangle rotating in the box

            Conclusion
            Vector addition for motion is sign dependent
            Because rotational motion passes through four quadrants, the combination of two rotational motions creates multiple instances where signs are opposing
            Because of the laws of vector addition, with an internal axis of rotation and an external axis of rotation, velocities for a point on the rotating object will vary (the purple lines crossing) resulting in all sides of the external object facing the external axis at some point in time.

            This is immutable. Thus, there is no rotational rates for r (an external rotational axis) and s (an internal rotational axis) that when combined would allow the same side of the rotating object to point to the external axis of rotation.

            “s” must be set to zero for this to occur; thus the orbiting object is not rotating.

          • ftop_t says:

            @MikeR

            Apologies, please use this link where everything is set back to the starting values:

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9jlsqfrtzl

            Also, in the preceding comment this reads:

            “Conversely, the point at (x=-2, y=0) is moving to 3.14,2 so it has moved 5.14 while the axle has moved 1.14.”

            And should read:

            “Conversely, the point at (x=-2, y=0) is moving to 3.14,2 so it has moved 5.14 while the axle has moved 3.14.”

          • Ball4 says:

            “This is immutable. Thus, there is no rotational rates for r (an external rotational axis) and s (an internal rotational axis) that when combined would allow the same side of the rotating object to point to the external axis of rotation.”

            Actually, ftop_t, it is mutable. There exist rotational rates for r (an external rotational axis) and s (an internal rotational axis) that, when combined, would allow the same side of the arbitrary massive non-zero radius rotating object to point to the external axis of rotation as I’ve demonstrated using the simple, easily understood, basic desmos program steps at 3:03pm in an inertial frame which views the entire race track.

            MikeR points out ftop_t is erroneously programing non-inertial frames at times & not compensating for them. ftop_t comments based on partial views are not helpful & I am sure MikeR can determine where ftop_t makes errors of omission or commission.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #4

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • ftop_t says:

            The last comment I want to make on this mathematical portion before I turn my barrels on the moon is two-fold:

            1) Mathematical proof
            The links I have published are leveraging a graphics calculator.
            All formulas and variables are defined and accessible
            If there are questions on the values or formulas, I am happy to answer them.
            That said, mathematically, when there are two axis of rotation (internal and external to an object) given no limit on time and number of rotations, all faces of the object must point to the external axis of rotation at some point in time.
            The only way to disprove this is to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero (which would mean only one (1) rotation) where the same side of the object points to the external axis of rotation.

            2) Inertial Frame of Reference
            I will paste a quote from above from @MikeR, but this is serving as obfuscation vs. bringing clarity.

            I specifically added the static and moving “View Box”s because I anticipated this issue.

            The box depicted in this GIF is not an inertial frame of reference FOR THE SYSTEM.

            First, @MikeR (see quote below) describes it as a “fixed orientation viewing box”. This is not the case. I created a fixed Viewing Box to show that the object would only pass through it once per orbit.

            It is actually a view that places the external rotating object at the center of the universe implicitly suggesting that all other parts of the system revolve around it. This can be easily understood by looking at this view for what is missing
            https://i.postimg.cc/bYLRwv23/Triangle-Rotation-CM.gif

            The red line in the large frame is the radian to the external axis of rotation

            There is no red line in the smaller window. If you add the redline to the smaller window, it becomes clear the external center of axis is rotating around the viewing box (although it is out of view) vs. the other way around.

            For consistency in this exercise, the inertial frame needs to encompass the entire system AND the origin needs to be static. For example, if a police car is driving beside me at 60 MPH, I am traveling at (0) relative to the policeman’s inertial frame if I define it as the interior of his car. If we pass each other in opposite directions, I am going 120MPH to the policeman’s inertial frame. I sure don’t want a ticket, but relative to a larger inertial frame, we are both going 60MPH.

            The only way @MikeR’s View Box makes sense is if one states, while I am flying above an object at the same orbital rate of speed, but I am constantly correcting my orientation to a remote, distant point, and the external axis that I am rotating around at the center is actually orbiting around me, then yes, the object below me (which is not rotating on its own axis within the system frame of reference) is rotating on its axis underneath me.

            If that is how we are defining the system, then the sun can even rotate around the earth by choosing a specific small enough inertial frame of reference.

            There are many valid reasons why physicists and astronomers use orbital parameters, which is why I deferred those topics until the mathematical proof was completed and agreed upon.

            @MikeR says,
            “In contrast for my depiction, the fixed orientation viewing box is an inertial reference frame that corresponds,in astronomical terms, to directions N,S,W,E (i.e. N and S defined by the celestial poles at +90 degrees and at -90 degrees respectively in Declination and E and W defined by 0 and 180 degrees Right Ascension).

            Alternatively, with reference to the viewing screen of the device , the directions corresponds to the fixed top, bottom and left and right of the screen.

            In either astronomical and screen coordinates, Ftops viewing box rotates as if follows the triangle, while mine in the previous comment maintains its fixed orientation as it follows the triangle.

            I highly recommend Ftop reads the relevant WIKIs about inertial and non-inertial frames and why the former is nearly always preferred by physicists and astronomers to describe celestial mechanics,

            This Wiki should explain the reasons for the preference
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

          • ftop_t says:

            @Ball4

            Here is a “link” to your comment:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-575922

            You can tell it is a link because, wait for it, you can “click” on it.

            You know what your comment does not have in it, I’ll give you a minute to think… “a link”

            You know why, because there is NOTHING TO CLICK ON!!

            In the top right of Desmos, there is a button to “Share Graph”

            It creates a…wait for it, “link”

            You will notice links start with “http” in the
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ytyuhhiaro

            Either you are ignorant to the term or you are incapable of this simple feat. Either way, it makes me extremely suspect of your ability to create a rotational formula that includes two (2) axis of rotation like this:

            cos(s)((cos(r)(a)+(b)sin(r))-u)+((sin(r)(a)+cos(r)(b))-v)sin(s)+u

            If you claim you have posted a “link” again in this thread after having been educated on what a “link” is, I am going to assume you are disingenuous and treat you accordingly.

          • Ball4 says:

            “The only way to disprove this is to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero (which would mean only one (1) rotation) where the same side of the object points to the external axis of rotation.”

            It is easy to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero (which would mean only one (1) rotation per orbit of the orbiting arbitrary non-zero radius object) where the same side of the object points to the external axis of rotation for every orbit. I demonstrated that with desmos steps at 3:03pm. Thus it was easy to disprove “this” meaning ftop_t’s 1 “proof” and 2 “proof” upthread.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #5

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • Ball4 says:

            ftop_t 11:10am: “You will notice links start with http …”

            I notice your link starts with https ftop_t. Nothing disingenuous, just a fact.

            My desmos steps (provided 3:03pm) which you correctly “link” to do show all the simple desmos steps necessary for any interested reader to replicate my work disproving your work unlike your “links” which do not show all your steps. Your work in detail desmos steps is unknown which forces interested commenters (such as MikeR) to assume your steps and try to reconstruct your steps to find your faulty ones.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #6

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • ftop_t says:

            @Ball4

            I’ll give you a few days to figure this out, but what does “https” start with? Just the first four (4) letters.

            Every formula and every object (point, line, triangle square) is accessible in the interface.

            It requires you to “click” on the arrow beside each folder to expand it so you can see the elements.

            I grouped them because the math is too “complicated” for some people. (Notice this link starts with http)

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-575922

            Points are ordered pairs (x,y)
            Objects (line, triangle, square) are tables.
            A line is a table with two rows of ordered pairs (points)
            A shape is a list of ordered pairs to connect the dots making a shape

            Shapes that rotate, have the rotational function in the list.

            Everything is exposed and available for inspection. Here is a “link” with all folders expanded. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/obharpduon

            Try and make a triangle and then try and make it rotate. All the examples are there for you to copy and use.

            I expect your falsification to provide the same level of detail.

          • Ball4 says:

            “I expect your falsification to provide the same level of detail.”

            I already provided an even higher level of desmos detail than ftop_t, so don’t need a few days. I’ll just note ftop_t still has not exposed many detail steps, so NOT everything is exposed in ftop_t’s desmos work. But MikeR might still appreciate the expansion if he hadn’t done so already. I’ve already provided at 3:03pm, 4:06pm 100% of the simple desmos step details necessary for any (informed, critical) commenter to replicate my falsification of ftop_t’s 1 “proof” and 2 “proof” by demonstrating with (an even higher than ftop_t level) all the necessary desmos detail steps to prove:

            There does exist an r=s where the same point (or face) of the non-zero radius rotating once on its internal axis black ball (and for any arbitrary non-zero radius object including a triangle) points inward to the center external axis for the entire orbit. That means for my desmos demo. r=s so I have shown & proven it true with desmos synchronous orbit = internal axis rate.

            NB1: when ftop_t uses a rotating non-inertial frame attached to the triangle as MikeR points out, an observer in that non-inertial frame observes a non-rotating triangle where s’=0. If ftop_t uses non-inertial frame, then s’ needs to be converted by ftop_t back to s in the inertial frame.

            NB2: For observers on the moon sitting in an LRV, the moon is not observed to rotate on its own axis while orbiting Earth once. For that reason, DREMT and ClintR reveal their observational position (see NB1): they also need to convert back to an inertial frame for accuracy. Sitting on the LRV in a non-inertial frame, astronauts observe the sun and stars rotating about the moon, an observation while true, still needs to be corrected back to the inertial frame (NB1) for scientific accuracy.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #7

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop,

            As you say, with your comment “You are so close to understanding, so I am not going to give up on you. You are almost there “*, our differences are relatively minor in terms of the geometry (but not the physics).

            As to who is almost there it depends on your frame of reference, your’s is geometric via the graphics calculator, mine is via code and physics. Thus is unsurprising due to our backgrounds, yours is in the cyber-security industry and mine is via 25 years as a physics academic (and 40 years as an experimental physicist) and as part of my academic role, teaching this type of material to undergrads.

            To demonstrate how close our differences are I have taken the liberty of turning the output of the graphic calculator running your code (t = + r ) along side my more primitive home brew code into a gif.

            https://i.postimg.cc/HkGCzMwk/Mike-R-versus-Ftop.gif

            You can see that the output are pretty much the same, the only significant difference is in the first case the viewing box is fixed and the second the orientation of viewing box rotates. In both cases the viewing boxes are following the centre of mass of the triangles.

            I am not sure what point you are trying to make by showing a moving viewing box passing through a stationary viewing box .I suspect you are taking things way, way too literally.

            In my depiction my stationary viewing box at left is purely to show that the single rotation motion can be decomposed into the motion of the centre of the mass plus rotation around the centre of mass . In my case I can have the viewing box either following the centre of mass or for clarity, stationary anywhere on the screen ( in my previous depiction, I have both). Likewise your rotating view box could be located attached to the centre of mass or standing alone anywhere you like.

            Your statement “The only way MikeRs View Box makes sense is if one states, while I am flying above an object at the same orbital rate of speed, but I am constantly correcting my orientation to a remote, distant point” is curious.

            If you are going to attempt to make the viewing box tangible, then the orientation if my viewing box is fixed due to the rotational inertia of the viewing box. Similarly, for the same yours will be rotating, with respect to the fixed sidearial reference frame, at a constant rotational speed and acceleration as it accompanies the triangle on its journey.
            If course as the rotating viewing box has the same changing orientation as the triangle ( t = r) , the view from this box will show a non-rotating triangle. It is like the view from inside a scrambler while looking only at the person opposite. You could then make the convincing case that the scrambler was not rotating despite regurgitating** the content of your stomach.

            Unfortunately my eyes glazed over*** when you launched into your convoluted commentary regarding the YouTube video about rolling motion using the centreof mass reference frame. You could use the cycloid program of your graphic calculator to make whatever point you are trying to make.

            By the way I use the ScreentoGif software to capture the output. It is available for both Windows and the Mac ( which i am sure you are using as a cyber-security expert, hopefully it will run under Rosetta emulation, if you have an M1).

            Finally I have to say, your comments would be greatly enhanced if you could use this software plus an image repository to make your points.

            * I will ignore the condescension as it is Christmas and as the saviour said ” forgive them as they do not know what they are doing”.

            ** the inertial reference frame will always get you in the end.

            *** due to the advanced stage of my dementia. And deteriorating eyesight ( witness my baseless accusation of shape shifting triangles while viewing the output on the minuscule screen of my mobile phone).

          • MikeR says:

            Postscript to the above.

            Just to emphasise the point about Ftop’s rotating viewing box (I am vomiting at the thought of it) , if he went ” full scrambler mode” then viewing box’s orientation would faithfully follow the spin rate of the scrambler carriage.

            The thing could be rotating at 10 times the orbital rate and Ftop’s rotating view box would demonstrate that the carriage was not rotating!

            Of course the fixed orientation viewing box, plus the inertial guidance system in Ftop’s inner ear, would indicate otherwise.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What ftop_t has proven, MikeR, is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis. This of course has nothing to do with frames of reference, as the body either shows all of its sides to the external axis or it does not. It is not conditional on what reference frame you use.

            It is simply a fact about rotation. One that I have been trying to get through to you for months…and from it, it follows that a change in orientation of an object does not necessarily equal axial rotation of that object. Because an object that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, also changes its orientation.

          • Ball4 says:

            The desmos site is easily used to demonstrate ftop_t purported “proofs” are proven faulty DREMT as desmos shows there exists r=s where the arbitrary object shows only one face to the center. Same situation Tesla also proves with his wheel assembly. But that is beyond DREMT’s understanding so this blog will have to put up with DREMTs faulty dreams.

            DREMT faulty dream self debunks DREMT: an object that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, also changes its orientation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Some Christmas Day trolling from Ball4 to amuse us all.

          • MikeR says:

            As Ftop appears to be a busy man or woman, I think it is wise to make Ftop’s task easier to arrive to a conclusion about the Moon’s rotation, without the unnecessary waste of time and effort, trying to account for libration via a non-rotating moon. The latter would be a thankless task.

            Accordingly, it might be useful to explain to Ftop, who doesn’t appear to have a strong background in physics, why physicists and astronomers much prefer inertial reference frames.

            Essentially inertial reference frames directly allow energy and angular momentum calculations and also avoid the unnecessary introduction of fictitious forces, such as Coriolis and centrifugal forces ( both associated with rotating frames off reference).

            To illustrate this, but at the danger of reopening a can of worms, here is another of my infamous depictions.

            https://i.postimg.cc/wMHrTFxb/dumbell-tangent.gif

            Case A and B both correspond to dumbbells revolving attached to a string, so only one end faces the centre of rotation during the orbit. The string breaks and the dumbbell then flies off tangentially across the screen.

            The non-rotators believe for both cases the dumbbell is not rotating on its axis, and when the string breaks, the dumbbell proceeds on without rotating, as in case B.

            In contrast, physicists believe that both dumbbells are rotating on their axes while constrained and the dumbbell, in case A, will then continue to rotate on its axis after the string breaks due to conservation of angular momentum* ( and of course, conservation of energy).

            Ftop, I am hoping that you intuitively understand which of A and B is correct. If not, then Google “conservation of angular momentum” and “conservation of energy”.

            Finally, the AstroAcademy video below provides a convincing practical demonstration of the conservation of angular momentum for this case-

            https://tinyurl.com/y5or8xk5

            To paraphrase Scotty, “ye cannae argue with the laws of physics” but a small select few commenters here try their damnest to do so.

            As for the continual background noise emissions of the chief troll, I will endeavour to avoid interacting with him/her/it , because the troll has nothing new ** to contribute.

            At least Ftop is numerate and intelligent, and may not be as overly emotionally committed to being a contrarian fruit cake.

            * the angular momentum (and energy) conservation calculations before and after the string breaks are very straightforward as long as 1. you understand vector cross products, baffling otherwise. 2. and understand that the dumbbell is rotating on its axis as it orbits. It’s even more baffling if you believe otherwise.

            ** unless the contributions are more egregiously stupid and/or amusing than usual.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “As for the continual background noise emissions of the chief troll, I will endeavour to avoid interacting with him/her/it , because the troll has nothing new ** to contribute.”

            Yes, Ball4 is getting pretty boring now. But why are you changing the subject? Ftop_t has proven that an object that moves with one face always oriented towards the center of revolution is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, and elsewhere you have conceded that this is indeed one way you can describe the motion of such an object. So why are you back on the much-discussed subject of what happens when such an object flies off at a tangent? We already know that only the total system angular momentum needs to be conserved, so that orbital angular momentum becoming spin angular momentum is nothing untoward. Are you getting desperate?

          • Ball4 says:

            No change of subject DREMT, desmos program demonstrates ftop_t proofs are faulty. Ignoring MikeR & laughably claiming “orbital angular momentum becoming spin angular momentum” shows DREMT (MikeR’s chief cfc*) is totally desperate.

            *contrarian fruit cake

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Some Boxing Day trolling from Ball4 to amuse us all.

          • MikeR says:

            Unfortunately I have to break my self imposed prohibition of dealing with the Dr Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team of Contrarian Fruit Cakes. I choked on my wheatbix this morning when I saw DREMToCFC’s attempt at humour, which I have to admit was pretty funny*.

            At least he chose the right option, case A ( unlike the other C.F.C.s )but made the following nonsense claim –

            “We already know that only the total system angular momentum needs to be conserved, so that orbital angular momentum becoming spin angular momentum is nothing untoward”.

            Here is the real story as distinct from DRIMM’s untoward Fairy Tale.

            For the following- w is the angular velocity, R is the orbital radius of the centre of mass , I is the moment of inertia about the centre of mass and Vcm is the velocity of the centre of mass.

            From Conservation of Energy

            While rotating-

            E tot = 1/2 m. R^2. w^2 + 1/2 I.w^2

            After the string breaks

            E tot = 1/2 m. Vcm^2 + 1/2 I.w^2

            From Conservation of Linear Momentum for the Centre of Mass

            m.Vcm = m. R. w

            The velocity ( technically speed ) of the centre of mass after the string breaks is the same as it is while orbiting.

            Conservation of Angular Momentum

            While orbiting –

            L tot= L orb + L rot

            L orb = m.(Vcm X R) = m.Vcm .R = m. R w ^2 (as Vcm = R.w)

            L rot = I.w

            L tot = m. R w ^2 + I.w

            While moving tangentially –

            L tot = m . Vcm . R sin ( theta) + I. w

            theta is the angle between the centre of mass and the object as it moves it tangentially ( simple geometry demonstrates that the term R. sin(theta) = constant).

            The only solution, that is not nonsensical**, is that the dumbbell is rotating on it’s axis while it is orbiting i.e. I.w is not equal to zero.

            My default assumption is that DREMToCFC will not have the basic maths*** skill to understand any of this. Hopefully Ftop will soon reappear to assist him on his journey from denial to acceptance.

            * physicists tend to be easily humoured.

            ** nonsense solutions such as the spontaneous creation of energy are highly amusing but are a choking hazard.

            *** we got a wonderful example of DREMToCFC’s math skills, months ago, when dealing with thermodynamic problems.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Where am I spontaneously creating energy!? All I said was that only the total system angular momentum needs to be conserved (which is true) and that before the string breaks you have only orbital angular momentum, and after it breaks you have linear momentum and spin angular momentum.

          • MikeR says:

            DREMkopf. Why am I not surprised that you don’t understand the equations?

            Conservation of linear momentum means the speed of the centre of mass, after the dumbell heads off of tangentially, is the same as the orbital speed of the centre of mass prior to the duumbbell being untethered.

            Therefore the K.E. of the centre of mass of the dumbbell is the same after it is untethered as it is before.

            The dumbbell, after it heads off on a tangent, has rotational energy about an axis through the centre of mass. If the dumbbell wasn’t rotating on its axis before it headed off, then this energy was spontaneously created on breaking of the tether!

            Personally I think you are definitely at the end of your tether.

            Just check the equations, if you don’t believe me (the conservation of angular momentum equations are there for completeness, so don’t be intimidated) .

            It you still don’t believe me just wait for Ftop to also explain it to you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ftop_t has already proven that an object that is moving as per the dumbbell before the string is cut, is not rotating on its own axis but merely rotating about an external axis. So whatever happens to the dumbbell after the string is cut does not affect that proof. As he said:

            “The only way to disprove this is to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero (which would mean only one (1) rotation) where the same side of the object points to the external axis of rotation.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Regarding your point on conservation of energy, I go with Tesla’s explanation from his third paper:

            “As will be seen, we arrive at precisely the same results whether the movement is rectilinear or in a circle. In both cases the total kinetic energy can be divided into two parts, respectively of the same numerical values, but there is an essential difference. In angular motion the axial rotation is nothing more than an abstract conception; in rectilinear movement it is a positive event.”

            The supposed “axial rotation” of the dumbbell before the string is cut is merely an abstract conception. The energy is there because the object is rotating about an external axis. It does not mean that the object is rotating about its own center of mass. In a way it is like breaking down the motion into a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass again. You do so for the sake of these calculations only, in no true physical sense is the dumbbell actually rotating on its own axis.

            Nobody is saying energy is being spontaneously created. The energy was there before, but only because the object was rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.

          • Ball4 says:

            One way to disprove ftop_t is to use desmos site to discover there exists values for the two rotations (“r” = “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero and which shows only one (1) rotation) per orbit where the one side of the rotating once on its own axis object points to the external axis of rotation.

            DREMT (not nobody) is writing energy is being spontaneously created when spontaneously spinning up the falsely claimed nonrotating on its own axis object after string cut.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More festive trolling from Ball4, to amuse us all.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM aka C.F.C,

            If you want to have an argument with the Laws of Physics, which ones do you want to dispense with? Conservation of momentum or conservation of energy? Your choice. Maybe you want to go full metal fruit cake and dispense with both?

            As your comments become even more ridiculous, why don’t you patiently wait for your saviour Ftop to arrive? Just a suggestion.

            p.s. I find it extremely sad that you continually undermine Tesla’s reputation by reminding everyone of his , to put it politely, “eccentricities”. To quote Tesla’s desperate claim, that the energy of axial rotation only exists when it is convenient to support an argument, is particularly sad.

            Oh well,if only Tesla had stuck to his area of expertise or had seen an orbital sander in action.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR has no response to the 6:34 AM comment, and just continues with his misrepresentations and false accusations. Oh well, his loss.

          • ftop_t says:

            @MikeR

            A larger response went into the magical “moderation” land

            Succinctly, this side-by-side is nothing like each other:

            https://i.postimg.cc/HkGCzMwk/Mike-R-versus-Ftop.gif
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fcdlmo0vwp

            The radian (redline) in your GIF intercepts all parts of the square view window. the Desmos you used shows the radian (redline) only intercepting one side of the square.

            This happens when t=0

            Your view is the same as:
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ym5oyak1yd

            In this view, the radian in Desmos intercepts all parts of teh square. This happens when t=-r. The window is rotating the opposite of the orbit…

            What your GIF demonstrates is that you have:

            Rotated the view window the opposite of the orbit
            Caused the external axis to orbit around the triangle

            The radian (redline) is rotating around the triangle vs. being fixed.

          • MikeR says:

            Welcome back Ftop!

            However I am extremely puzzled by your response.

            “The radian (redline) in your GIF intercepts all parts of the square view window. the Desmos you used shows the radian (redline) only intercepting one side of the square.

            This happens when t=0”

            and

            “What your GIF demonstrates is that you have:

            Rotated the view window the opposite of the orbit
            Caused the external axis to orbit around the triangle

            The radian (redline) is rotating around the triangle vs. being fixed.”

            Yes Ftop your geometry is spot on, but your point being? I did point out above, the fundamental difference being the difference in orientational behaviour of our depictions. Did you not read this?

            However to emphasise, I think we have excellent agreement that,

            1. your illustrations employ a viewbox that moves with the centre of mass and hence rotates in phase with the rotating triangle and hence the triangle is stationary and

            2. my depictions employ a fixed orientation viewing box that moves with the centre of mass of triangle and hence the triangle rotates.

            I have some suggestions which you may find useful.

            Firstly examine the simplest model which is geometrically correct and see if your conclusions also comport with the Laws of Physics . There is no point launching into the minutae of more complex models if you fall at the first hurdle.

            Additionally have you,

            (a) read up on the difference between fixed inertial and rotating non- inertial frames of reference?

            (b) worked out the difficulties of dealing with elliptical orbits with your simple circular rotation models ?

            (c) as a corollary to (b) developed a working model that explains libration for a non-rotating moon?

            (d) examined the tangential motion of a ball on a string, after the constraint of the string is removed*? If so the leader of the team of contrarian fruit cakes** urgently needs your assistance.

            If you follow my suggestions then you may,

            (i) not waste your time on nonsense when your time could be more frutfully spent on computer security issues that are currently a huge issue.

            (ii) learnt some useful physics. In particular the lesson that geometry will get only get you so far, if you don’t have a good grasp of the underlying physics.

            (iii) avoid ending up with some very odd bed fellows. Being thought of as just another crank could be very destabilising for you.

            * you might need to read up some physics about the conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum.

            ** memberships of the C.F.C. are going free as Gordon and Clint have graduated to Contrarian Fruit Loop status with their wholesale destruction of the laws of physics.

          • ftop_t says:

            @MikeR says,

            “2. my depictions employ a fixed orientation viewing box that moves with the centre of mass of triangle and hence the triangle rotates.”

            Yes, that is exactly what you did and that is why it is wrong.

            You have taken an object that is orbiting and:

            1. Stopped an orbiting object in a box
            2. Made the box look stationary when it is orbiting
            3. Depicted the box as fixed when it is rotating backward

            By moving all the fixed positions around the object while instead holding it in a fixed position inside the box, the triangle is now the center of motion.

            By stopping the orbital motion and making it appear fixed in a box, you are incorrectly taking a long circular movement (orbiting) and making it look it is spinning in place.

            That is why I created a FIXED box, to show the triangle is only in it for a short period of it orbital journey. I created the moving box to show that you are taking an orbital motion, eliminating it, and replacing it with an axial rotation in a FIXED box that DOES NOT EXIST.

            You can’t eliminate a valid orbital motion, by moving the box around it and pretending the object in the box is spinning.

            If I stop the earth’s rotation and orbit, I can model the sun revolving around the earth 365 times in a year but it is not physically accurate to the actual motion, yet I have proved the sun orbits the earth?!?

            You further state:

            “Firstly examine the simplest model which is geometrically correct and see if your conclusions also comport with the Laws of Physics”

            You have stopped the orbital motion of an orbiting object, created a view only available if you follow an orbiting object around its path but rotate the view negatively to the orbital motion, and made the external axis rotate around the object.

            That is not “geometrically correct”

            I tried to avoid the conflation these other items will cause:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-577061

            but it is clear these are items are being introduced to avoid the obvious mathematical reality that two rotational motions (internal and external) causes situations where the signs for the rotational vectors are opposing, and by basic vector addition this means that the object rotating on an internal axis will have locations that move away from the center of rotation while others move toward it meaning that it cannot rotate on its axis and keep the same fixed side pointing to the external axis of rotation.

            Time to move to the moon…(in a fresh thread below)

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop, I think you really need to think about and learn about reference frames, particularly centre of mass reference frames.

            To encourage you to learn some physics, here is an article from M.I.T. that explains the concept beautifully and also includes an example calculation of the total angular momentum of the Earth –

            http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/Presentations/Presentation_W11D1.pdf

            (see pages 16 to 19).

            The calculation is done separately for both the orbital component and the axial rotation component of the Earth’s motion using the centre of mass concept. The orbital angular momentum is calculated from the motion of the centre of mass of the Earth around the Earth/Sun barycentre and the calculation of the rotational angular momentum around an axis through the Earth’s centre of mass.

            Here is a physicist’s similar calculation for the Moon/Earth system.

            https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-angular-momentum-of-the-moon-around-the-earth/answer/Paul-Filmer?ch=8&share=8160ef95&srid=TubC

            Now with reference to viewing boxes. Ftop, If you are unhappy with stationary non rotating viewing boxes then this is your choice and , when viewing my depictions, you can choose to avert your gaze away from the viewing box or cover it with your hand.

            Because of your strenuous objections, I can instead use a set of axes labelled with directions that follow the triangle, similar to the axes that follow the “moon” in this depiction.

            https://i.postimg.cc/FRysxn5Z/Lunar-Orbit.gif

            If this still upsets you then I suggest you ask cartographers to remove their directional roses that are usually drawn on a map at omly one location on the map. These implicitly “follow” the hiker from place to place despite the chances of the hiker actually passing through the geographical location corresponding to the centre of the rose is incredibly small.

            Do I need to spell out how this relates to your argument about the triangle actually physically passing through the viewing box?

            I hope not.

            p.s, if you can follow the M.I.T. article above, then tackling the physics of a dumbbell on a string should be relatively easy. Ftoo, as you seem to be intelligent, I am confident that the “penny will drop”.

            Here is the relevant depiction.

            https://i.postimg.cc/wMHrTFxb/dumbell-tangent.gif

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR is still lost in “reference frames”. There is simply no hope for him. He is utterly ineducable.

            Flop_t’s proof has nothing to do with reference frames. It transcends that completely. Once again, what ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.

            A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.

          • Ball4 says:

            Once again DREMT, what ftop_t has shown is proven wrong by just 5 simple desmos steps in its inertial frame, that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show only one of its sides to the external axis if r=s, whilst it moves and NOT all of them as DREMT incorrectly writes.

            Again, 100% of the desmos steps:

            First click on the 3 bars top left. Then click on: new blank graph. Then click on: Trigonometry: Unit Circle, open graph and click arrow to start a=30 moving about on the circular orbit for r=s and observe the body, a black ball w/radius nonzero rotating on its own axis once showing same face to center for the entire orbit.

            Yes DREMT, I doI know these simple desmos steps are proven beyond DREMT’s (the chief cfc) ability to understand but (as I am ever hopeful) not ftop_t’s understanding.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nobody on the planet would be dumb enough to fall for Ball4’s nonsense.

          • Ball4 says:

            Thanks for tacitly agreeing DREMT can’t find fault with my desmos work, thus DREMT’s position remains just as faulty as ftop_t’s faulty “proofs”. This situation will remain & be reinforced each time DREMT posts a comment without finding fault in my desmos work.

            I urge you both to read and understand MikeR’s links and work to come to a non-faulty understanding of the subject matter.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            All Ball4’s "work" amounts to is finding the quickest and simplest way to animate an object moving in a circle, then simply declaring with absolutely no evidence that it is rotating about both an internal and an external axis. You are fooling nobody Ball4. You are simply a pathetic troll.

          • Ball4 says:

            Thanks again for tacitly confirming DREMT can’t find any fault in my desmos step work. Along with confirming DREMT isn’t competent enough to implement the steps correctly to see the desmos inertial frame construction of a circular orbit with r=s non-zero & observe the body, a black ball w/radius nonzero, rotating on its own axis once showing same face to center for its entire orbit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are simply a pathetic troll.

          • Ball4 says:

            Three tacit confirmations now DREMT found no fault in my desmos work. I expect even more tacit confirmations from DREMT. I urge both DREMT and ftop_t to read and understand MikeR’s links and work to come to a non-faulty understanding of the desmos steps & subject matter I’ve described several times now.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 tacitly confirms that he is simply a pathetic troll.

          • MikeR says:

            Ball4,

            I have got to admit I am starting to lose hope that Ftop will realise his lack of physics (and astronomy) dooms his quest to prove, via his basic geometric approach, that the moon does not rotate on its axis in the appropriate inertial reference frame.

            His avoidance manoeuvre illustrates this –

            “I tried to avoid the conflation these other items will cause:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-577061

            “but it is clear these are items are being introduced to avoid the obvious mathematical reality…… ”

            If I was in Ftop’s unfortunate position, I too , would avoid like the plague, any discussions about elliptical orbits, libration, angular momentum, rotational and orbital energy, conservation laws etc.. or anything to do with physics at all.

            If Ftop wants to continue to deny reality, I can continue to provide further depictions.

            Just in case, as a pre-emptive manoeuvre, I have modified my triangle depictions to remove any viewing boxes ( just replaced them with local axes).

            https://i.postimg.cc/qRMPFBtg/Rotating-Triangle-N-1.gif

            and

            https://i.postimg.cc/MTPCJkR5/Rotating-Triangle-N-0.gif

            Ftop, if he ever manages to read and understand the physics material in my previous comment, could work out which of the two depictions above has the greater total energy and angular momentum.

            Finally Ball4, do you think there’s anything else that could convince someone who is steadfastly determined not understand the physics?

            Maybe a practical demonstration? I may be forced to dig out my YouTube video of a smart phone rotating on its internal axis when placed on a turntable.

            Ftop, being such a concrete thinker that he cannot handle abstractions, such as viewing boxes or axes that “follow” moving objects, might appreciate a more practical demonstration of simultaneous orbital and axial rotation.

            Unfortunately my turntable doesn’t do elliptical motion very well, so the demonstration will need to be restricted to circular orbital motion.

            p.s. I am attempting to minimise engagement with the Glorious Leader of the Dr Roy’s Team of contrarian fruit cakes. As anyone who exchanges comments with the Leader quickly realises, it is a total waste of time and he/she/it is a total waste of space.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Once again, what ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.

            A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.

            These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate.

          • Ball4 says:

            MikeR, DREMT will never cease to be the contrarian, it is what DREMT does. Has for years. ftop_t might have a chance but slim.

          • MikeR says:

            Yes Ball4,

            Ftop looks like he might be heading down the rabbit hole. It is a pity as he appeared to have sufficient intelligence not to fall for the snake oil.

            However there could be some silver lining to this cloud.

            Due to the Arecibo disaster, the SETI project has been dealt a significant blow. They could now scale back their search for intelligent life and look for something much closer to home, such as within the confines of the team of contrarian fruit cakes.

            A great test for SETI would be if they could detect Ftop amongst the unintelligible background noise of DREM*, Clint, Gordon and Bill.

            DREM’s highly repetitive signal could be filtered out with a notch filter. The other signals tend to be less repetive but are just as equally thought disordered.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Once again, what ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.

            A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.

            These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate. A link back to this discussion and a repetition of this comment will be provided in every future discussion of this topic, until such time as you eventually concede the truth.

          • MikeR says:

            Hmmm, it appears my notch filter needs to be tuned. The repetition of the leader of the lunatics seems to be only partially attenuated. Could be spectral leakage?

            Hopefully this can be sorted before he goes totally non linear.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR childishly puts his fingers in his ears and hums loudly, trying to drown out the truth. He has no response because he knows what I am saying has been proven correct, and that is a huge blow to his side of the argument. He is too immature to ever admit defeat, and too emotionally invested in his arguments to ever concede there might be a problem with them. He is simply a pathetic troll.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT: “(MikeR) has no response…”

            Actually MikeR has many responses in this, the longest subthread in recent memory so it is the Chief cfc DREMT humming with fingers in his ears. DREMT still has found no flaws in MikeR’s work or my desmos steps while flaws in ftop_t’s work have been repeatedly pointed out.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR has certainly written a lot, but he always carefully avoids responding to what ftop_t has shown, which is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.

            A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.

            And no, nobody has shown any flaws in ftop_t’s proof. Ball4 simply lies like the pathetic troll he is.

          • Ball4 says:

            When prodded, DREMT has to admit MikeR has, in fact, responded.

            Still DREMT can find no flaws in my desmos steps which prove ftop_t’s work is faulty. MikeR also showed ftop_t writing about an accelerating frame as if it were an inertial frame. DREMT wouldn’t know that because DREMT wrongly doesn’t understand MikeR has carefully responded to ftop_t in this subthread by DREMT wrongly writing: “(MikeR) always carefully avoids responding to what ftop_t has shown”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It has nothing to do with reference frames. What ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.

            A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.

            These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate. This will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread, even if we are all still here next Christmas.

          • Ball4 says:

            ftop_t’s flaw does have to do with reference frames as I noted. That caused ftop_t to write an object was not rotating on its own axis in the accelerating frame when the desmos program showed the object is rotating on its own axis in the inertial frame. This is the same general mistake continually committed by DREMT & ClintR along with some others just as MikeR carefully responded to ftop_t above in this subthread.

            I will also note DREMT still has not found a flaw in my desmos work proving ftop_t’s work is flawed.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If an orbiting object keeps the same side of the body continually oriented towards the center of revolution, the only way you can describe that object as “rotating on its own axis” is if you break down the motion into a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. Regardless of reference frame. If you do so, then you do not have two axes of rotation. A translation plus a rotation does not equal two rotations.

            What ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.

            A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.

            These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate. This will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread, even if we are all still here next Christmas.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT, just pay attention to ftop_t at 1:52pm: “I have two separate rotational values:

            r = rotation speed around the origin
            s = rotation speed around the internal axis”

            desmos program inertial frame steps show for r=s, one face of the rotating on its own axis once per orbit object faces the origin for the entire orbit. Sure, repeat your flawed Chief cfc position until next Christmas for the free, hugely laughable entertainment of some blog readers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.

            A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.

            These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate. This will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread, even if we are all still here next Christmas.

          • MikeR says:

            Thank-you Ball4 for effectively dealing with boringly repetitive comments from the chief perpetrator of boringly repetitive comments.

            Do we need to descend to the same level of argument by repetition? If so, here are some points that can be cut and pasted if necessary.

            1. A simple rotation can be performed by one simple rotation. This is agreed by all as it is truism.

            2. The same rotation can be broken up into ( or constructed from) an almost infinite possibilities of sub rotations and/or translations*. This is what is disputed by those who , as a flexible ** matter of faith, believe point 1 rules out any other possibilities.

            3. The most relevant case in terms of the physics is a translation ( linear, curvilinear) of the centre of mass plus motion around the centre of mass . Examples are parabolic motion for a diver, rolling and/or sliding on a flat surface, rolling and/or sliding on a curved surface such as a circle and of course orbital plus axial rotation motion.

            4. Underlying the Ftop dispute is an assumption that the Earth/Moon system can be treated as a rigid body. If this assumption is false*** then points 1 to 3 are moot.

            5. Additionally, the concrete thinking that, for example, because an object that is rigidly mounted to a rotating base (and of course is not rotating with respect to the base), means it cannot be rotating through an internal axis with respect to the fixed external environment , is somewhat out of date**** ( by several centuries) .

            * the term translation can be simply thought of a change in co -ordinates of an object, but it sometimes conflated, as short hand, with linear translation.

            ** flexible as sometimes it is asserted to give the impression that that only one possibility exists for rotation but on other occasions, discussion veers towards semantic definitions of translation.

            *** discussion as to why a rigid body description, or even as a vague analogy, is totally inappropriate has already been extensively covered . For the latter see earlier discussions about argumentation via false analogies.

            **** News travels slowly in some parts ( in extremely dense materials and individuals , information conveyed at the speed of light , can be transmitted very slowly).

            p.s. the main form of argumentation by the chief culprit at large is repetition of assertions, as if this makes them more convincing, and via “last word wins the argument” that are employed by “total losers”. Expect confirmation of DREM’s status to follow.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “1. A simple rotation can be performed by one simple rotation. This is agreed by all as it is truism.”

            You keep writing this out wrong, deliberately. What is being argued is a motion in which an orbiting object keeps the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution can be described as one simple rotation. And no, it is not agreed by all. Ball4 disagrees, for instance.

            “2. The same rotation can be broken up into ( or constructed from) an almost infinite possibilities of sub rotations and/or translations*. This is what is disputed by those who , as a flexible ** matter of faith, believe point 1 rules out any other possibilities.”

            False. According to various sources, already presented and discussed, a pure rotation is not to be treated as a general plane motion. But if you were to erroneously do so, that is a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. In other words, you do not have an option to break it up into two rotations. If there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the orbiting object from the center of revolution. Fact.

            3. Already discussed under 2.

            “4. Underlying the Ftop dispute is an assumption that the Earth/Moon system can be treated as a rigid body. If this assumption is false*** then points 1 to 3 are moot.”

            No. Only if the moon cannot be treated as a rigid body would points 1 to 3 be moot. It can. So points 1-3 are not moot.

            “5. Additionally, the concrete thinking that, for example, because an object that is rigidly mounted to a rotating base (and of course is not rotating with respect to the base), means it cannot be rotating through an internal axis with respect to the fixed external environment , is somewhat out of date**** ( by several centuries) .”

            I refer you to my responses to points 1-4.

          • MikeR says:

            As we await for Ftop to resurface and as the team leader of the confused contrarian nut jobs is not simply repeating him or herself, I will deign to respond to him.

            My statement that a simple single rotation can be described as a simple single rotation is not disputed by anybody. This is true for a single point. Likewise for an object, such as a triangle, the single rotation as Ftop has demonstrated, will mean the orientation of the triangle will be fixed with respect to the centre of rotation. Absolutely no one is disputing this and I cannot see how anyone could distort Ball4’s comments to suggest otherwise.

            What we are trying to get through to your thick skull is that the single rotation can ALSO ( sorry to shout) be described in more than one motion.

            For instance, Ball4’s comment that s=r for Ftop’s desmos code demonstrates that for two motions ( axial rotation , s at the same same rate as orbital rotation , r )the triangle has fixed orientation with respect to the centre of the orbit ( and rotates with respect to the external reference frame).

            If anyone can disprove this then they deserve the accolades of the scientific community, so DREM let’s see the details of your disproof. If you cannot provide details then your latest comments can be safely added to your ever expanding collection of b.s..

            With regard to your semantic confusion about translation and rotation etc..

            The Moon, if it is not rotating on its axis, is moving in curvilinear translation , as all points move in unison as it orbits, transcribing two overlapping circles of equal radius as shown in the depiction below for N = 0. This type of motion also describes sliding on a surface.

            https://i.postimg.cc/rp9rDhfB/Circular-Orbits-Option1.gif

            If the Moon is rotating on its axis as it orbits then its motion is general plane motion as the outer and inner points move af different speeds . The outer points and inner points transcribe concentric circles that have different radii and hence different perimeters – see N = 1 in the above depiction. This is similar to rolling motion, where the point of contact of the wheel with the ground is momentarily stationary , while at the same moment, the opposite side moves twice as fast as the centre of the wheel.

            This general plane motion for the Moon can accordingly be decomposed into rotation of the centre of mass of the Moon about a fixed axis at the barycentre of the Earth/Moon system plus pure rotation of the Moon about an axis through its centre of mass.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR, I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response. There is simply no point talking to you because you twist, distort, and misrepresent everything. You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever come across. If the object were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the object from the external axis. That is what ftop_t has proven. I know for a fact that is correct.

          • Ball4 says:

            “I know for a fact that is correct.”

            desmos program steps prove that what DREMT “knows” as “fact” is incorrect. Or DREMT would use the program to show otherwise.

            Other than that, the gist of 8:47am DREMT comment simply boils down to: DREMT admits DREMT can’t prove MikeR is wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It is MikeR and Ball4 that need to disprove ftop_t. So far they have not done so.

            What ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.

            A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.

            These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate.

          • MikeR says:

            No , Ftop definitely has not disproved anything. All he has proved is what Bill4 has said repeatedly, and I am of course in total agreement, for two independent motions (when s = r ) the centre of the the orbit sees only one side.

            In this case the triangle’s orientation is fixed with respect to the centre as it orbits see –

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qzzlfflonx

            DREM, what is actually wrong with this desmos depiction?

            Fascinated to see your mathematical analysis?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, MikeR…that is one motion. One single rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the triangle.

          • Ball4 says:

            MikeR here’s a hint: DREMT simply reveals the location of DREMT’s observation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You two are pathetic, seriously. Why do I waste my time?

          • Ball4 says:

            Seriously, why DOES DREMT waste time not making progress learning about correct orbital mechanics, inertial and accelerating ref. frames, and desmos site use? It really is a mystery. But always great entertainment.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #9

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            Ball4,

            There are obvious reasons why DREM is incapable of these things.

            When you put him on a spot he will run for cover with just a repetition of his assertion or some other decoy manoeuvre.

            For example I will now ask DREM, what specifically is wrong with Ftop’s code for motion around two separate axes with the axial rotation (s) equal to the orbital rotation (r)?

            p.s. as a reminder to DREM, this version of Ftop’s code is not simulating motion around just one axis, so his standard repetive answer will be, once again, inappropriate.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            From ftop_t:

            “That said, mathematically, when there are two axis of rotation (internal and external to an object) given no limit on time and number of rotations, all faces of the object must point to the external axis of rotation at some point in time. The only way to disprove this is to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero (which would mean only one (1) rotation) where the same side of the object points to the external axis of rotation.”

            Why on Earth are you pretending that ftop_t’s code disproves himself!?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More from ftop_t:

            “Adding a little more features to this graphic calculator view:

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5

            I have two separate rotational values

            r = rotation speed around the origin
            s = rotation speed around the internal axis

            With these separate values. Anyone can to go to line 29 and alter the rotation speed of the internal axis.

            Initially, s = r since the counter argument is that the rotation around the external axis and the rotation of the internal axis are synchronized. As demonstrated above, all points of the triangle would point inward at some distance on the orbit

            Setting s = 0, the orbiting triangle keeps the same point facing the origin (my argument that the object has one rotation around an external axis

            Setting s = -r, the orbiting triangle has to rotate at a negative rate equal to the orbital rate to keep the same point of the triangle on the top

            Setting s = 365r would model the earth rotating around the sun. Don’t get dizzy.”

          • Ball4 says:

            Why on Earth? Discover because ftop_t’s code already has been disproved: “The only way to disprove this is to discover values for the two rotations (“r” and “s”) where neither “r” or “s” are zero…”

            Discover r=s=1 (meaning 1 orbiting object revolution on its own axis per 1 orbit) disproves ftop_t as the desmos program demonstrates.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong, Ball4. Go to ftop_ts link:

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bqpjnbzxr5

            With r=s, the triangle shows all of its sides to the center of revolution.

            Set s=0, the triangle shows always the same side to the center of revolution.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT, MikeR’s Chief cfc, simply copies a link that is known to be faulty being unable on DREMT’s own to correctly use the desmos program. Try again DREMT. Show your own correct desmos step work as I have done.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ftop_t’s link has not been shown to be faulty. Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT uses desmos program that he doesn’t understand, and can’t use, and expects to be believed. That approach won’t work DREMT.

            To disprove ftop_t just set r=s=1 since neither are zero just as ftop_t claimed would disprove his implementation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #8

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • ftop_t says:

            Having finalized the issue of internal vs. external rotational movement; it is time to start addressing the various other attempts at obfuscation, namely:

            Libration
            Elliptical Orbiting
            Barycenter
            Cassini Laws
            Axial tilt
            Orbital elements
            Nomenclature
            Equivalence

            Since the elliptical argument was referenced here:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-570667

            I am going to reply under that post to address libration and Elliptical Orbits

          • MikeR says:

            Bravo Ftop,

            Your totally physics free geometry is impressive!

            Well done, your desmos version almost matches my depiction for one axial rotation per orbit except for the major problem that the Earth (technically the Earth/Moon barycentre, but at this scale the distinction is negligible) is not at one of the focii of the ellipse, which it needs physically to be.

            See my depiction below for s =r (N =s/r =1 in my nomenclature) for an elliptical orbit with e = 0.745 (a =15, b = 10).

            https://i.postimg.cc/ys4s98qx/Ftop-ellipse-s-equals-r.gif

            For s = 0 (N = 0) in contrast ,

            https://i.postimg.cc/333hSfxH/Ftop-Ellipse-s-equals-0.gif

            Note, it is trivial beyond belief to show that the Moon is, or isn’t, rotating on the axis that passes through the centre of the moon, by reference to to the Cartesian axes , x= m and y=n !!!!

            Either the axes corresponding to m and n = 0 or alternatively m = Xcm, n =Ycm corresponding to the Cartesian coordinates of the centre of the mass. This is just simple translation of the coordinate system!

            Finally Ftop, the waste of your valuable time constructing geometric models could be avoided , if you understood the physics. In particular the physics of angular momentum, rotational energy and the difference between inertial and non-inertial frames of reference.

            There is so much material available on the web, I have no idea why you have avoided it like the plague*?

            * another word of advice, apparently red pills don’t work against Covid.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR is still lost in reference frames!

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT still doesn’t understand frames of reference and that every move is relative!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong, I understand reference frames just fine. That’s how I know they have nothing to do with the issue. It all boils down to whether you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. That’s all there is to it.

          • Ball4 says:

            Orbital motion is ftop_t’s “r” with or without axial rotation “s” in the desmos inertial frame or “s prime” in ftop_t’s rotating frame as motion is relative so frames do matter. DREMT’s claim is faulty because:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-580401

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It all boils down to whether you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. That’s all there is to it.

          • Ball4 says:

            Using “s” or “s prime” correctly (not confusing them as did ftop_t) is necessary because using an accelerating frame changes “s” to “s prime”. Motion is relative. DREMT still avoids reality.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It definitely all boils down to whether you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. That’s all there is to it.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Ball4 10:01 AM
            Bingo!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            DREMT 10:08 AM

            Bingo!

          • MikeR says:

            DREM – “Wrong, I understand reference frames just fine.”

            Another evidence free assertion from DREM, who claims to know the difference between an inertial and a non-inertial frame of reference.

            If he actually did, he would know how to apply it to this situation.

            For the purposes of clarification, can DREM explain, in his own words, the difference between a rotating reference frame and an inertial fixed reference frame and the relevant physics* as applied to the rotating triangle and to the Moon?

            p.s. I fully expect DREM’s standard avoidance manoeuvres, such as ” I have already explained it” ( no he hasn’t) or link back to some vaguely related comment(s).

            * you are allowed to use equations.😅

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I have nothing to prove to you.

          • Ball4 says:

            MikeR, DREMT is correct at 5:44pm: DREMT has nothing. DREMT is just an entertainer in a 3-ring circus.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I have nothing to prove to you either, Ball4.

            It all boils down to whether you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. That’s all there is to it.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT has already proved to me to be a great entertainer. Would DREMT like left, right or center ring next?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What I’m saying is correct, though…and there are even Spinners that agree. Oh well.

          • Ball4 says:

            Yes, what DREMT has written 5:44pm is indeed correct: DREMT has nothing. All the spinners agree.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, that it all boils down to whether you describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. That’s all there is to it.

          • ftop_t says:

            @DREMT

            You are being very generous in reducing the dispute down to:

            @DREMT says: “No, that it all boils down to whether you describe orbital motion without axial rotation as a rotation of an object about an external axis, or as a translation. Thats all there is to it.”

            There are fundamental problems with the approach that says it is a translation and an internal axis rotation. Namely:

            #1 Rotations = 1 NOT 2
            Mathematically, it is not possible to employ an orbit and an internal axis rotation. There is still only (1) rotation (when the spinners have claimed incessantly there are two (2) rotations), AND the rotational location is being moved from an external point to inside an object (internal axis)
            #2 The translation-then-rotate model eliminates the orbital portion of the process. Orbital motion is being eliminated and replaced with a non-repeatable process (each translation is unique)
            3. The CM is now situated in a rotating object of minimal mass relative to the Earth/Moon combined syste. Basically, the moon is the center of the combined system (the “primary” in the models designed by @MikeR).
            https://i.postimg.cc/DyH9nSfX/Orbiting-and-Rotating-ABC.gif
            and this triangle GIF
            https://i.postimg.cc/bYLRwv23/Triangle-Rotation-CM.gif

            In these views, the small boxes point to a distant object (Earth) and makes the earth rotate around the moon…

            “An orbit has two sets of Keplerian elements depending on which body is used as the point of reference. The reference body (usually the most massive) is called the primary, the other body is called the secondary. The primary does not necessarily possess more mass than the secondary, and even when the bodies are of equal mass, the orbital elements depend on the choice of the primary.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements

            This view is similar to the GIFs that @MikeR has been posting
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jwwchs7eia

            As can be seen from the orange line.
            Go to Line 5 and turn the rotation on. In order to mirror the small boxes; the earth has to revolve around the moon as can be seen by the orange line pointing out from the moon.

            Now reset the degree of rotation (Line 5) = 0
            Go to Line 2 and set A=10 to put the moon back out to its orbital path.

            While a translation and axial rotation is an equivalent way to move to a specific location; it is still a single rotation model.

            To translate the moon 180 degrees from its location, the process would be:
            Go to Line 2 and move it from +10 to -10
            Go to Line 35 and rotate the internal axis 180 degrees

            A translation & a rotation on its axis.

            The problem is the orbital location as designated by the orange line still points to point (10,0)

            Reset A=10, and Line 5 and Line 35 to zero

            Now break the translation up into parts.

            Change A=0
            Rotate Line 5 180 degrees
            Change A back to 10

            The shape has translated from (10,0) to (-10,0) and rotated 180 degrees; but the orbital rotation has been used as an internal axis rotation

            There is only one rotation.

            If you set the rotation in Line 5 to 120 degrees.

            In order to translate that movement to match the 120 degree rotation, you have to move the object from (10,0) to (-5,-6.928)

            While the translation and internal axis rotation is equivalent to a rotation of 120 degrees around an external axis (orbit); it is not a model of the actual movement.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m always being generous with them, ftop_t, and they still give me nothing but grief. Oh well.

            Good points, though.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            ftop_t debunked her https://tinyurl.com/ftop-debunked although I doubt he(she)’ll understand it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s funny, Tyson – ftop_t was literally just discussing what’s wrong with treating the movement as a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about that center of mass. Then you come along repeating that same mistake.

          • ftop_t says:

            @Tyson

            You are completely missing the point.

            The arc traveled by a point rotating on an external axis will equal

            (t) = theta equals angle measured in radians
            (r-B/origin) = radius of point B from center of rotation (0,0)

            s = (r-B/origin) x (t)

            If the object is rotating on its own access, there will be another angle

            (g) = gamma equals angle measured in radians of the rotation around point A (internal axis)
            (r-B/A) = radius from point B to A

            s1 = (r-B/A) x (g)

            If it is a synchronous rotation, we add the two independent rotations (external = s & internal = s1)

            s + s1 = ((r-B/origin) x (t)) + ((r-B/A) x (g))

            As your diagram proves, B has traversed an arc of length s and not s + s1

            Therefore, either r-B/A must equal ZERO or (g) must equal zero

            Since it is obvious B/A is not equal to zero, the rotation of B around A must be zero.

            You have to PROVE that B has traversed some arc length (r-B/origin) x (theta) otherwise there is no rotation about the axis centered at “A”

          • ftop_t says:

            “You have to PROVE that B has traversed some arc length (r-B/origin) x (theta) otherwise there is no rotation about the axis centered at A”

            Should read:

            You have to PROVE that B has traversed some arc length OTHER THAN (r-B/origin) x (theta), if you cannot, than there is no rotation about the axis centered at A

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            ftop_t 10:05 AM, you are missing the point that frame AX’Y’ is rotating and therefore to an observer located at point A, point B is stationary, in this case. However to an observer at point O and relative to stationary frame OXY, point B is rotating with angular speed omega.

            It perhaps is confusing that I show the axes X-Y (dashed) after translating point A by (theta)(rA). The intent there was to emphasize that frame AX’Y’ has in fact rotated by theta degrees to this instant in time.

          • ftop_t says:

            @Tyson

            I don’t disagree. But the argument has been that:

            The moon is rotating on its axis (independent of observational location)
            The moon is orbiting about the Earth-Moon barycenter

            Two rotations (internal and external)

            Mathematically, this means:

            (Assuming your point B is in quadrant 1)
            B is rotating (theta) from X(A/Y) toward point O (1 rotation)
            while it is rotating (theta) from the (x,0) axis toward the (0,y) axis (2nd rotation)

            My point has ALWAYS been that mathematically, there can be only 1 rotation.

            How you perceive that 1 rotation:

            Standing at O
            Standing at A
            Looking at the entire X/Y graph

            These are just efforts to obfuscate the determination of number of axis of rotation.

            The reference frames can create different visual representations, but in NO CASE, does the frame of reference introduce a second rotation.

            ROTATIONAL MATRIX
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix

            Because rotational movement changes signs based on the quadrant, it seemed obvious to me that you would have situations with two (2) rotations (external at O, and internal at A) where signs for a rotation from a given coordinate axis (let’s say X) to another point based on (theta) degrees would be opposing (r1 – negative, r2 – positive) or (r1 – positive, r2 – negative) meaning the point on the orbiting object (point B) would be getting closer or farther to the external axis (let’s call it O like in your diagram) than the designated internal axis (A) remained to that same center of rotation (again, let’s call it O).

            I explored this with DESMOS to validate my assumption and posted multiple examples verifying it.

            Everything since then has been obfuscation to avoid the acceptance that there can be ONLY ONE active axis of rotation and it is located at point O.

            FRAME OF REFERENCE
            Some counter-examples have even put the object (the moon) at the center of the universe to prove it is rotating.

            ORBITAL PARAMETERS
            Translations for orbital objects are necessary because all parts of the universe are in motion. It is easier to translate to where a point will be because the sun is moving in the Milky Way, the earth is moving about the sun, the moon is orbiting the earth.

            All these factors make a simple 2D model insufficient to predict a location; but those parameters describe a place at an epoch (specific point in time)

            I understand why astronomers translate and rotate to IDENTIFY a relative location in an ever changing universe

            Reducing the problem to a simple MODEL of the Earth/Moon system where the Earth is fixed was done to determine IF there could be two active rotations. This model clearly shows there is one axis of rotation at the barycenter (external axis to the Moon) and that there is no second rotation on an internal axis of the Moon.

            I am baffled that this realization isn’t obvious to everyone simply by nature of the matrix for performing a rotation and its obvious predictable impact on a point (B) when two rotations are active. Baffled!!

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            ftop_t, first of all, this thread has gotten too cumbersome so I suggest that we start a new thread. I have not yet your full and lengthy comment yet so may have more to say about it later.

            Second, the argument was stated succinctly by one of your cohorts here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-573033

            and from which I quote: “I can tell you, though, that from the Non-Spinner perspective, tidal locking at Spinner 1:1 (i.e. what a Spinner would see as one axial rotation per orbit) equals tidal locking at Non-Spinner 0:1 (zero axial rotations per orbit).”

            All I know is that the Earth-Moon system resides in a state of 1:1 spin-orbit resonance and as a result the Moon always shows approximately the same side to the Earth. That is the reality, full stop.

            You non-spinners created this incongruous 0:1 spin-orbit unicorn Moon which does not rotate about its center of mass but yet always presents the same side to the Earth. If frame AX’Y’ is non-rotating it would present all sides to Earth as it orbits about fixed point O.

            As an aside note that in my proof I made point B stationary in the rotating frame. However, the beauty of the proof is that I can also track a moving point in AX’Y’ such as for example a rover driving around and moving relative to point A.

          • ftop_t says:

            @Tyson

            First, I do want to express my appreciation for you providing mathematical rigor in your post…

            You stated:

            “frame AXY is rotating and therefore to an observer located at point A, point B is stationary, in this case.”

            The “spinners” are claiming

            Point B is rotating around Point A at the same rotational rate that the entire frame AX’Y’ is rotating about Point O.

            Their claim is that the current position of Point B (let’s say it is (17,2) which if A is at (15,0) will always be A(x+2,y+2) – up and to the right on your image during the entire rotation around O.

            They believe that unless Point B rotates around Point A, it holds an absolute orientation up and to the right of Point A even while rotating around O.

            Thus, magically, it B does not rotate around A, it changes its own orientation within frame AX’Y’ in a clockwise direction to match its perspective to the larger X/Y coordinate plane when A was at (15,0).

            I can tell you understand the entire frame AX’Y’ is rotating which causes the perspective from Point O.

            As Bruce Willis would say, “Welcome to the party, pal”

          • ftop_t says:

            @Tyson

            Agree with you on the thread. I moved it once, and then @MikeR moved it back on to this one.

            Meant to post this here…

            @Tyson

            Here is a model with two (2) axis of rotation you can specify:

            Line 22 rotates about the origin (O in your diagram)
            Line 30 rotates about the internal axis (A in your diagram)

            If you can find a resonance value where Line 22 = Line 30 that would validate there are two (2) rotations (external and internal) in synchronous rotations.

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/slq7zwdqxj

            The answer will devolve to the axis (Point A controlled by Line 30) is an implicit rotation (which means it does not exist and cannot be modeled) but we all agree it is there because the Earth and Moon are in synchronous orbit/axial rotation resonance.

          • Ball4 says:

            “But the argument has been that: The moon is rotating on its axis (independent of observational location)”

            That “independent of observational location” is the faulty argument from DREMT: “It has nothing to do with reference frames.”

            ftop_t needs to properly & physically compensate his s to s’ when invoking an accelerated frame (s’) & ftop_t hasn’t done that thus arrives at a faulty model conclusion: “This model clearly shows there is one axis of rotation at the barycenter (external axis to the Moon) and that there is no second rotation on an internal axis of the Moon.” This faulty conclusion by ftop_t means there is no day/night cycle on Earth’s moon which is opposite to physical reality.

            Tesla’s wheel assembly physics proved there are two rotations internal & external; ftop_t should follow Tesla’s physics closely to learn how to handle s’ properly & learn where ftop_t’s logic is physically faulty.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 still thinks the moon’s day/night cycle proves that it is rotating on its own axis!

            He has never progressed even beyond that…

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            ftop_t 12:42 PM,
            To be clear, I am using two reference frames, one rotating (AX’Y’), and one fixed (OXY).

            You say: “Point B is rotating around Point A at the same rotational rate that the entire frame AX’Y’ is rotating about Point O.”
            I say: Yes, as seen from OXY

            You say: Point B (let’s say it is (17,2) which if A is at (15,0) will always be A(x+2,y+2) – up and to the right
            I say: Point B holds a fixed position NE of A in frame AX’Y’ relative to an observer at A, but it has an absolute rotational motion about A in frame OXY as frame AX’Y’ orbits point O.

            You say: magically, it B does not rotate around A, it changes its own orientation within frame AX’Y’ in a clockwise direction to match its perspective to the larger X/Y coordinate plane when A was at (15,0).
            I say: As I explained above, B is stationary from the perspective of A, etc.

            You say: I can tell you understand the entire frame AX’Y’ is rotating which causes the perspective from Point O.
            I say: Not clear what you mean here; frame AX’Y’ is rotating as it orbits around O, that’s what an observer standing at O sees.

            You say: As Bruce Willis would say, “Welcome to the party, pal”
            I say: WTF?

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            ftop_t 2:11 PM
            I prefer Physics constrained simulations: https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

          • ftop_t says:

            @Tyson,

            This is not what is being argued by the other side. This comment here and associated graphic will help you understand

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566462

            Graphic
            https://i.postimg.cc/DyH9nSfX/Orbiting-and-Rotating-ABC.gif

            As you can see in example “C”

            The “spinners” are claiming that in reference frame AX’Y’ if the moon was not rotating IN THAT FRAME it would point in a fixed position to some distant star through the entire orbit

            @Tyson says:
            “You say: magically, it B does not rotate around A, it changes its own orientation within frame AXY in a clockwise direction to match its perspective to the larger X/Y coordinate plane when A was at (15,0).
            I say: As I explained above, B is stationary from the perspective of A, etc.

            The spinners DO NOT BELIEVE B is stationary from the perspective of A. They believe if that were true, Example C would be the behavior.

            I proved here:
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-575869

            That the only way to keep the redline pointing straight up is to have the object rotate opposite the orbit to maintain the relationship to a distant star.

            Read comment #comment-566462 again to realize that there is a total lack of understanding about how the rotation of the entire AX’Y’ frame changes the view from O without the need to rotate B with respect to A WITHIN the AX’Y’ frame.

            They are claiming that “Example B” includes 1 rotation inside of the AX’Y’ reference frame ALONG with a rotation of the entire AX’Y’ reference frame around “O”. In other words TWO ROTATIONS (one orbit around “O” and one axis rotation around “A”) to create the image in “Example B”

            If “B” was not rotating WITHIN the AX’Y’ frame with respect to “A”, but only orbiting “O”; the claim is that behavior of “Example C” is what would happen.

            We both agree that the reference frame is rotating and all parts within the reference frame are rotating from position O

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            ftop_t 3:11 PM
            If you don’t agree that the Moon spins on its axis once for each orbit around Earth then you and I are not in agreement, and it seems to me that we are not.

            The models in your linked comment,
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566462
            correctly show respectively, 2:1 spin-orbit in A, 1:1 in B and 0:1 in C.
            We are not “claiming that “Example B” includes 1 rotation inside of the AX’Y’ reference frame,” but rather that frame AX’Y’ is fixed on the moon, attached to its center of mass at A, and is therefore rotating with it; that is why when observed from point A, point B always appears stationary. Frame AX’Y’ is fixed on the Moon and every crater, lava flow, boulder, etc, has the same coordinates relative to X’Y’ regardless of where the Moon is in its orbit around Earth. If a lunar rover happens to be circulating around on the Moon it will have changing coordinates inside AX’Y’, and of course also relative to O.

            It’s good to finally have a substantive discussion with a non-spinner about the nuances of the models.

            Regards.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            From the OXY reference frame, the object is rotating about O, and not about its own center of mass.

            The only way you can describe the object, from the OXY reference frame, as rotating on its own axis, is if you describe its motion as a translation of the center of mass of the object plus a rotation about that center of mass. However, ftop_t has already mentioned some of the reasons why that would be inappropriate.

          • Ball4 says:

            Tyson 4:13pm, ftop_t does agree with you at least sometimes, shows an animation that is correct for the Earth/moon/sun wherein ftop_t shows the moon rotating once on its own axis per orbit of the center object with the same face pointing to the center object for the whole orbit and the lunar day/night cycle in place observed in the inertial frame.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 turns up to troll everyone, as usual.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Ball4 5:10 PM
            Yes, ftop_t does agree at times but his lack of understanding of the difference between inertial and non-inertial frames clouds his vision at other times. His animation correctly showing the Earth/moon/sun is a good starting point for him and may have set him on the right path to understanding.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Lol.

          • ftop_t says:

            @Tyson

            I shared with you this comment earlier

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584320

            We both agree that there are two rotating frames of reference

            1 at the origin (X,Y) or (0,0)
            1 at the object (AX’Y’)

            This GIF shared earlier represents three (3) scenarios for rotations in the frame of references

            Graphic
            https://i.postimg.cc/DyH9nSfX/Orbiting-and-Rotating-ABC.gif

            In this graphic, the small window represents AX’Y’

            The argument is that in this graphic:

            Example A is
            1 rotation about the origin
            2 rotations about the AX’Y’ frame
            (1:2) is used to signify the rotation ratio for each frame

            Example B is
            1 rotation about the origin
            1 rotation about the AX’Y’ frame
            (1:1) is used to signify the rotation ratio for each frame

            Example C is
            1 rotation about the origin
            0 rotations about the AX’Y’ frame
            (1:0) is used to signify the rotation ratio for each each frame

            This is referenced here in your comment
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584239

            In this DESMOS view, I have created dotted lines to represent the two orbiting frames, and I want to walk through Examples A, B & C with these frames available

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xxbjmtlbrh

            A couple of house keeping notes
            s = rotation from 0 to 360 around the origin
            t = rotation from 0 to 360 within frame AX’Y’ as designated by the black dotted line
            o = an offset so I can point the redline in the graphic above to match the starting points for Example A, B, C

            I had to add this because Example C does hot start with the redline in the same place.

            The red dot on the back of the rotating object is to show the entire frame AX’Y’ is rotating

            You can click on Line 2 to show the entire frame is rotating about the origin
            Set Line 2 back to ZERO by moving the slider to 0
            You can click on Line 5 to show the redline rotating within frame AX’Y’ (axial rotation)
            Set Line 5 back to ZERO by moving the slider to 0

            Example A
            The claim is that this is two rotations in frame AX’Y’ and one about the origin (see small box in graphic)
            (1:2)

            Walk-through Example A
            set 0 = to 3.15 so the redline points to the origin
            The best way to demonstrate this is:
            Go to Line 7
            Change “t = r + o” to read: “t = 2s + o”
            In other words, change the internal axis rotation to be 2x for every orbit
            Click on Line 2 to start the rotation
            Count the rotations of the redline and you will find it equals 3 and not 2.
            Thus (1:3) if you hold the frame static like the GIF

            Example B
            The claim is that this is synchronous rotations; one (1) in frame AX’Y’ and one (1) about the origin (see small box in graphic)
            (1:1)

            Walkthrough Example B
            Set Line 2 back to zero by moving the slider to zero
            Change Line 7 from 2s to s
            Click on Line 2 to start the rotation
            What you will see is that all sides of the object point to the origin and the redline line passes through its same position after 180 degrees of rotation and again at 360 degrees of rotation
            Thus (1:2) if you hold the frame static like the GIF

            Example C
            The claim is that this is a non rotating object in frame AX’Y’ and one (1) rotation about the origin (see small box in graphic)
            (1:0)

            Walkthrough Example C
            Set Line 2 back to zero by moving the slider to zero
            Change line 7 from 2s to zero (0) so it reads t = 0 + o
            Line 8 – Move the offset to 1.6 so the redline points the same direction as Example C
            Click on Line 2 to start the rotation
            As expected, the object cannot be fixed in AX’Y’ (non-rotating) and have the redline always point up.
            Go to Line 7 and change “t = 0 + o” to “t = -s + o”
            what you will see is that the redline now points up throughout the rotation only because it is rotation internally in the opposite direction of the orbit
            Thus (1:-1) keeps the redline pointing up

            Feel free to play around with the model yourself, but the sum of rotational operations is clear.

            Change Line 7 to t = r + o to set it back to the beginning or just reload the link

            Which is why I made this comment:
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584247

            Although there is only one rotation about an external axis and the moon is not rotating within its own frame AX’Y’; everyone will just pretend that the external rotation is an implicit rotation of the axis rather than accept reality.

            Or, they will bring up “it doesn’t work for elliptic” which I proved wrong. Or, “it can’t explain libration” which I also proved wrong. The next argument will be “but, but, barycenter” which I have already modeled and proved wrong – but not posted.

            BTW, your Univ. of Colorado link it GREAT!!

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            top_t 2:48 PM
            your post tl:dr but since you put so much work into it I’ll give to one of my interns in see report back what he says.

            Regarding the CU link, if you look at the Earth-Moon system and after letting it run for a couple of orbits, turn off gravity, you will see the Moon continuing to spin as it hurtles off into outer space. That is a demonstration of the conservation of angular momentum principle. It is not just a pretty simulation, it is also a teaching tool.

            Regards.

            p.s. I’ve posted this https://ibb.co/ydZRBgr at the bottom for your benefit. Your thoughts?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sure, sure. One of your interns…

          • MikeR says:

            I note with much bemusement that Ftop’s argument via s =r ( or inertially referenced s ‘ =2r ) is essentially the same straw man argument of the highly eccentric Indian fellow on YouTube.

            https://youtu.be/k1cziZt92BQ

            This fellow, argued that the moon wasn’t rotating on its axis, by counter-example i.e. by attaching a rotating motor to a rotating platform and thereby proving 1 + 1 = 2.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR makes a conscious decision not to understand.

          • MikeR says:

            Leader of the contrarian fruit cakes. While I admire your work over the years destroying the credibility of the climate change denial community, maybe it is time to think about retiring*.

            You started the whole nonsense in a previous incarnation, and have been at it for over 3 years Unfortunately your new devotion to the false prophet has given you a new lease of life, but all you contribute is background noise (that results in incessant scrolling).

            Best you hand over the reins to Ftop, as he is adept at geometry , new to the game and consequently possibly not as emotionally overcommited as you are. I am sure he can continue his quest to explain, via geometry only, how windmills work without the assistance of Pancho Sanza’s donkey.

            * It was a good sign that 2021 started with your New Year’s resolution “Im not even going to mention it this month” but unfortunately your fruit cake colleague forked you over , and of course then you couldn’t resist. At least your resolution lasted 5 days.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More blah blah from MikeR to ignore.

          • MikeR says:

            Ok , please feel free to ignore as much as you like.

            No one, God forbid , is stopping you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, MikeR.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 5:31 PM
            Don’t you employ interns for this type of “work?” Do you actually have this much free time and spend it on this blog?
            That is, as one of my interns says, no bueno por nada.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, Tyson.

          • ftop_t says:

            @Tyson

            In response to your comment here:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-585020

            It raises an interesting dilemma.

            Instead of having the one object rotating, let’s make it a baton with a mirrored object on both sides.

            Both objects have angular momentum

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/uh5e50evti

            By transitive property, if the model with one object circling the origin has two (2) axis of rotation, the baton has three (3) axis of rotation.

            Non-spinners would say the baton has only one axis of rotation about the origin.

            If you click on Line 35, non-spinners would say that now you have three (3) axis of rotation.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            top_t 7:04 AM
            All you’ve done in your new “simulation” is add a second rotating frame within the fixed frame.

            The motion of a body has meaning only with respect to surrounding bodies; the moving frame’s rotation is observable from any location within the fixed frame; an observer positioned inside the rotating frame doesn’t know that his frame is rotating. That is the reason ancient astronomers once believed the Sun orbited the Earth.

            Once more, the translating frame is also rotating within the fixed frame. The rotating frame is attached to the rigid body and any permanent feature within the rigid body is stationary relative to the rotating frame.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The determination of the number of axes of rotation is not affected by reference frames. You can say that from the "rotating reference frame" the object does not even appear to be moving, whilst the rest of the Universe appears to move around it. It is obvious that is not the reference frame we are using to determine the number of axes of rotation, otherwise we would be repeatedly referring to the object as not moving. It is moving. We can all see it moving around the origin. We are all judging the motion from the view of the screen we are presented with, which is, essentially, the XYO inertial reference frame.

            The Spinners use reference frames as an easy out, as a way to obfuscate the issue. Any time you are caught out, and it is proven that there are only x axes of rotation, you just waffle something about reference frames. Then it’s, "oh, you just don’t understand reference frames".

            From the "translating reference frame" which follows the object about as it orbits, whilst the frame itself remains oriented towards a distant fixed star, you can say that the object appears to be rotating on its own axis. This is the "illusion" Tesla referred to! And most of you still can’t see through it.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            ftop_t 2:48 PM
            Although there is only one rotation about an external axis and the moon is not rotating within its own frame AX’Y’; everyone will just pretend that the external rotation is an implicit rotation of the axis rather than accept reality.

            It is too bad you went through all that work and still got it wrong. Although you are correct in saying that the moon is not rotating within its own frame AX’Y’. However, you are missing the part about frame AX’Y’ rotating as it orbit in OXY.

            Do you believe that “A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation” regarding vector rB/A here https://ibb.co/ydZRBgr ? This is a quote from http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584968 which by the transitive property is also attributed to you. Just curious if a seemingly analytical mind would conclude the same.

            Description of linked image here:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584954

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "However, you are missing the part about frame AX’Y’ rotating as it orbit in OXY."

            Frame AX’Y’ and contents are rotating about O! When will you learn to make the distinction between something rotating about its own axis, and something rotating about an external axis?

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            D*R*E*M*T has been commenting since 2:32 AM, you’d think he could take a few minutes to watch a very instructive lecture such as https://youtu.be/GUvoVvXwoOQ?t=3172

            But it might give hiM brain hurt!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “The Spinners use reference frames as an easy out, as a way to obfuscate the issue. Any time you are caught out, and it is proven that there are only x axes of rotation, you just waffle something about reference frames. Then it’s, "oh, you just don’t understand reference frames".”

          • MikeR says:

            Just taking a break from the fascination of watching live, what happens when the leader of a country is a deluded maniac.

            Ftop’s delusions are such small beer in contrast. In fact whether the moon rotates on its axis is irrelevant to the climate change debate and a moon will do what a moon has to do i.e. All the moons along with all other celestial objects in the solar system and universe* possess axial rotation with respect to the external inertial environment (and accompanying angular momentum and rotational energy**)

            *I know this is a huge claim but I am relying on someone to prove otherwise***. They have a lot of opportunities. Remember it has to be exactly zero plus or minus zero. Ftop’s zero rotation proof that a moon does not rotate with respect to itself is not to be included.

            ** these are foreign concepts to Ftop as physics is a world that has yet to be explored.

            *** to whoever manages to do this task, the Nobel prize for Physics (Cosmology) will be forwarded along with all the shredded manuscripts concerning rotating disk accretion models for the formation of the solar system and stars etc..

            See https://www.britannica.com/science/accretion-disk

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR…the only way you can say the ball on a string etc is rotating on its own axis from the inertial reference frame is if you describe the motion as a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. You won’t understand, but I just thought I would point that out.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Ftop’s zero rotation proof that a moon does not rotate with respect to itself is not to be included.”

            What ftop_t has shown is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the body, then that body will show all of its sides to the external axis, whilst it moves.

            A body that is only rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass, continually shows the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.

            These are simply proven facts about rotation. It is not up for debate.

          • Ball4 says:

            …the only way you can say the ball on a string etc is rotating on its own axis from the inertial reference frame is if you describe the motion as a curvilinear translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. DREMT won’t understand, but I just thought I would point that out.

            What ftop_t has demonstrated with desmos inertial frame observation is that if there are two axes of rotation, one internal and one external to the orbiting body, then that body will show same side to the external axis, whilst it orbits with s=r=1.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290

            DREMT remains, & will always remain, confused about accelerated frames, not MikeR, SGW, Tyson or ftop_t.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, Ball4, curvilinear translation. Well done. Unfortunately your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. You won’t understand why.

          • Ball4 says:

            Thanks for verifying DREMT won’t understand, but I just thought I would point that out because the others will understand DREMT’s science deficiencies.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Thanks for confirming you didn’t understand why your second paragraph contradicted your first.

          • Ball4 says:

            The others will understand there is no contradiction, but not unscientific DREMT.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Probably only ftop_t will see the contradiction.

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop on Jan 5 – “Or, they will bring up it doesnt work for elliptic which I proved wrong. Or, it cant explain libration which I also proved wrong.”

            Ftop, the only problems with your elliptical orbit depictions are –

            1. The earth is at the centre of the orbit and not at one of the focii .

            2. The magnitude of the libration is way too small. For your depiction https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hohccm0s6t

            the maximum libration is less than 10 degrees when it should be over 50 degrees, see

            https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif

            This is probably as a consequence of not having the earth in the wrong spot, but who knows what else is wrong.

            Of course your moon is rotating on its axis with respect to the Cartesian axes. At least you got that right.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR…ftop_t never agreed that it was rotating on its own axis.

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop,

            With regard to your interesting dilemma,

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-585386

            and https://www.desmos.com/calculator/uh5e50evti

            Yes 3 axes at a minimum. Actually way more as every point in a rigid body* rotates around an axis with respect to a fixed external frame of reference

            See

            https://i.postimg.cc/Z57x0HVs/Rectangular-plate-pivot.gif

            and

            https://i.postimg.cc/BsDYw40w/Pizza-Gate4.gif

            and

            https://i.postimg.cc/3NBjt1f4/Tesla3.gif

            and

            https://i.postimg.cc/tJN70C67/Moon-Earth.gif

            The above may involve a level of abstraction that is well beyond the scope of Ftop’s concrete thinking, but you never know.

            * Has to be rigid, for the pizza example the cheese should not be too runny, so please don’t leave it too long in the microwave.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes…you have to understand that MikeR believes every object on the planet is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis.

          • MikeR says:

            Yes, deputy assistant spokesman for Ftop.

            It is a given that he believes the objects are not rotating on their axis, as he cannot understand why there are Cartesian axes on his desmos graphs.

            Anyway I hope Ftop can fix up his libration desmos graphs.

            Ftop’s fixed gaze and single mindedness, that would make him a great security consultant but not necessarily an expert on physics, should be useful in this situation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, I’m not making it up…he really does believe that.

        • Nate says:

          “So, by definition, ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ should be described as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, throughout.”

          Should be? According to who? Certainly not Newton, not physics, not aerospace engineering, and most importantly, not astronomy.

          So just you, and a few other cranks.

          Whadda you gonna do? Sue these organizations?

        • Nate says:

          Ftop has abandoned the field, DREMT. He seemed unable to apply his external rotation Model to the Moon.

          “This is one single motion.”

          Yes, and as you have Already admitted, it can also be described as a combination of translation plus internal rotation.

          And Astronomy has concluded that the latter is the ONLY description thst can be used for non circular orbits like the Moon’s, with tilted internal rotational axes.

          Sorry, you gave your argument enough rope to hang itself. It is over.

          • Nate says:

            “as the ‘eccentrics’ fly off on tangents at the mere mention of elliptical orbits.”

            Ha!

            MikeR’s on target..

          • ftop_t says:

            Having addressed the mathematics of two axis of rotations, the argument has been made that the moon cannot be strictly rotating about an external axis because the orbit is elliptical.

            That is clearly not true.

            The following graphics solution demonstrates that the shape of the orbit has no bearing on the mathematical rules for rotation.

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/czjaq0xgvg

            An object orbiting elliptical around an external axis cannot also be rotating on its own axis and keep the same face of the object pointing toward the external center of rotation.

            I will walk through the proof in the next post

          • ftop_t says:

            Explanation/Walk-through of the proof

            11

            The above graphic represents a simple circle to demonstrate rotations. There are four points on the graph

            (1,0) Red Dot (rotational point around the origin)
            This point is on the unit circle defined on line 11

            (11,0) Orange Dot (rotational point around the origin)
            This point is the same as (1,0) only further from the origin

            (10,0) Purple Dot (This is the internal center of axis)

            (9,0) Green Dot (This will be the face of the object pointing to the origin. Note: this is originally offset by 180 degrees to represent the face pointing to the external center of rotation

            It is best to think of all four of these dots as styrofoam balls stuck on a stick. They are have one rotation about the origin and like grooves on a record player, the distance they travel is based on their distance from the external rotational axis.

            Each orbital path is shown with a dotted line

            Click on 16 to start the rotation
            Click on 18 to show an imaginary stick running through each ball

            This is one (1) rotation about an external axis and each dot is rotating based on “s” which is the degree of rotation as defined in line 16

            Go back to line 16 and set “d” to zero (0)

            Click on 20 to create a circle for the moon
            Click on 23 to start rotating the face of the moon

            Note: this internal axis rotation (2nd rotation) is based on rotational value “t”

            Now the face rotates on an internal axis and that face points in ALL directions during the rotation (on an internal axis)

            Think of the green dot no longer connected to the stick, but rather connected to a wheel attached to an axis point of the purple dot. This is the internal axis of rotation

            As proven earlier, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point.

            The only way to keep the face pointing in the same direction is to stop “t” the internal axis of rotation.

            Note: you can click on line 23 at any time to stop the internal rotation and the green dot will stay in that orientation to the external (center origin) axis throughout the orbital motion.

            Now, does elliptical orbits matter?

            Nope!!

            The orbits are defined in the folder “Orbital Paths”
            The shape of the orbits can be modified by changing the values for “a” and “b”

            Line 12 represents the large circular orbit (purple) where a = 10 and b =10

            Go to line 26 and change “a” to (15)

            We now have an elliptical orbit

            The same principles hold true for elliptical orbits.

            Thus, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on (orbiting) an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point REGARDLESS OF THE SHAPE OF THE ORBITAL PATH.

            You can even click on the arrows in lines 26, 27 to create a constantly changing orbital path and the principle still holds true.

            Elliptical shape is not an argument in support of the moon rotating on its internal axis.

          • ftop_t says:

            Please use this link as the starting point for the walk-through above. For some reason it did not post properly

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/1lmrqntlam

          • ftop_t says:

            Also, I should have been explicit here:

            Think of the green dot no longer connected to the stick, but rather connected to a wheel attached to an axis point of the purple dot. This is the internal axis of rotation

            ****Added****

            You must click on line 16 again HERE to start the orbital motion

            *************

            As proven earlier, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point.

          • ftop_t says:

            *** REPOSTING THE WALKTHROUGH ***

            To make it easier for some of the laggards, here is a consolidation of the changes on the post above

            Explanation/Walk-through of the proof

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/1lmrqntlam

            The above graphic represents a simple circle to demonstrate rotations. There are four points on the graph

            (1,0) Red Dot (rotational point around the origin)
            This point is on the unit circle defined on line 11

            (11,0) Orange Dot (rotational point around the origin)
            This point is the same as (1,0) only further from the origin

            (10,0) Purple Dot (This is the internal center of axis)

            (9,0) Green Dot (This will be the face of the object pointing to the origin. Note: this is originally offset by 180 degrees to represent the face pointing to the external center of rotation

            It is best to think of all four of these dots as styrofoam balls stuck on a stick. They are have one rotation about the origin and like grooves on a record player, the distance they travel is based on their distance from the external rotational axis.

            Each orbital path is shown with a dotted line

            Click on 16 to start the rotation
            Click on 18 to show an imaginary stick running through each ball

            This is one (1) rotation about an external axis and each dot is rotating based on s which is the degree of rotation as defined in line 16

            Go back to line 16 and set d to zero (0)
            You can just drag the slider to zero

            Click on 20 to create a circle for the moon
            Click on 23 to start rotating the face of the moon

            Note: this internal axis rotation (2nd rotation) is based on rotational value t

            Now the face rotates on an internal axis and that face points in ALL directions during the rotation (on an internal axis)

            Think of the green dot no longer connected to the stick, but rather connected to a wheel attached to an axis point of the purple dot. This is the internal axis of rotation

            In this view, the orbital motion has been stopped

            Click on line 16 again to start the orbital motion

            As proven earlier, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point.

            The only way to keep the face pointing in the same direction is to stop t the internal axis of rotation.

            Note: you can click on line 23 at any time to stop the internal rotation and the green dot will stay in that orientation to the external (center origin) axis throughout the orbital motion.

            Now, does elliptical orbits matter?

            Nope!!

            The orbits are defined in the folder Orbital Paths
            The shape of the orbits can be modified by changing the values for a and b

            Line 12 represents the large circular orbit (purple) where a = 10 and b =10

            Go to line 26 and change a to (15)

            We now have an elliptical orbit

            The same principles hold true for elliptical orbits.

            Thus, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on (orbiting) an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point REGARDLESS OF THE SHAPE OF THE ORBITAL PATH.

            You can even click on the arrows in lines 26, 27 to create a constantly changing orbital path and the principle still holds true.

            Elliptical shape is not an argument in support of the moon rotating on its internal axis.

          • ftop_t says:

            Libration is also not a valid argument for the moon rotating.

            While putting together this proof, I discovered that this model also eliminates libration as a valid argument for the moon rotating on its axis.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

            “In lunar astronomy, libration is the wagging or wavering of the Moon perceived by Earth-bound observers and caused by changes in their perspective. It permits an observer to see slightly different hemispheres of the surface at different times.”

            First, Libration is OBSERVATIONAL. It is a description of perception from earth and attributed to three features

            1. Libration in longitude
            2. Libration in latitude
            3. Diurnal Libration

            Of these, #2 & #3 are unrelated to any suggested axial rotation of the moon and can be discarded.

            This leaves Libration of Longitude as a potential argument in support of the moon rotating on its axis.

            When I created the “Imaginary Stick” and reshaped the orbit to be elliptical an interesting observation occurred. The green point (representing the moon’s face) kept moving back and forth across the orange “Imaginary Stick” WITHOUT any rotation about its axis (“t” stopped)

            This is a great example:
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ocyzh8hh91

            The orange line is connected to a fixed point on the far side of the circle (moon).

            I placed the green dot (internal facing point) slightly off center at 190 degrees to view the behavior

            As the circle (moon) orbits on an elliptical path, there is a divergence between an elliptical rotation (orbit) and a circular object

            The green dot moves back and forth past the Imaginary Stick based on the variance in the orbit. Further, the center of the object passes back and forth through the orange line.

            Thus, when a circular object that is NOT rotating on its axis orbits an external point in an elliptical pattern, the orbital motion changes amplitude/distance; this “permits an observer to see slightly different hemispheres of the surface at different times.”

            The very definition of Libration

          • ftop_t says:

            Further demonstrating Libration, I found this view to be astounding

            This is s model built off of the prior version above:
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/slq7zwdqxj

            I added a triangle in the circle to better show orientation concerning the face of the moon.

            What is incredible is the amount of the circle that moves inside of the green orbital path.

            At (0,10) and (0,-10); the entire point of the triangle has moved inside the orbital path at (10,0).

            Because of the circle traversing an elliptical orbit, significant portions of the “moon” come into view at the closest points to the center of orbit vs the farthest point

            In this view,
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/sfkh448tn1

            I changed the triangle to point along the orbital path and again, the orange line is parallel to the side of the triangle at (0,10)

            At (-12.494,5.534) a major angle forms between the orange line and the side of the triangle. You can also see how far off the closest red dot (which is the basic rotation around the unit circle) the orange line has moved.

            If you were standing at (-.8,.55) on the red dot for the unit circle you would be witnessing libation without any dependency on internal axial rotation

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            F_Troop does not understand inertial reference frames or physics. Typical of non-spinners.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          My last comment was directed towards MikeR, by the way.

          • Nate says:

            Ha ha ha…

            You’ve hit a dead end. Its over my friend. Supporters are abandoning you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If MikeR returns, I recommend commenting from here. The thread is getting long, too much scrolling up and down is a bit annoying, so let’s just continue here.

          • MikeR says:

            Good idea DREM,

            My cat Schrodinger has found it increasingly difficult to follow the thread. Speaking of which, a remarkable thing just happened with my cat.

            I left him in the same room as my computer in order to get a cup of tea. When I got back I found Schrodinger walking back and forth across the keyboard. What was truly remarkable he had coded up some software.

            This is the output of the software.

            https://i.postimg.cc/TYdMXXCX/Impossible-DREM.gif

            I had to explain to poor Schrodinger that DREM and Ftop have both insisted what he had done was totally impossible. Consequently I was just going to get rid of his work but because he insisted, I decided to post it anyway.

            Schrodinger is now back strolling across my keyboard and has now generated the following random garbage –
            “Shall I compare thee to a summers day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate. Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May”.

            I think I should stop him now as his pretensions may have got out of control.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, MikeR, that is one single motion. The triangle is not rotating about its own center of mass, it is rotating about the external axis in the center of the screen. There is only one axis of rotation.

            Understand?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm

            “1) Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
            2) Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
            3) General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”

            There are only 3 types of motion the triangle could belong to. You want to classify it as type 3), a translation of the triangle’s center of mass in a circle plus a rotation of the triangle about the center of mass. However, that is for motion that does not fall into category 1) or 2). The motion of the triangle falls into category 2).

          • Nate says:

            “3. Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class”

            Yep. The Moon’s motion definitely falls into this class. Thank you.

            Ur done. Go gome.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            To those who apparently wish this discussion would come to an end, you can help that become a reality by explaining to MikeR why he is wrong about the triangle, and every single other example of pure rotation (category 2) that he has tried to pass off as a general plane motion (category 3). Once MikeR is prepared to accept he was wrong about every single gif he has ever created, and apologizes, we can move onto the other Spinners. Then, once everyone is up to speed (and only once everyone is up to speed) we can discuss which category orbital motion belongs in – or whether, as ClintR contends, it lies outside the frame of standard kinematic definitions altogether.

          • Schrodinger the Cat says:

            DREM,

            MikeR tells me that you do not believe my work. I am deeply offended. He says you get so tormented by such depictions that you are threatening to do something drastic if I do not withdraw my work. You sound like a sore loser.

            As I am so upset by your comment, while MikeR was asleep, I traversed the keyboard several times more and created this masterpiece. MikeR is even more impressed with this one.

            https://i.postimg.cc/vBxkRTGH/DREMs-Nightmare-Before-Xmas.gif

            It has two stages.

            Stage 1 is a rotating line which Miker tells me represents the orbital motion of the centre of mass. It is like a triangle connected by a string.
            At left is a triangle that is not translating but just rotating around an axis through the centre of mass of the triangle.

            Stage 2 is where I drag the rotating triangle from the left using a subservient mouse and place it so that it connects to the rotating centre of mass and the two are connected and then move as one.

            Subsequently I move the triangle to different locations to emphasise that all points on the string rotate on their respective axes.

            DREM, you do have some support with your beliefs. My fellow cat Kepler , who is intellectually challenged due to an accident at birth, loves to chase lasers around in circles*.

            He is convinced that he is not rotating on his axis as he pursues the laser, and is unconvinced by my explanation. He plans to chase the laser until he catches it and shreds it into little pieces.

            I have suggested to MikeR that he renames Kepler to DREM to recognise your incredible persistence in following an impossible dream.

            * He can even run in ellipses if required.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What do you not understand about what I linked to, MikeR?

            The triangle is a case of motion belonging to category number 2), as your new gif shows even more clearly than it was already. It is rotating about an external axis in the center of the screen, and not rotating about its own center of mass. Do you even understand the concept of rotation about a fixed axis?

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            I am afraid you are going to have to convince my cat. He thinks you are the dumbest thing on two legs, if you cannot understand that two separate rotational motions were used to create his wonderful depiction.

            Even Kepler, the retarded one is convinced now but he still admires you for persistent refusal to face facts. However he has given up on chasing the laser. He knows when to give up.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Read the link, MikeR. The only way the motion in your gif can be comprised of two movements is if you describe it as a category 3), a general plane motion. That is a translation (not a rotation) of the center of mass, plus a rotation of the object about the center of mass.

            But, you only describe a motion as category 3) if it does not fall into category 1) or 2). The motion of the triangle, the ball on a string, the wooden horse, the chalk circle, etc etc, all fall into category 2). They are rotating about a fixed axis. The axis is outside of the object in each case. It is one single movement. No rotation about the center of mass of the object itself.

            The object is rotating about the external axis, such that all its particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM , my cat is fed up with you just repeating the same assertion over and over. He has read your link thoroughly. He thinks it is wonderfully comprehensive.

            He particularly thinks you should carefully re-read Section 5.1.2., which you quote without understanding.

            “General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation”.

            Accordingly Schrodinger is very well aware that a rotation can be done

            (a) in one plane motion, as in a rotating disk or alternatively

            (b) the two can be reduced to translation (of any type including rotation, or orbiting about an external axis) of the centre of mass plus rotation around the centre of mass.

            Contrary to DREM’s belief stated above, these two alternatives are not mutually exclusive i.e. the existence of (a) does not rule out (b).

            To continue in this long winded fashion and in the vain attempt to get DREM to think, the usefulness of concept of centre of mass is predicated on

            1. Being the position point for balancing and

            2. its use to decompose motion as above. For further clear explanation regarding this latter use see –

            https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/567956/rigid-body-motion-decomposition

            Finally, Schrodinger is extremely unforging at the moment and just thinks your refusal to accept that a single rotation can also be done in two independent motions (which is appropriate to an untethered object such as the Moon) is extremely silly . He thinks the only reason for your recalcitrance belongs more in the province of psychology , than in physics.

            On than note. He is offering counselling services to Kepler due to the traumatic realisation that his ambition to catch the laser is futile. He is quite happy to include you in the session and his rates are quite reasonable.

            p.s. DREM, if you insist on continuing the farce, rather than just continually restating your position about a single rotation (which is agreed by all) , maybe explain what exactly is wrong about the equivalent two motions shown in Schrodinger’s depiction and why they are not equivalent to the single rotation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, MikeR, you can waffle on forever. By the way, did you notice that ftop_t is back?

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571504

            MikeR, the motion of the triangle, chalk circle, ball on a string, wooden horse, olive on a pizza etc etc falls under category 2. It is one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass. I’m sorry that you cannot accept that, or apparently not even understand it. If you choose to incorrectly label it as a category 3, general plane motion, then understand that this involves a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. In other words, you still have only one axis of rotation.

            “(b) the two can be reduced to translation (of any type including rotation, or orbiting about an external axis) of the centre of mass plus rotation around the centre of mass.”

            So now you are arguing that rotation is a type of translation!? Anything to avoid accepting you are wrong, I suppose.

            “Accordingly Schrodinger is very well aware that a rotation can be done

            (a) in one plane motion, as in a rotating disk”

            Yes, and the axis of rotation need not go through the body. So, do you at least acknowledge that the motion of the triangle, chalk circle, ball on a string, wooden horse etc, can be described as one single motion about an external axis? Because there are many on your own side of the argument who do at least understand and accept this.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            P.S:

            “.,,rather than just continually restating your position about a single rotation (which is agreed by all)”

            It’s not agreed by all, MikeR. It’s apparently not really agreed by you. Because you have never once acknowledged that the chalk circle, wooden horse, ball on a string, triangle, or olive on the pizza etc etc can be considered to be a single rotation about an external axis. If you really understood that, you would understand the fact that it is not rotating on its own axis, from any frame of reference.

          • Nate says:

            “Then, once everyone is up to speed ….we can discuss which category orbital motion belongs”

            It is in category 3 for the Moon and all non-circular orbits. Just a fact, like 11 > 9.

            Though you seem think ‘discussion’ can help you change such facts. It generally doesnt, and I think we’ve see that movie 57 times anyway.

            Just GO AWAY.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            P.P.S: Don’t forget to respond to ftop_t.

          • Ball4 says:

            Tesla has the ball on string motion etc. proven correctly, ftop_t is proven wrong by Tesla paper which anyone can find with google:

            “the Motion is Resolved Into Two Separate Components – One Translational About O (the external orbital axis thru O) and the Other Rotational About C (the rotation on its own internal axis thru C). The Total Kinetic Energy of the Mass Equals the Sum of These Two Energies.”

          • Nate says:

            FTOP

            “In regards to tilted axis, from my perspective, this point is moot.”

            SO you are choosing to ignore this contradictory fact, that the Moon has an axis that is tilted @ 6.7 degrees from a Normal to its orbital plane? I thought being mathematically rigorous was important to you. I guess not.

            “In regards to Elliptic vs. circular orbits. All circles are ellipses, as a circle is just an ellipse where both foci are at the center and can be algebraically reduced to x(2) + y(2) = 1”

            Yes, but MORE IMPORTANTLY not all ellipses are circles.

            “The fact that the moon stays oriented along its orbital path with the same side facing the direction of its orbit is consistent with a rotation around a center and not a rotation about its axis.”

            No. This is completely wrong FTOP. The Moon does not stay oriented like that. How can it? It has significant Libration.

            Here is a video of the Moon’s orientation to the Earth during its orbit.

            https://youtu.be/3f_21N3wcX8

            Again, where is your mathematical rigor here?

            “Is it your contention that the rotation of the moon changes speeds? Do you think it is possible for a rotating object to slow down and then speed up consistently at just the right time? Is it coincidence?”

            No, on the contrary. The Moon’s rate of rotation about its internal axis is fixed. And this axis is not normal to its orbital plane. Its orbital angular velocity is not fixed. These are two INDEPENDENT motions.

            TO summarize, a ‘pure rotation’ model fails badly for the Moon.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            I have taken care of Ftop with my recent post above, see –

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-572147 .

            With regards to the term translation, which seems to have excited you, there seems to be some semantic confusion.

            The term “translation” refers to the motion by which a body shifts from one point in space to another. However often the terms ” translation” and “rotation” are used to differentiate types of motion which can be confusing when the term “linear translation” would be a much clearer differentiator.

            In the context of our discussion, I think it might be preferable to refer to use the general term “curvilinear translation”.

            The “curvi” part refers to curved motion which would incude parabolic, circular and elliptical motion while the “linear” refers to linear translation. For further explanation see –

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvilinear_motion

            Finally I have to confirm that yes 100% definitely ” the chalk circle, wooden horse, ball on a string, triangle, or olive on the pizza etc etc can be considered to be a single rotation about an external axis”.

            Never have disagreed with this and never will, so there is no need to keep referring to this.

            However these motions can and/or be described in terms of 1.rotation of a point (such as the centre of mass) about an external axis and 2. rotation about an axis passing through this point.

            For this latter point, is where you have to prove the other rotators and myself wrong.

            Why not try this for a change?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Never have disagreed with this and never will, so there is no need to keep referring to this.”

            Lol. Well, this is news to me. So, then you understand why the ball on a string etc is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame? You have known all along, but have just chosen to act confused every time I tried to explain it to you? I think you are full of shit.

            “However these motions can and/or be described in terms of 1.rotation of a point (such as the centre of mass) about an external axis and 2. rotation about an axis passing through this point.”

            No, they can’t, MikeR. It is 1. translation of the center of mass and 2. rotation about an axis passing through this point if you go for category 3), general plane motion…which you should not, if it falls into category 1) or 2), which it does.

            There are not two axes of rotation, MikeR. Either way. If an object were rotating about two axes of rotation, an external axis plus an internal axis, you would see all sides of the object from the external axis.

            You cannot have a rotation of a point, because it is a point. There is nothing about it which can change its orientation. It possesses no quality of pointing in a particular direction, since it is a point. It can only translate, move from one point in space to another.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            You are really outdoing yourself. What the fook are you talking about?

            DREM “Lol. Well, this is news to me. So, then you understand why the ball on a string etc is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame? You have known all along, but have just chosen to act confused every time I tried to explain it to you? I think you are full of shit.”

            What part of my previous statement “Never have disagreed with this and never will, so there is no need to keep referring to this”, do you not understand?

            I have made it abundantly clear that yes , a simple rotation can be used to describe the motion, but also the same motion can be described by two appropriate rotations. These alternatives descriptions are NOT mutually exclusive!

            A simple analogy to your claim , which is even more stupid than your favourite false analogy*, would be that a single rotation through 10 degrees cannot , under any circumstances , be decomposed into two rotations each through 5 degrees.

            Likewise a single rotation of an object about an external axis can be decomposed into 1. a rotation of the point at the centre of mass of the object around the same external axis and 2. A second rotation of the object around the centre of mass. They are equivalent, see –

            https://i.postimg.cc/vBxkRTGH/DREMs-Nightmare-Before-Xmas.gif

            I also have had a good laugh about your comment “You cannot have a rotation of a point, because it is a point. There is nothing about it which can change its orientation” .

            Do you write your own material?This is such a classic!

            Of course a point has no orientation, but the position vector joining the point to the centre of rotation most definitely does!!! See the red line in the above linked depiction.

            Anyway DREM, please continue with your convincing attempt to appear to be a total moron. Don’t let my comments discourage you as , once more, I have to chuckle at the damage done to the denial community by you and your colleagues wonderful contributions. Bravo! More please!

            * the rigid body analogy to the Earth/Moon system, is also capable of generating it’s fair share of amusement. On that note, DREM, are there any developments on formulating how your rotating rigid body concept copes with elliptical orbits?
            Any sign of progress, no matter how insignificant, would be greatly appreciated by all. 😂

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Google “can a point mass rotate?”

            First result: “Rotation does not apply to a point mass since we cannot ascribe to it orientation in space (Section 5). During the pure rotation of a rigid body its separate particles describe circular motions with the same angular velocity about the same axis.”

            Besides which, as you keep ignoring, general plane motion specifically dictates a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass. You keep talking about the two options not being mutually exclusive…I am not saying that they are exclusive, MikeR. You can describe the motion of a pure rotation as two separate motions if you wish. You can describe it as a bunch of balloons if you wish. However, the correct kinematic description for the ball on a string etc is as one single motion, category 2). You can, incorrectly, break it down into two motions, but then it is a translation plus a rotation. You still only have one axis of rotation.

            If there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            P.S:

            “What part of my previous statement “Never have disagreed with this and never will, so there is no need to keep referring to this”, do you not understand?”

            That it doesn’t bear any resemblance to the history of the discussion we have had on this subject, MikeR. That’s what I don’t understand. You have never before acknowledged that the motion of the ball on a string etc can be described as a single motion about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass. You have in fact fought me every step of the way in trying to describe it that way. Now you expect me to accept that you have “never disagreed”? What were all the disagreements over then, MikeR!?

            So you want to just come along and act like you knew it all along, with no apology, no acceptance that you were wrong before, and just expect me never to refer to it again!? You are hilarious!

          • Nate says:

            M “Of course a point has no orientation, but the position vector joining the point to the centre of rotation most definitely does!!! See the red line in the above linked depiction.”

            A perfectly logical, clear argument that any educated person can understand.

            But DREMT cant deal..he has to Google search for a response.

            Hilarious.

          • Nate says:

            I have senior moments, where I forget where I put my phone or keys.

            But after all this time discussing rotation, it seems DREMT is having a senior week. Forgeting what rotation even means..

            Astonishing.

            Or, just an attempt to distract from his overall loss of the Moon spin argument.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            P.P.S:

            "Of course a point has no orientation, but the position vector joining the point to the centre of rotation most definitely does!!! See the red line in the above linked depiction."

            Just in case this wasn’t clear…you say, "joining the point to the center of rotation"…there is no "center of rotation" because there is no rotation of the center of mass about an external axis. It is a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation about that center of mass, in general plane motion. Which you should not even be using, anyway, because the motion belongs in category 2) in any case.

            A translation is not a rotation, and it involves no axis of rotation.

          • Nate says:

            DREMT now seems to believe that a point mass in a circular orbit is NOT a rotation around the orbit center. But this contradicts all his previous descriptions of orbiting being a rotation.

            Weird.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I will just repeat this comment from earlier:

            Going back to what we were discussing previously, I hope people can see the sleight of hand that is going on, regarding the ball on a string. This is what they do:

            1) In general plane motion, you decompose a motion into a translation of the center of mass, plus a rotation of the object about that center of mass.
            2) So for the ball on a string, they argue the center of mass of the ball is translating in a circle, and the ball is then rotating about that center of mass.
            3) Then they claim that since the translation of the center of mass is in a circle, it is actually a rotation about an axis at the center of revolution (this is wrong).
            4) Hey presto! Suddenly the ball on a string has two axes of rotation!

            No. A translation is a translation. It involves no axis of rotation. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string, even if you do look at it as a general plane motion.

            However, a ball on a string is more simply and accurately described as a case of pure rotation of the entire ball about an axis in the center of revolution, with no rotation about the balls own center of mass. One single motion.

            Either way, the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. If it had two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution, and the string would have to be wrapping around the ball.

          • Nate says:

            Ha!

            “Then they claim that since the translation of the center of mass is in a circle, it is actually a rotation about an axis”

            Not us claiming it, just standard dictionaries…and earlier DREMTs!

            But you often differ with them!

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            Maybe you should comb through our correspondence over several years and find where I have said explicitly that none of the motions for a rigid plate can be accounted for by a single rotation. If I did, I was either wrong* , taken out of context or just simply misunderstood**.

            DREM If you cannot find an explicit case then we can just assume your claim is just more rhetorical b.s..

            Returning to the ball on a string , you are correct in one aspect with your statement, ” …a ball on a string is more simply and accurately described as a case of pure rotation of the entire ball..” .

            The “simply” is definitely correct. The ” accurately described ” is debatable. Again, it is akin to saying with respect to the equations 5 + 5 = 10 and 8 +2 = 10 , the simpler right hand side is a more accurate description, than the left hand side of these equations, despite them being equivalent . The complexity of left hand side demonstrates that there are more than one way to obtain the same simple result.

            Do I need to spell out the correspondence between this example and our single, dual rotation debate in either the rigid body or lunar motion examples? I sincerely hope not, but I know what I am dealing with.
            DREMT -“No. A translation is a translation. It involves no axis of rotation. ”

            Translation in its generic sense*** describes motion where the spatial coordinates of a rigid object change so that all parts travel in parallel . Particularly note the use of the word “parallel” which does not mean straight parallel lines. A body in circular motion ( subset of curvilinear motion for the case where the radius of curvature is constant) travels so that the opposite sides**** of the body to the centre of rotation travel in parallel concentric circles.

            Therefore DREM, your assertion that translation involves no axis of rotation is just an assertion, that is true except when it is wrong.
            .
            .
            .

            * happy to plead guilty in this case. It takes emotional maturity to admit your mistake and move on. Some people are not suitably equipped and just double down and repeat themselves . Not mentioning names.

            ** there has been a lot of semantic confusion about terms like “translation”, ” linear translation”, “rectilinear translation”, “curvilinear motion” , “rotation,” revolution” etc.. as these are often employed in different ways in different contexts in physics, astronomy and engineering.

            *** Confusingly the term “translation” is commonly used in a different context to specifically describe linear translation. A Google search will find both, hence the confusion.

            **** Opposite here means the following. For a moon shaped object , the near and far points, with respect to the centre of revolution of the moon will always, by definition, be concentric, see option 2, below. The path traced out by the points fixed to the surface will trace out more complex parallel epicycloidal shapes , when the rotation speed does not match the orbital speed, option 1 see below.

            https://i.postimg.cc/rp9rDhfB/Circular-Orbits-Option1.gif

            https://i.postimg.cc/Jh8X4w53/Circular-Orbits-Option2.gif

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR…my gosh, you can waffle on.

            Let me break it down for you:

            1) The movement of the ball on a string is either:
            a) A general plane motion – a translation plus a rotation. Two motions, only one of which is a rotation.
            b) A pure rotation, one single motion.
            2) a is only applicable if b does not apply, but b does apply (all according to Brown notes).
            3) Either way, a or b, there is only one axis of rotation, because there is only one rotation.
            4) If there were two axes of rotation (one external to the ball, one internal) you would see all sides of the ball from the center of revolution.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            You are wonderful at recycling. How many times do we have to be subject to your series of assertions? Despite your protestations I think we all understand where you are coming from. It’s not rocket science. In fact it’s not science* at all.

            DREM, you are really starting to get boring. Rather than rehashing the same old, how about some new material or just respond to the questions that arise from your comments such as –

            1. DREM, why do you think the term “translation” does not include rotation? See the definition of translation in my preceding comment.

            2. Also why do you think that a single motion cannot be decomposed into two or more motions (and why restrict ourselves to just 2D **)?

            3. Why do you think a rigid body analogy, such as the merry-go-round analogy, is appropriate to the Earth and Moon system where both the Earth and Moon are both capable of rotating at independent rates?

            4. DREM, how do you explain the properties of elliptical orbits (i.e. variable orbital speed) using the rotating rigid body analogy?

            5. Related to 4. how do you account for libration using the rigid body analogy?

            6. DREM, why do you always evade when confronted with question 5?

            7. DREM , why do you think tidal locking means freezing of the Moon’s axial rotation?

            8. DREM, why do you think scientists have bothered to publish direct empirical measurements of the Moon’s axial rotational rate over the past 40 to 50 years , if it is always exactly zero?

            9. Additionally why do these scientist publish measured data about the orientation of the Moon’s rotational axis if the axis does not exist , as it is just a figment of the imagination of these deluded scientists

            10. DREM, why do you think generations of astronomers and physicists , since the time of Newton, are so stupid as to not realise that the Moon does not rotate, if this is the case?

            11. As a corollary to 10. , why do you think that you and a few special colleagues have this unique insight that has evaded nearly every other professional astronomer and physicist?

            12 . As a corollary to 11., DREM, have you heard of the term “delusions of grandeur”?

            Anyway are we getting to get another repetition or a genuine response to these questions? So many questions for DREM and from past experience, I expect very few answers . Maybe he will prove me wrong. Hope springs eternal.

            * Apologies to any psychologists reading this.

            ** For 3D – Google “Euler Angles” for information about the decomposition of 3D rotations.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Another Gish gallop from MikeR, in the form of a ridiculously extensive list of questions, as an attempt to evade, and change the subject.

            “How many times do we have to be subject to your series of assertions?”

            They are not just assertions, MikeR, everything has been backed up via the notes from Brown. I keep repeating them because I am right, and you are wrong.

            “1. DREM, why do you think the term “translation” does not include rotation? See the definition of translation in my preceding comment.”

            Because they are two completely different motions, MikeR.

            “2. Also why do you think that a single motion cannot be decomposed into two or more motions (and why restrict ourselves to just 2D **)?”

            Because the notes from Brown state that a motion is only to be categorized as a general plane motion if it does not fall into the category of a pure translation, or a pure rotation. The ball on a string etc is a case of pure rotation. However, if you erroneously choose to treat it as a general plane motion, then you are breaking it down into a translation plus a rotation. Still only one axis of rotation.

            “3. Why do you think a rigid body analogy, such as the merry-go-round analogy, is appropriate to the Earth and Moon system where both the Earth and Moon are both capable of rotating at independent rates?”

            As I have explained many times, the simple analogies serve a simple purpose. For one thing, to help make the point that you supposedly now accept – that something moving roughly like the moon, with one face generally always oriented towards the center of the revolution, can be described as moving in a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.

            “4. DREM, how do you explain the properties of elliptical orbits (i.e. variable orbital speed) using the rotating rigid body analogy?”

            I don’t. I explain the properties of elliptical orbits, like variable orbital speed, via Kepler’s laws, same as you do. That is beyond the scope of the analogies, as I have explained ad nauseam.

            “5. Related to 4. how do you account for libration using the rigid body analogy?”

            I don’t. It is beyond the scope of the analogies. I account for it as I have explained countless times to countless commenters. Go look it up.

            “6. DREM, why do you always evade when confronted with question 5?”

            I don’t. Go look it up.

            “7. DREM , why do you think tidal locking means freezing of the Moon’s axial rotation?”

            I was not aware that I did. Not sure exactly what you mean by freezing. I can tell you, though, that from the Non-Spinner perspective, tidal locking at Spinner 1:1 (i.e. what a Spinner would see as one axial rotation per orbit) equals tidal locking at Non-Spinner 0:1 (zero axial rotations per orbit). They are the same thing, just seen in two different ways.

            “8. DREM, why do you think scientists have bothered to publish direct empirical measurements of the Moon’s axial rotational rate over the past 40 to 50 years , if it is always exactly zero?”

            They mistake the change in orientation of the moon for axial rotation. So what they are publishing is data on the rate of change in orientation of the moon.

            “9. Additionally why do these scientist publish measured data about the orientation of the Moon’s rotational axis if the axis does not exist , as it is just a figment of the imagination of these deluded scientists”

            Because they think the moon rotates on its own axis.

            “10. DREM, why do you think generations of astronomers and physicists , since the time of Newton, are so stupid as to not realise that the Moon does not rotate, if this is the case?”

            I do not think they are stupid.

            “11. As a corollary to 10. , why do you think that you and a few special colleagues have this unique insight that has evaded nearly every other professional astronomer and physicist?”

            I don’t.

            “12 . As a corollary to 11., DREM, have you heard of the term “delusions of grandeur”?”

            Yes.

            I think that is everything…

          • MikeR says:

            I am very pleased that I have managed to get a more detailed response from DREM and not another cut and paste repetition.

            Here is DREM in action.

            “Another Gish gallop from MikeR, in the form of a ridiculously extensive list of questions, as an attempt to evade, and change the subject.

            How many times do we have to be subject to your series of assertions?

            They are not just assertions, MikeR, everything has been backed up via the notes from Brown. I keep repeating them because I am right, and you are wrong.”

            DREM, a Gish Gallop is evasion in response to a question, via a sequence of changes of topics, usually unrelated to the original question.

            My questions are not in series, but in parallel and are all related to your belief that the only valid way to describe the motion of the Moon is via an axial non rotating Moon. I do however note some shape shifting going on with your answer to 7. We are making some progress.

            Now with regard to your answers.

            1. DREM, why do you think the term translation does not include rotation? See the definition of translation in my preceding comment.

            DREM – “Because they are two completely different motions, MikeR.”

            My Response – Another assertion from DREM.

            Translation describes motion where the spatial coordinates of a rigid object change so that all parts travel in parallel. See 5.1.2 of Brown. Rotational motion fits this definition perfectly.

            2. Also why do you think that a single motion cannot be decomposed into two or more motions (and why restrict ourselves to just 2D **)?

            DREM – “Because the notes from Brown state that a motion is only to be categorized as a general plane motion if it does not fall into the category of a pure translation, or a pure rotation. The ball on a string etc is a case of pure rotation. However, if you erroneously choose to treat it as a general plane motion, then you are breaking it down into atranslationplus a rotation. Still onlyoneaxis of rotation.”

            My Response – This is the trickiest to explain because of the wording in the Brown notes which could lead to confusion for some.

            However It is clear that rotational motion can be consideredas 1. simply alone or alternatively as 2. a general plane motion where motion can be decomposed.

            The first is a subset of the second. They are not discrete non overlapping sets ( I can do a Venn diagram if you like).

            Accordingly, it is impossible to conceive that any motion of a rigid body ,that does not deform during motion, cannot be categorized within the paradigm of general planar motion. If you can think of a case, let me and everyone else know.

            3. Why do you think a rigid body analogy, such as the merry-go-round analogy, is appropriate to the Earth and Moon system where both the Earth and Moon are both capable of rotating at independent rates?

            DREM – “As I have explained many times, the simple analogies serve a simple purpose. For one thing, to help make the point that you supposedly now accept that something moving roughly like the moon, with one face generally always oriented towards the center of the revolution, can be described as moving in a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the objects center of mass.”

            My Response – yes you have explained the single purpose of your analogy many times .

            There are three types of analogies, useful, useless and totally useless.

            Useless analogies are the domain of “argument by false analogy” where one common characteristic is used to imply that there is more general commonality than actually exists, i.e. my dog has a nose, I have a nose, I am therefore a dog.

            The totally useless analogy is where there are no common characteristics. For the rigid body analogy to the Earth/Moon system, the closest commonality, is only seeing one side of the Moon which is at best only vaguely true (see 5. below). As Maxwell Smart used to say “only missed by that much”.

            4. DREM, how do you explain the properties of elliptical orbits (i.e. variable orbital speed) using the rotating rigid body analogy?

            DREM – “I dont. I explain the properties of elliptical orbits, like variable orbital speed, via Keplers laws, same as you do. That is beyond the scope of the analogies, as I have explained ad nauseam.”

            My Response – yes DREM, the single rigid body analogy is a total useless analogy. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to primarily base their argument on this?

            God only knows as he is only one who may have access to whatever is going on in DREM’s mind.

            5. Related to 4. how do you account for libration using the rigid body analogy?

            DREM -” I dont. It is beyond the scope of the analogies. I account for it as I have explained countless times to countless commenters. Go look it up.”

            My Response – Excellent that you have cleared that up. You have no mechanism via analogy to account for libration. You say you have some other mechanism and that I should look it up. You have made thousands of comments over the past couple if years. Where is it? Better still just copy and paste from wherever it is, so we can appreciate it in its full glory. Don’t be ashamed.

            6. DREM, why do you always evade when confronted with question 5?

            DREM – “I dont. Go look it up”.

            My Response – Again, I am not sure why you repetitively evaded answering, in our previous exchange on the specific matter of libration ( I will see if I can find that exchange), other than the shame factor.

            7. DREM , why do you think tidal locking means freezing of the Moons axial rotation?

            DREM – ” I was not aware that I did. Not sure exactly what you mean by freezing. I can tell you, though, that from the Non-Spinner perspective, tidal locking at Spinner 1:1 (i.e. what a Spinner would see as one axial rotation per orbit) equals tidal locking at Non-Spinner 0:1 (zero axial rotations per orbit). They are the same thing, just seen in two different ways.”

            My Response – yes there is some validity in the 0:1 mode using a non-inertial reference frame but unfortunately it’s not that useful with regard to understanding energetics and angular momentum.

            That is why the (1:1) mode, using an inertial reference frame, is preferred by astronomers and physicists.

            You have made the remarkable claim,on more than one occasion (correct me if I am wrong), that the Moon does not rotate on its axis with respect to any reference frame. You now seem to be wavering with regard to this claim. Do you still stand by this? If not then we can agree and terminate these exchanges.

            8. DREM, why do you think scientists have bothered to publish direct empirical measurements of the Moons axial rotational rate over the past 40 to 50 years , if it is always exactly zero?

            DREM – “They mistake the change in orientation of the moon for axial rotation. So what they are publishing is data on the rate of change in orientation of the moon”.

            My Response – Professional astronomers who devote years and resources to these measurements are mistaken. You propose a very interesting hypothesis.

            However the astronomers could tell very, very easily whether it is a rate of change of the orientation from their measurements. The orbital motion of the Moon is elliptical and, if your hypothesis was correct, they would easily see the rate of change vary from the Moon’s perigee to apogee.

            9. Additionally why do these scientist publish measured data about the orientation of the Moons rotational axis if the axis does not exist , as it is just a figment of the imagination of these deluded scientists

            DREM – “Because they think the moon rotates on its own axis”.

            My Response – They have good reasons to think this. See previous answer.

            10. DREM, why do you think generations of astronomers and physicists , since the time of Newton, are so stupid as to not realise that the Moon does not rotate, if this is the case?

            DREM – “I do not think they are stupid.”

            My Response – Good,are they just deluded?

            11. As a corollary to 10. , why do you think that you and a few special colleagues have this unique insight that has evaded nearly every other professional astronomer and physicist?

            DREM – “I dont.”

            My Response – I am glad that you have changed your mind on this matter . I recall that you have made claims that you have some original thoughts ( or words to that effect) that the mainstream are blissfully unaware of.

            12 . As a corollary to 11., DREM, have you heard of the term delusions of grandeur?

            DREM – “Yes.”

            My Response – DREM, do you have a formal diagnosis and a treatment plan?

            DREM – I think that is everything

            I have many more questions so we can continue the Q and A session if you like. I know you are a glutton for punishment.

          • MikeR says:

            In the interests of clarity, a minor formatting revision to the Q and A session with DREM.

            I am very pleased that I have managed to get a more detailed response from him and not another cut and paste repetition.

            Here is DREM in action.

            “Another Gish gallop from MikeR, in the form of a ridiculously extensive list of questions, as an attempt to evade, and change the subject.

            “How many times do we have to be subject to your series of assertions?”

            They are not just assertions, MikeR, everything has been backed up via the notes from Brown. I keep repeating them because I am right, and you are wrong.”

            DREM, a Gish Gallop is evasion in response to a question, via a sequence of changes of topics, usually unrelated to the original question.

            My questions are not in series, but in parallel and are all related to your belief that the only valid way to describe the motion of the Moon is via an axial non rotating Moon. I do however note some shape shifting going on with your answer to 7. We are making some progress.

            Now with regard to your answers.

            1 . DREM, why do you think the term “translation” does not include rotation? See the definition of translation in my preceding comment.”

            DREM – “Because they are two completely different motions, MikeR.”

            My Response – Another repetitive assertion from DREM.

            Translation describes motion where the spatial coordinates of a rigid object change so that all parts travel in parallel. See 5.1.2 of Brown. Rotational motion fits this definition perfectly.

            2 . Also why do you think that a single motion cannot be decomposed into two or more motions (and why restrict ourselves to just 2D **)?”

            DREM – “Because the notes from Brown state that a motion is only to be categorized as a general plane motion if it does not fall into the category of a pure translation, or a pure rotation. The ball on a string etc is a case of pure rotation. However, if you erroneously choose to treat it as a general plane motion, then you are breaking it down into a translation plus a rotation. Still only one axis of rotation.”

            My Response – This is the trickiest to explain because of the wording in the Brown notes which could lead to confusion for some.

            However It is clear that rotational motion can be considered as 1. simply alone or alternatively as 2. a general plane motion where motion can be decomposed.

            The first is a subset of the second. They are not discrete non overlapping sets ( I can do a Venn diagram if you like).

            Accordingly, it is impossible to conceive that any motion of a rigid body ,that does not deform during motion, cannot be categorized within the paradigm of general planar motion. If you can think of a case, let me and everyone else know.

            3 . Why do you think a rigid body analogy, such as the merry-go-round analogy, is appropriate to the Earth and Moon system where both the Earth and Moon are both capable of rotating at independent rates?”

            DREM – “As I have explained many times, the simple analogies serve a simple purpose. For one thing, to help make the point that you supposedly now accept – that something moving roughly like the moon, with one face generally always oriented towards the center of the revolution, can be described as moving in a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass.”

            My Response – yes, you have explained the single purpose of your analogy many times .

            There are three types of analogies, useful, useless and totally useless.

            Useless analogies are the domain of “argument by false analogy” where one common characteristic is used to imply that there is more general commonality than actually exists, i.e. my dog has a nose, I have a nose, I am therefore a dog.

            The totally useless analogy is where there are no common characteristics. For the rigid body analogy to the Earth/Moon system, the closest commonality, is only seeing one side of the Moon which is at best only vaguely true (see 5. below). As Maxwell Smart used to say “only missed by that much”.

            4 . DREM, how do you explain the properties of elliptical orbits (i.e. variable orbital speed) using the rotating rigid body analogy?”

            DREM – “I don’t. I explain the properties of elliptical orbits, like variable orbital speed, via Kepler’s laws, same as you do. That is beyond the scope of the analogies, as I have explained ad nauseam.”

            My Response – yes DREM, the single rigid body analogy is a total useless analogy. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to primarily base their argument on this?

            God only knows as he is only one who may have access to whatever is going on in DREM’s mind.

            5 . Related to 4. how do you account for libration using the rigid body analogy?”

            DREM -” I don’t. It is beyond the scope of the analogies. I account for it as I have explained countless times to countless commenters. Go look it up.”

            My Response – Excellent that you have cleared that up. You have no mechanism via analogy to account for libration. You say you have some other mechanism and that I should look it up. You have made thousands of comments over the past couple if years. Where is it? Better still just copy and paste from wherever it is, so we can appreciate it in its full glory. Don’t be ashamed.

            6 . DREM, why do you always evade when confronted with question 5?”

            DREM – “I don’t. Go look it up”.

            My Response – Again, I am not sure why you repetitively evaded answering, in our previous exchange on the specific matter of libration ( I will see if I can find that exchange), other than the shame factor.

            7 . DREM , why do you think tidal locking means freezing of the Moon’s axial rotation?”

            DREM – ” I was not aware that I did. Not sure exactly what you mean by freezing. I can tell you, though, that from the Non-Spinner perspective, tidal locking at Spinner 1:1 (i.e. what a Spinner would see as one axial rotation per orbit) equals tidal locking at Non-Spinner 0:1 (zero axial rotations per orbit). They are the same thing, just seen in two different ways.”

            My Response – yes there is some validity in the 0:1 mode using a non-inertial reference frame but unfortunately it’s not that useful with regard to understanding energetics and angular momentum.

            That is why the (1:1) mode, using an inertial reference frame, is preferred by astronomers and physicists.

            You have made the remarkable claim,on more than one occasion (correct me if I am wrong), that the Moon does not rotate on its axis with respect to any reference frame. You now seem to be wavering with regard to this claim. Do you still stand by this? If not then we can agree and terminate these exchanges.

            ““ 8 . DREM, why do you think scientists have bothered to publish direct empirical measurements of the Moon’s axial rotational rate over the past 40 to 50 years , if it is always exactly zero?”

            DREM – “They mistake the change in orientation of the moon for axial rotation. So what they are publishing is data on the rate of change in orientation of the moon”.

            My Response – Professional astronomers who devote years and resources to these measurements are mistaken. You propose a very interesting hypothesis.

            However the astronomers could tell very, very easily whether it is a rate of change of the orientation from their measurements. The orbital motion of the Moon is elliptical and, if your hypothesis was correct, they would easily see the rate of change vary from the Moon’s perigee to apogee.

            9 . Additionally why do these scientist publish measured data about the orientation of the Moon’s rotational axis if the axis does not exist , as it is just a figment of the imagination of these deluded scientists”

            DREM – “Because they think the moon rotates on its own axis”.

            My Response – They have good reasons to think this. See previous answer.

            10 . DREM, why do you think generations of astronomers and physicists , since the time of Newton, are so stupid as to not realise that the Moon does not rotate, if this is the case?”

            DREM – “I do not think they are stupid.”

            My Response – Good, are they just deluded?

            11 . As a corollary to 10. , why do you think that you and a few special colleagues have this unique insight that has evaded nearly every other professional astronomer and physicist?”

            DREM – “I don’t.”

            My Response – I am glad that you have changed your mind on this matter . I recall that you have made claims that you have some original thoughts ( or words to that effect) that the mainstream are blissfully unaware of.

            12 . As a corollary to 11., DREM, have you heard of the term “delusions of grandeur”?”

            DREM – “Yes.”

            My Response – DREM, do you have a formal diagnosis and a treatment plan?

            DREM – I think that is everything…

            I have many more questions so we can continue the Q and A session if you like.

            DREM, I know you are such a glutton for punishment. I am always willing to indulge his passions.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “DREM, a Gish Gallop is evasion in response to a question, via a sequence of changes of topics, usually unrelated to the original question.”

            You were attempting to change the subject, yes. They were a list of questions that were vaguely related…but you were attempting to shift focus, as you were in a tight spot.

            1. “Translation describes motion where the spatial coordinates of a rigid object change so that all parts travel in parallel. See 5.1.2 of Brown. Rotational motion fits this definition perfectly.”

            I am not buying what you are selling, MikeR. Translation and rotation are two completely different types of motion, according to everything I have ever read on the topic.

            2. “Accordingly, it is impossible to conceive that any motion of a rigid body ,that does not deform during motion, cannot be categorized within the paradigm of general planar motion. If you can think of a case, let me and everyone else know.”

            As I said, the ball on a string etc is a case of pure rotation. However, if you erroneously choose to treat it as a general plane motion, then you are breaking it down into a translation plus a rotation. Still only one axis of rotation. If there were two axes of rotation, you would see all sides of the ball from the center of the orbit.

            3. “For the rigid body analogy to the Earth/Moon system, the closest commonality, is only seeing one side of the Moon which is at best only vaguely true (see 5. below). As Maxwell Smart used to say “only missed by that much”.

            But you now acknowledge that an object moving like a ball on a string can be classified as a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass. So you must finally understand a part of the Non-Spinner position, which many of your fellow Spinners still dispute, even now. The analogies have helped you make progress!

            4. “yes DREM, the single rigid body analogy is a total useless analogy. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to primarily base their argument on this?”

            It is obviously not a useless analogy, at all. See previous response.

            5. “Excellent that you have cleared that up. You have no mechanism via analogy to account for libration. You say you have some other mechanism and that I should look it up. You have made thousands of comments over the past couple if years. Where is it? Better still just copy and paste from wherever it is, so we can appreciate it in its full glory. Don’t be ashamed.”

            No. Can’t be bothered.

            6. “Again, I am not sure why you repetitively evaded answering, in our previous exchange on the specific matter of libration (I will see if I can find that exchange), other than the shame factor.”

            I don’t evade anything, MikeR. I have spent the last few months continuously answering your questions, and playing your stupid games. I get bored. Libration takes time to explain. I have already explained it so many times.

            7. “You have made the remarkable claim,on more than one occasion (correct me if I am wrong), that the Moon does not rotate on its axis with respect to any reference frame. You now seem to be wavering with regard to this claim. Do you still stand by this? If not then we can agree and terminate these exchanges.”

            The moon does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame…and you should now be able to see why. You now acknowledge that an object moving like the ball on a string can be classified as a pure rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s center of mass. That of course remains true, regardless of appearances from a specific reference frame. So…now you know.

            8. “However the astronomers could tell very, very easily whether it is a rate of change of the orientation from their measurements. The orbital motion of the Moon is elliptical and, if your hypothesis was correct, they would easily see the rate of change vary from the Moon’s perigee to apogee.”

            I thought you Spinners argued that the rate of change in orientation was fairly steady, whilst the orbital speed was what varied…

            9. “They have good reasons to think this. See previous answer.”

            See previous response.

            10. “Good,are they just deluded?”

            They’re just wrong.

            11. “I am glad that you have changed your mind on this matter . I recall that you have made claims that you have some original thoughts ( or words to that effect) that the mainstream are blissfully unaware of.”

            No, I think you are mistaken. But, like a lot of your questions, you have already asked me before. Weird that you would keep asking me the same questions over and over. Unless it was just a Gish gallop exercise, of course.

            12 . “DREM, do you have a formal diagnosis and a treatment plan?”

            No.

            “I have many more questions so we can continue the Q and A session if you like. I know you are a glutton for punishment.”

            I will not be answering any more of your questions. You now owe me twelve answers to any questions of my choosing, to be asked at any time of my choosing.

          • MikeR says:

            Interesting how WordPress can mangle symbols! Particularly as in my WordPress blog it doesn’t!

            see https://mikerdotblog.wordpress.com/comment-page-1/#comment-8

            Hopefully between the two versions above and this link, my Q and A session makes sense.

            Otherwise back to the drawing boards.

          • MikeR says:

            I am not going to comment much about DREM’s latest contribution as much of it is just diced and sliced regurgitation of his boringly stale signature dish. 

            Here are some comments regarding his other ridiculous contributions.

                I am not buying what you are selling, MikeR. Translation and rotation are two completely different types of motion, according to everything I have ever read on the topic. 

            It is clear you actually haven’t read the  Brown article which you first linked to!  All that is required to do is for you to read (and understand) the first 4 lines of Part 5.1.2. . To make it easy for you here is the link again.

            https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm

             don’t evade anything, MikeR. I have spent the last few months continuously answering your questions, and playing your stupid games. I get bored. Libration takes time to explain. I have already explained it so many times.
             
            Ok if it exists, just cut and paste  it. You have shown , in th past, great aptitude in using Ctrl C and Ctrl V , so it should not take you more than a minute or two.

            What are you ashamed of? Once you have done this I promise I will not pester you.

            I thought you Spinners argued that the rate of change in orientation was fairly steady, whilst the orbital speed was what varied… 

            No, the rate of rotation of the Moon on its axis has been gradually slowing as the separation between the Earth and Moon increases. These very slow changes are referred to as secular variations. Here is an article where they are actually measuring the slowing down of the rotation rate of the Moon. Note the current measured rate is nowhere near zero.

            see  – https://tinyurl.com/ydz3anky

             You now owe me twelve answers to any questions of my choosing, to be asked at any time of my choosing.  

            DREM , please go for it. However I am impatient but  I am more than happy  to answer more than twelve questions.

            It might indicate that you may have thought of something new to say and that would be simply amazing!

          • MikeR says:

            Does anyone Know what is going on with the butchering of text by WordPress?

            I think I might have to resort to using Notepad and then checking for weird ASCII or Unicode characters with a hex editor, before posting.

          • MikeR says:

            Attempt 2 (hopefully without crud).

            I am not going to comment much about DREM’s latest contribution as much of it is just diced and sliced regurgitation of his boringly stale signature dish.

            Here are some of my comments regarding his other ridiculous contributions.

            I am not buying what you are selling, MikeR. Translation and rotation are two completely different types of motion, according to everything I have ever read on the topic.

            It is clear you actually have read the Brown article which you first linked to. All that is required to do is for you to read (and understand) the first 4 lines of 5.1.2. . To make it easy for you here is the link again.

            https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm

            ” I don’t evade anything, MikeR. I have spent the last few months continuously answering your questions, and playing your stupid games. I get bored. Libration takes time to explain. I have already explained it so many times.”

            Ok, DREM if it exists just cut and paste your explanation. You have shown , in the past, great aptitude in using Ctrl C and Ctrl V , so it should not take you more than a minute or two of your valuable time.

            What are you ashamed of? Once you have done this I promise I will not pester you about this again.

            “I thought you Spinners argued that the rate of change in orientation was fairly steady, whilst the orbital speed was what varied”

            No, the rate of rotation of the Moon on its axis has been gradually slowing as the separation between the earth and moon increases. These very slow changes are referred to as secular variations. Here is an article where they are actually measuring the slowing down of the rotation rate of the Moon. Note the rotational speed is definitely not zero

            see – https://tinyurl.com/ydz3anky

            “You now owe me twelve answers to any questions of my choosing, to be asked at any time of my choosing.”

            DREM , please go for it. However I am impatient but I am more than happy to answer more than 12 questions. It might indicate that you may have thought of something new and that would be simply amazing!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “I am not going to comment much about DREM’s latest contribution as much of it is just diced and sliced regurgitation of his boringly stale signature dish.”

            In other words, most of it he has no rebuttal for.

            “It is clear you actually haven’t read the Brown article which you first linked to! All that is required to do is for you to read (and understand) the first 4 lines of Part 5.1.2. . To make it easy for you here is the link again.”

            Yes, read and understood. Translation and rotation are two separate types of motion.

            “Ok if it exists, just cut and paste it. You have shown , in th past, great aptitude in using Ctrl C and Ctrl V , so it should not take you more than a minute or two.”

            No thanks.

            “What are you ashamed of?”

            Nothing. I also have nothing to prove to you. I also don’t believe you if you are trying to say you haven’t read a discussion on libration yet.

            “Once you have done this I promise I will not pester you.”

            Of course you will. That is all you ever do.

            “Note the current measured rate is nowhere near zero.”

            Because they mistake a change in orientation for axial rotation.

            “It might indicate that you may have thought of something new to say and that would be simply amazing!”

            What would be amazing is if you listened to and learned from the things I have already said, instead of asking me questions you already know the answers to, in order to shift the focus from yourself.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            You clearly are incapable of reading the text you linked to and you are also totally incapable of locating , if it indeed exists, your explanation for how libration works for a non rotating Moon. Accordingly I think it is time to move on.

            Returning to theme of delusions of grandeur , particularly of the narcissistic variety. I was wondering if you could identify the arrogant wanker who when, referring to the scientists who have been been diligently measuring and analysing rotational data from the Moon for 50 years.

            Yes, they too cannot correctly separate orbital motion from axial rotation. Its a common problem.

            The same arsehat proclaimed the following.

            Its just a simple, fundamental concept. You either get it or you dont. I was unfortunate enough to understand it from the get go.

            and again lamenting his fate as an unrecognised genius.

            just something you either get, or you dont. I cant help it that I understood it immediately. I almost wish I hadnt.

            This was obviously someone other than DREM , as he now denies he has a particular unique insight that has eluded scientists such as Newton and the entire astronomical community.

            Maybe DREM has some knowledge regarding the pompous prick who made these comments?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR gets frustrated, and starts lashing out like a child.

          • MikeR says:

            Hmm DREM, it sounds like I struck a nerve. So the pompous prick was you all along.

            Thanks for coming out.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More juvenile nonsense.

          • MikeR says:

            Now that we have identified the culprit via a sensitive raw nerve, maybe DREM would like to exhibit some humility and express some regret* for the disparaging nature of his comments about scientists who devote their careers to studying the Moon.

            It might soothe DREM’s nerves and be first step on the long arduous road to restore some credibility. You have to start somewhere.

            * just a statement of regret. A full apology to the scientists is, I suspect, not necessary as I am sure they are not that worried about comments from some scientifically illiterate random on this web site. NASA scientists in particular have had to deal with loonies for years. Moon landing hoaxers, flat Earthers etc… , just other nutcase to add the collection.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            All’s well that ends well.

            DREM surrender document has been submitted via PST*.

            As Nate said when starting this sub thread

            Ha ha ha

            Youve hit a dead end. Its over my friend. Supporters* are abandoning you.

            * no need to keep resubmitting. We have got the message.

            ** what’s happened to Ftop? I submitted my work for his assignment 4 or 5 days ago and he has now gone missing. I hope he is ok. Maybe he is busy learning how to code?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I expect ftop_t has realized that there is no point talking to you, since you can not be reasoned with. And no, me asking you to stop trolling is not surrendering. You really are trolling, and I genuinely would like you to stop. MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            Well DREM, what a sad state of affairs.

            Lately we have had wide ranging discussions about, amongst other things,

            1. the shortcomings of your theory vis a vis the elliptical orbit of the Moon, in particular your mysteriously missing explanation for libration and,

            2. the fact that rotation of the moon on its axis has been precisely measured by astronomers for many years and

            3. your pretentious disparagement of these scientists who work in a field where you have absolutely no qualifications.

            It seems for some unfathomable reason ( I can hazard a guess) thatvyou have decided that you want to terminate these discussions, and your mechanism is via your usual pathetic taunt of a PST.

            Terminating the discussions is your right, as no one is forcing you to comment here, but where I come from , this is tantamount to deserting the scene of battle or waving the white flag of surrender.

            Accordingly , rather than PST , you should change your surrender motif to PSTMWTF ( Please Stop Tormenting Me With the Facts).

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Another reason ftop_t might not be responding, is that you have since conceded that the movement of the ball on a string, etc, can be described as one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the object’s own center of mass. In which case, you have finally acknowledged the point he was trying to make all along, and basically you concede the entire debate.

            That’s probably all he was waiting to see. As the debate is now over, I guess you will be wanting to shoot off, MikeR. However you want to flee the scene, with your tail between your legs, is up to you. I’m happy with the win. You can scroll down-thread, and re-read the comments about libration between Tim Folkerts, ClintR and myself if that helps improve you further.

            As for the scientists who are measuring the rate at which the moon changes its orientation whilst it orbits, they are doing a grand job. Their only error is in mistaking a change of orientation for axial rotation. Oh well.

            There’s just one more thing: MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            “I expect ftop_t has realized that there is no point talking to you, since you can not be reasoned with.”

            Yeah riiiight..

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-571933

            It looks like FTOP realized that he would have to abandon all mathematical rigor to support this effort.

            He learned in a week or so, what DREMT is unable to learn in years, that this is a losing cause.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Theres just one more thing: MikeR, please stop trolling.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            There could be a multitude of reasons why Ftop has absented himself from the debate, including illness. Your telepathic effort made me briefly think that he was a sock puppet of yours, but I dismissed that thought as he had some mathematical abilities that you have never been able to demonstrate.

            I was, and am still 100% convinced that Ftop’s math calculation was correct and that he was able to show that he could simply rotate a triangle in one movement. The only thing that I objected to was conclusions derived from this i.e. that the rotation could not be also performed by more than one movement. Hopefully Ftop will return one day so we can see if he has changed his mind.

            DREM , your arrogant disregard for facts is again exemplified by the following –

            “Their only error is in mistaking a change of orientation for axial rotation. Oh well.”

            As I said above , if the scientists were measuring orbital motion then they would be getting monthly variations from perigee to apogee that are not mentioned in the article, or any other article, that uses laser retroreflection to measure the rotation rate of the Moon.

            Oh well, just another bit of bullshit from DREM to add to the collection.

            As for your chaotic thought disordered discussion about libration with Tim Folkerts (and a range of other contributors) is concerned, it is a mess.

            If libration is so simple for a non rotating moon, why don’t you explain your concept in a couple of coherent sentences.

            Tesla* tried it and his conclusion was that the moon rotated on its axis** see –

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-572886

            * in most areas he was an absolute genius, but when he got it wrong…

            ** Tesla accepted that the orbit was elliptical but then had the horrible conundrum that his bespoke model and the ball on a string all involved circular motion! Sounds familiar.

            p.s. By the way where are my twelve questions that you promised? Your PST farewell suggests, that in your rush for the exit, that you forgot your promise. It could be a Q and A on libration? Hit me with your first question!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “As I said above , if the scientists were measuring orbital motion…”

            Measuring the change in orientation of the moon, MikeR. Not “measuring orbital motion”. No straw men, please.

            I’m happy with the win. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

          • MikeR says:

            Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more amusing, DREM’s squirming has reached new heights. The entertainment is well worth the price of admission.

            “Measuring the change in orientation of the moon, MikeR. Not measuring orbital motion. No straw men, please.”

            DREM, I was under the distinct impression that you thought the change in orientation was simply due to the orbital motion alone. Are are you now wishing to include axial rotation of the Moon?

            Iv so, you have come very late to the party, but better late than never.

            Let DREM’s squirming continue. I am sure there is more to come.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wow, you do get confused easily. No, the moon does not rotate on its own axis. They are measuring the change in orientation of the moon, which is indeed due to orbital motion.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT: “the change in orientation of the moon” Yes. DREMT joins the spinner club through the back door, like Gordon with his moon turns. And like Tesla proved with his wheel assembly, the moon changes orientation (turns) on its own axis C once per orbit about the axis of O.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            The orientation of the body is changing as it is rotated about some axis emanating from the center of mass

            https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs248/pdf/class_09_rigid_bodies.pdf

            Thanks for confirming the moon rotates about its axis at the center of mass.

            Debate over.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            The instantaneous net movement of a body via rigid motion is called a rigid displacement, which may result from translation (linear displacement, i.e. a change in position), rotation
            (angular displacement, i.e. a change in orientation), or both at the same time

            https://rpal.cs.cornell.edu/foundations/kinematics.pdf

            Debate………..
            over.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The orientation of the ball on a string etc is changing because the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass. One single motion, a rotation about a fixed axis that is external to the ball.

          • MikeR says:

            DREM,

            I see you are now adopting the Donald J Trump method of contradicting oneself in consecutive statements*.

            DREM from above,

            “Measuring the change in orientation of the moon, MikeR. Not measuring orbital motion. No straw men, please.”

            Which is followed by his very next comment, where the straw man goes up in flames.

            “They are measuring the change in orientation of the moon, which is indeed due to orbital motion.”

            DREM your trademark squirming is gettjng even more perversely entertaining as it ascends to new heights.

            * DREM, expect to pay royalties to the Grifter in Chief. Rudy is on to you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, MikeR. Sorry that you didn’t understand.

          • MikeR says:

            Yes DREM, I will never understand you. In fact I don’t think any one is capable of understanding you.

            Evidently you also have major difficulties with understanding yourself, as by your direct contradiction of yourself. See immediately above.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, MikeR.

          • MikeR says:

            OK DREM,

            Let me know if can you think of something original otherwise over and out.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            OK, MikeR.

          • MikeR says:

            SkepticGoneWild,

            Yes,Ftroop is highly appropriate! Great analogy.

            Ftroop could be a direct descendant of the Chief Navigator for the Hekawis.

            That navigator unfortunately never understood the inertial reference frame of directions, via the stars, and ended up walking around in circles.

            Due to the intense confusion, the Hekawis are now called the Fekawis.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            OK, MikeR.

        • ftop_t says:

          @Tyson

          Here is a model with two (2) axis of rotation you can specify:

          Line 22 rotates about the origin (O in your diagram)
          Line 30 rotates about the internal axis (A in your diagram)

          If you can find a resonance value where Line 22 = Line 33 that would validate there are two (2) rotations (external and internal) in synchronous rotations.

          https://www.desmos.com/calculator/slq7zwdqxj

          The answer will devolve to the axis (Point A – controlled by Line 30) is an implicit rotation (which means it does not exist and cannot be modeled) but we all agree it is there because the Earth and Moon are in synchronous orbit/axial rotation resonance.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

            I prefer Physics constrained simulations because:
            “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

            Richard P. Feynman

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Now heed that advice.

          • MikeR says:

            For some reason (WordPress related?) I have been unable to post comments above and participate in the correspondence overnight ( Oz time) between Ftop and Tyson et al.. Hopefully posting down here, my comment will magically appear.

            I am not going to address the geometry in this post, as Tyson, SkepticGoeWild and Ball4 seems to have covered this adequately despite the convoluted responses from Ftop, which made my head spin, and whatever is left of my brain, to precess.

            Ftop – “Mathematically, it is not possible to employ an orbit and an internal axis rotation”

            All I am going to say on this matter is that, in my depictions, I seem to have managed to do the impossible.

            As others and myself have pointed on numerous occasions, the even more fundamental problem that Ftop faces, is the Physics, which he continually ignores at his peril. This aspect cannot be accounted for using his rotating reference frame model.

            Ftop, with your version of s=0 (s’=r ) what do you get for the total angular momentum and rotational energy?

            If you do the sums you will find that the angular momentum and kinetic energies correspond to the triangle rotating, on an axis through the centre of mass , once per orbit.

            Likewise Ftop if you can tackle, using physics, the example discussed below with your non axial rotating model, then you might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise you appear to be a limbless black knight as your whole argument has fallen over.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-578131

            You seem to have avoided tackling this issue so far, since I raised it with you a week or so ago. I can hazard a guess why but if you are not going to address it, then your obsession with physics free geometry can be regarded, as best as misguided eccentricity. At worst you will lumped in together with the other contrarian fruit cakes.

            On the contrarian fruit cake note , I am also really struggling to understand ( it maybe me, not you, but I suspect otherwise) to your objection to using the standard inertial reference frame that physicists have used since the time of Newton.

            It is immediately obvious, that determination of whether the triangle is rotating on is axis or not, can be done by simple observation. That is, with respect to the Cartesian axes that pass through the centre of mass of the triangle as it orbits ( or for that matter any other Cartesian axes, as they are all parallel).

            Ftop -“I am baffled that this realization isnt obvious to everyone simply by nature of the matrix for performing a rotation and its obvious predictable impact on a point (B) when two rotations are active. Baffled!”

            I understand why you are baffled. The blinkers you have got on prevent you from even looking at the Cartesian axes, let alone the boundaries of your computer screen! Take them off at once!

            I suspect DREM has been rotating the screen of his device to match the orbital rate, which is why he is convinced by your explanations. I just hope you haven’t been doing likewise.

            Ftop in a previous comment shows that he has , understandably, not bothered to read the acres of correspondence that have polluted these pages for the last few years.

            “That the only way to keep the redline pointing straight up is to have the object rotate opposite the orbit to maintain the relationship to a distant star”

            Yes this is true and well understood with respect to the rotating reference frame of the orbit, but otherwise makes no sense.

            This was addressed several years ago via one of my earliest primitive depictions.

            https://i.postimg.cc/S43w88r7/dumbell9.gif

            As they say “what goes around comes around”, even if takes more than 2 years.

          • MikeR says:

            Hey it appeared! Magic works.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            MikeR…how can you still not get it!?

            Upthread, you agreed that one way to describe the motion of the ball on a string etc is as a single rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball. Right?

            This is called “orbiting”. So, if an object is “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution. Right?

            If an object is just “orbiting” and not “rotating on its own axis”, you see always the same side of the object from the center of revolution. Right?

            If an object is “rotating on its own axis” in the opposite direction to the “orbit”, once per “orbit”, then the same side of the object remains oriented towards the same distant star. Right?

            The only way you can describe the motion of the ball on a string etc as “rotating on its own axis” while it orbits, is if you define “orbiting” differently. As a translation of the ball along the orbital path.

            Regardless of reference frame!

          • MikeR says:

            Tyson’s Feynman quote is so appropriate to Ftop’s totally physics free conclusions.

            As they say,

            If you don’t understand the physics then the geometry is irrelevant.

            If you don’t understand reference frames then the physics is irrelevant.

            If you don’t understand either, then using Feynman’s first principle, you are definitely the fool.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, MikeR. Spend the rest of your life being wrong.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            MikeR 6:04 AM
            Here’s another quote that bears repeating in light of the simulations that ftop_t is trying to achieve:

            Furthermore, Chasles’s Theorem states: “the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass.”
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584710

          • Ball4 says:

            “This is called “orbiting”. So, if an object is “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution. Right?”

            A: Not right, meaning MikeR is NOT wrong, as when the orbiting object is rotating on its own axis once per orbit like Earth’s moon as shown here by ftop_t, in that case you see same side of the object from the center of revolution:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290

            Study up DREMT because ftop_t shows DREMT has been wrong for life and, go ahead DREMT surprise some readers, actually use the ftop_t provided slider to learn about ref. frame s’ wherein the object has 0 rotations about its own axis.

          • Ball4 says:

            …learn about accelerated ref. frame s’…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sure, let’s all pretend “rotation around a fixed axis” does not exist.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Now Ball4 is pretending ftop_t disagrees with me. Lol. Try using the slider to make the object rotate on its own axis whilst it is orbiting. Watch the object orbiting without rotating on its own axis first, thus keeping the same face always pointing towards the center of revolution. Now use the internal axis slider. Report back with your results.

          • Ball4 says:

            Reporting back: wrong for life DREMT reveals he is observing from accelerated frame s’ writing “Watch the object orbiting without rotating on its own axis first” not the correct inertial frame set up by ftop_t where the object is rotating once per orbit on its own axis proving DREMT wrong.

            What a 3ring circus, ftop_t, Tesla, Madhavi, and other commenters MikeR, SGW, Tyson all prove DREMT has been wrong for life when DREMT is caught out observing from an accelerated frame s’. Lol.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            From the OXY inertial reference frame, the object is rotating about an external axis and not about the internal axis, when initially clicking on the link. You will note that it loads with the play button activated on the external axis rotation slider only. The internal axis slider is not moving. The object keeps the same side oriented towards the center of revolution throughout the orbit. Now, whilst the external axis slider is automatically moving, try adjusting the internal axis slider. All sides of the object are shown to the center of revolution, whilst it orbits.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Further to MikeR 12:09 AM, in this video, particularly at 52:52, professor Vandiver dispels ftop_t’s mistaken notion that “Mathematically, it is not possible to employ an orbit and an internal axis rotation”
            https://youtu.be/GUvoVvXwoOQ?t=3172
            Q.E.D.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That sentence from ftop_t is taken completely out of context. What ftop_t has shown is that if an object is orbiting (rotating about an external axis) and rotating about an internal axis, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.

          • Ball4 says:

            From s=r=1 speed of rotation frame as defined by ftop_t, as DREMT writes, “the object keeps the same side oriented towards the center of revolution throughout the orbit” while rotating once on its own axis and the s’ accelerated ref. frame slider can be used to show the object is rotating about an external axis and not about the internal axis (o rotations) from which DREMT has been caught out observing by at least ftop_t, SGW, Tyson, Tesla, Madhavi and myself.

            All DREMT has to do to change from wrong for life to correct is to observe from ftop_t’s non-accelerated frame s. DREMT won’t do so, ever. Enjoy being wrong for life in your s’ accelerated frame, DREMT, as you provide a lot of entertainment being wrong in these trying times./

          • Ball4 says:

            …caught out observing from s’ by at least ftop_t, MikeR, SGW, Tyson, Tesla, Madhavi and myself.

          • Ball4 says:

            9:32am: What ftop_t has shown using s=r=1 is that if an object is orbiting (rotating about an external axis) and rotating about an internal axis more or less than once per orbit, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290

            DREMT gets a wrong answer because DREMT has been repeatedly caught out observing from an accelerated frame s’.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong, Ball4. From the OXY inertial reference frame, the object is rotating about an external axis and not about the internal axis, when initially clicking on the link. You will note that it loads with the play button activated on the external axis rotation slider only. The internal axis slider is not moving. The object keeps the same side oriented towards the center of revolution throughout the orbit. Now, whilst the external axis slider is automatically moving, try adjusting the internal axis slider. All sides of the object are shown to the center of revolution, whilst it orbits

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            This statement
            “if an object is orbiting (rotating about an external axis) and rotating about an internal axis, you see all sides of the object from the center of revolution.”
            Is only true for cases other than 1:1 spin-orbit, including the non-spinner 0:1 case. This statement is just another example of non-spinners wanting to play both sides of the court.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong, Tyson.

            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/eeylhdx6gx

            From the OXY inertial reference frame, the object is rotating about an external axis and not about the internal axis, when initially clicking on the link. You will note that it loads with the play button activated on the external axis rotation slider only. The internal axis slider is not moving. The object keeps the same side oriented towards the center of revolution throughout the orbit. Now, whilst the external axis slider is automatically moving, try adjusting the internal axis slider. All sides of the object are shown to the center of revolution, whilst it orbits.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team 11:25 AM
            I have here, https://ibb.co/ydZRBgr, taken three snapshots of the Desmos simulation as provided, and calculated the rotation of a vector connecting point A to point B on the triangle.

            Point A is the center of mass and point B is north of A at the start, so that rB/A is at 84.15 degrees to the X axis. rA is the position vector of point A and rB is the position vector of point B.
            rB/A moves rotates from 84.15 to 174.15 (90) degrees between Position 1 and Position 3.

            In summary, rB/A rotation is equal to the external rotation of 90 degrees (1:1), all in the OXY frame. Meanwhile rB/A has not rotated with respect to the moving frame.
            Q.E.D.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That happens because the object is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. Rotation about an external axis necessarily involves the object changing orientation with respect to an inertial frame. How else would the particles of a body undergoing rotation about an external axis form concentric circles about that axis?

            Study Madhavi Fig. 2(b). The rectangle is rotating about point O, and not about its own center of mass.

            This whole issue is so simple that you miss the point altogether. You always come back to “the object is changing its orientation relative to the inertial reference frame, therefore it is rotating on its own axis”. That’s it. You cannot see beyond that.

            A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation.

          • Ball4 says:

            A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation only in an accelerated frame.

            From the OXY inertial reference frame, the object is rotating about an external axis and not about the internal axis in the s’ accelerated frame as ftop_t demonstrates when initially clicking on the link.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong, Ball4. Nobody is looking at anything from “the accelerated frame” because from that frame, the object itself does not even appear to be moving!

          • Ball4 says:

            Observed from inertial frame the orbiting object is rotating on its own axis once per orbit as ftop_t demonstrates. Observed from an accelerated frame the orbiting object is not rotating on its own axis as ftop_t also demonstrates.

            It’s as simple as that. DREMT & others simply reveal the location of the object observation with their comments.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Incorrect.

          • ftop_t says:

            Rotation within a frame will always exhibit the same behavior

            Example 1
            A wheel rolling forward
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/d72aqwxzdw
            Click on 4
            Click on 2
            The red dot will be in front, behind, and appear on all sides of the rotation while translating forward in the frame

            Example 2
            A ball spinning in the air
            Slide 4 & 2 back to zero
            Click on 4
            Click on 3
            The red dot will be above, below and appear on all sides of the axis of rotation while translating up in the frame.

            Example 3
            A basketball shooting at a basket
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/rkbtkglg1e
            Click on 4
            Click on 2
            The red dot will be above, below and appear on all sides of the axis of rotation while translating diagonally in the frame.

            Example 4
            A scrambler ride spinning at a fair
            https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xa4ra2vw2h
            Click on 4
            The red dot stays on the outside of the ride
            Set 4 back to zero
            Click on 4
            Click on 5
            The red dot will now be above, below and appear on all sides of the axis of rotation WITHIN the frame that is ROTATING on a circular path around the central post of the ride at (0,0)

            Like all the other examples, the red dot will act exactly the same within the frame and all sides of the object will face the origin during the ride…

            The behavior IN THE FRAME is the same for every example. The only difference is how the frame moves – horizontally, vertically, diagonally, rotationally

          • MikeR says:

            Ftop,

            I am not sure what the point of your 4 examples other than to illustrate the following points.

            1. You are remarkably proficient with desmos, which we all think is amazing and wonderful.

            2. That we all agree that the red point is rotating on an axis around the centre of mass as it is translating. See the Cartesian axes and point 1.

            The physics of linear momentum, angular momentum and energetics is well understood for all 4 cases, if you care to consult the internet or most physics books which cover these examples.

            With regard to the scrambler, an observer at the red point would see diagonally opposite his friend who is sitting in the cage with him. They both, if they had blinkers on and stared straight ahead , like yourself they would believe they are not rotating on their respective axes, or even rotating at all ( except for the nausea and wind resistance). This latter point was covered by Copernicus some time ago.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More blah blah from MikeR for ftop_t to ignore.

          • MikeR says:

            Is it better to be ignored by the monkey or by the organ grinder?

            Ignorance has always been the monkey’s approach but I was hoping better from Ftop who seems to prefer to spend much time geometrically grinding his organs and ignores physics related questions.

            Accordingly  Ftop has a lot to answer.

            Additionally Ftop’s “piece de resistance” desmotic elliptical orbit  lacks a focus and doesn’t withstand any close scrutiny.
             
            Ftop would of course prefer to ignore this as well. As the say “ignorance is bliss” and Ftop clearly prefers to remain in his permanent state of bliss.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            ibid.

      • JK – Excellent explanation. Your English is just fine. Don’t forget that US contributors like DREM also do not speak it as a first language. In fact I’m probably the only native English-speaker (i.e. English person) here, and I understand you perfectly.

      • Nate says:

        Ftop your model is simply not applicable to the Moon’s orbit for the reasons stated. Yes or no?

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      No more “moon’s axial rotation” argument, please. That has been definitively settled in the “Non-Spinner’s” favor, so it’s time to move on.

    • Svante says:

      You like Sabine don’t you, here she explains irreversible climate change:
      https://youtu.be/WLIQWVdgE5g?t=386

      • gbaikie says:

        It seems likely at some point, we will have an irreversible climate change, and leave our Ice Age.
        But it seems unlikely when our oceans have average temperature of about 3.5 C.

        Now a less irreversible climate change, is sinking into a glaciation period, because +100,000 years might seem like an irreversible climate change.

  2. Lance cyrus says:

    Is the running mean now at an all-time high? Or was it higher in 2016? I can’t tell from the graph and I’m too lazy to figure it out.

    Either way it looks like global warming has “paused” for the past 4 years 😉

    • Nate says:

      Lets assume youre kidding about the new ‘pause’.

      The fact that 2020 matches a recent super el nino year, 2016, suggests the underlying warming trend continues.

    • Bindidon says:

      Lance cyrus

      ” Either way it looks like global warming has “paused” for the past 4 years… ”

      *
      No it didn’t: Four years ago, UAH had the highest anomaly since record begin in Dec 1978, due to the third-strongest El Nino in 2015/16, after 1982/83 and 1997/98.

      Thus no wonder if a “pause” occurs after that highest anomaly. Each trend following 2016 will stay negative as long as a new El Nino of equal power occurs.

      *
      But if you compare 1997/98 and 2015/16 together with the following years until 2002/2020, relatively to their respective begin, you see this:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/11H1Y959how-bVRQLkUW2mV5OyIBty5Ra/view

      This is a fair comparison.

      J.-P. D.

    • Curious says:

      Is there a significant difference between a staircase and a ramp that have the same slope and the same change in elevation?

      If the temperature has been rising at a rate of +.14 degree C / decade for the past 40 years, does it matter whether the graph resembles a staircase (with landings) or a ramp?

  3. TheFinalNail says:

    Seems 2020 also saw the warmest Northern Hemisphere fall/autumn (S-O-N)in the 42 year UAH satellite record (+0.65 deg.C), exceeding the previous record of +0.61 deg.C set in 2019.

  4. Mark Wapples says:

    Looks slightly lower when viewed on my mobile, but I am due an eye test.

    • Robert Ingersol says:

      Using my very precise scientific equipment I determine that we are not quite at the 2016 peak. No record.

      Pro-tip your calculator makes a dandy strait edge on the screen.

  5. Tim S says:

    Why does my comment not post? Am I using a wrong word or something?

    • Bindidon says:

      Tim S

      Very probably you are, e.g. the ‘d c’ character sequence (without the blank in between).

      This is what we name here the “Do.ug Cot.ton” syndrome.

      J.-P. D.

      • Tim S says:

        I know exactly what you mean about that guy — the whole story about his misunderstanding of that subject he likes. I do not think I am using any of those words. Sometimes I can post without any problem, like maybe now!

        • Bindidon says:

          Maybe you underestimate the worldwide amount of character sequences containing them, starting with e.g. URLs, for example UAH’s own monthly data URL.

          Roy Spencer can publish it in his head posts of course, but we can’t do in ours.

          J.-P. D.

  6. I’mn so glad that pause we’ve been promised for so many years is just around the corner.

  7. There is something strange here.
    Both US48 and Australia warmer than Arctic ?
    I thought November was qquite cold in USA and also in Australia, like the rest of SH ?

    • Robert Ingersol says:

      Look up “temperature anomaly.”

      Re US and AU being cold. Maybe they were, we don’t have the map yet. Possible to have cold areas on a warm globe. Also could be a lot of variability within an area as large as US/AU. Impossible to be everywhere on two continents at once, so your personal perception is not as scientific as you think.

      • Im refering to Climate Reanalyser´s temperature anomaly which I check every day, and here has the US and Australia been much colder than the Arctic, which has been around +5 degrees all November.
        https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom

      • barry says:

        The baseline for these anomalies is worked out by taking average temperatures for the period 1979 to 2000 and making that the zero line. Furthermore, this average is calculated in grids 0.5 lat – 0.5 lon.

        To put it in easy to understand terms:

        The baseline (0.0C) for the Arctic is the average temperature for that region from 1979 to 2000

        The baseline (0.0C) for Australia is the average temperature for that region from 1979 to 2000

        The average temperature of the Arctic for that period might be 20C colder than for Australia in the same period, but they are both baselined to zero, in order to make it easier to compare changes between them (and all around the globe).

        Absolute temperatures are not being compared in the reanalysis, because they are more interested in making it easier to compare changes in temperature across different regions.

    • Bindidon says:

      Frank Marella Olsen

      You can’t compare the measurement ‘2 m above surface’ with that made in the lower troposphere at about 4 km altitude.

      My little guess: above Australia and CONUS, the LT experienced during November huge poleward advection streams moving from the Tropics to the Arctic.

      J.-P. D.

  8. Can’t argue the data so for now not much to say, other then this argument is far from over.

    • skeptikal says:

      Salvatore, it’s nice to see you posting here again.

    • David says:

      Why isn’t the argument over, Salvatore?

      You have been wrong for over a decade. You don’t understand the science. No one believes anything you have to say and you’re seen as, frankly, a fool. Why are you unable to change in view of the facts?

      • skeptikal says:

        David, being arrogant and nasty doesn’t mean that you’re right and it certainly doesn’t mean that you’re smart… it just means that you’re arrogant and nasty.

        A lot of people like, and respect, Salvatore. In my opinion, he understands the science better than you ever will. You see him as being wrong because he didn’t predict the anomalous burst of warmth over the last few years. Not many people could have predicted it… but this burst of warmth is transient and it’s about to end.

        I’ll give you a little tip… being arrogant and nasty only works for people who actually know what they’re talking about. People who don’t know what they’re talking about just come off looking like assholes.

        • Greta says:

          And a burst of warmth that was predicted by the alarmists to be much, much, much, much, much, much warmer than it has actually been.

          Like a “hockey stick” or some such.

        • barry says:

          “Not many people could have predicted it”

          Except for the IPCC, and anyone else who understands the main stream view of AGW. Plenty of people made bets that it would warm in this period.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      David, please stop trolling.

  9. DTW says:

    Nobody believes the rate of increase will stay linear this century, Call me alarmist if you like but the increase since 2010 is about +.5 deg – or about +5 deg per century !

    • rudyg says:

      You idiot DTW. It is obvious the data is fraudulent!
      Probably corrupted by the same people involved in the election fraud!
      And using the same corrupt software!
      My legal team is on the case as we speak!
      Watch out NASA!
      Watch out DTW!
      Watch out Dr Spencer!

    • David says:

      UAH LT temperatures are accelerating — over the entire dataset, the acceleration is now 0.029 degC/decade^2, with a 1-sigma uncertainty of 0.012 degC/dec2.

    • Richard M says:

      The warming for the entire satellite data set has been driven by the oceans. This is not rocket science. Just check the data.

      https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.2/trend

      It took awhile after the end of the recent El Nino but now the oceans are starting to cool. With a small lag the satellite data will also cool. It will likely start in December or January and continue for several months.

      To understand where we really are we will need to wait another 9 months. The ocean cooling should settle in by then.

      I realize there are still people who think the atmosphere is warming the oceans. They will never be convinced by science so let them wallow in their ignorance.

    • gbaikie says:

      What is special about 2010?
      President Obama was in office?
      China’s increase in CO2 emission which started after 2000?
      https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=~CHN
      It seems like cherry picking.

      And China is now focusing on being world leader of nuclear power- and this has nothing to do with the religion of global warming.
      The zealots could not prevent China from being the leader of the world in CO2 emission and are mostly against the only way that does and will reduce CO2 emission.
      And zealots supported burning trees because it was “renewable”- renewable only until one burn down all forests.
      Quite clueless.

  10. Rob Mitchell says:

    Got a question for the atmospheric scientists here. I strongly believe that what goes on in the Arctic is mainly due to multi-decadal oscillations, not from atmospheric CO2.

    Here is one factor I was thinking of, and I was wondering if there has been research done on this, and what was determined. Whenever the Arctic ice is in a below normal extent phase like it is now, does this allow for more Arctic Ocean heat to transfer to the atmosphere than what would occur if there was an above normal Arctic ice extent? And if true, does this Arctic Ocean cooling event lead to the next sea ice expansion event gradually over a few decades. Then, as the Arctic ice is in an above normal extent phase, this limits the ocean heat from escaping to the atmosphere, and the ocean heat builds beneath the ice as a result. The increasing Arctic ocean heat slowly and methodically melts the Arctic ice down over a few decades until the Arctic Ocean cooling event begins again as more Arctic ocean water is exposed to the atmosphere.

    I know that the global warming alarmists have entertained the thought that as the Arctic ice melts down, the sun’s radiant heat will heat up the Arctic ocean even more because of the lack of albedo, exacerbating the melting as a positive feedback. And this will continue until all of the ice is melted away. But I don’t consider this to be a real threat because at the time of summer solstice, there is still a considerable amount of ice in the Arctic reflecting sunlight. By the time the Arctic ice reaches its extent minimum in September, the ecliptic is already down near the equator, and there isn’t near the radiant heat energy warming up the Arctic as there was in July. I think this runaway feedback idea warming the Arctic Ocean is exaggerated. It really isn’t that much of an effect at all.

    • Bindidon says:

      The first thing I would think about is that, like everywhere, there is a lag between warmth supply and its consequence.

      The second thing I would think about is that though the Sun is Earth’s one and only power supply, it is not the major climate driver.

      The energy stored by the oceans IS the major climate driver.

      And thus, my little finger tells me that ice melting in the Arctic in September (and, what you do not seem to know: in October in between as well)

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view

      has fewer to do with solar irradiance in September than with the temperature of the Arctic ocean in June-July-August.

      J.-P. D.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Bindidon says:
        December 1, 2020 at 4:44 PM
        The first thing I would think about is that, like everywhere, there is a lag between warmth supply and its consequence.

        The second thing I would think about is that though the Sun is Earths one and only power supply, it is not the major climate driver.

        The energy stored by the oceans IS the major climate driver.”

        Energy stored in ocean is the major driver.
        And arctic ocean is small part of world.
        But as entire ocean warms, it does cause less polar sea ice in arctic and has large effect on global temperature. Not only does ice free artic ocean prevent cold artic air from invading from the arctic region, but a warming ocean causes most of entire ocean surface to warmer.
        Or little effect upon tropical ocean, but it’s only 40% of entire ocean, or the warmer ocean effects the average surface temperature of the remaining 60% of the ocean.

        And surface temperature of all the oceans, control global air temperature. The average surface temperature of all ocean is about 17 C. Tropics ocean is 26 C, and 60% of rest of ocean is about 11 C.
        And global warming is “mostly” concerning polar amplification.
        Or air above frozen arctic ocean can become quite cold, if liquid it’s not as cold as the liquid ocean surface- or minus 10 or 20 C is not possible, but happens if liquid surface is insulated with frozen ice.

        In terms of temperature of entire ocean , it seems to me one has include geothermal heat of ocean floor, in addition to just sunlight.
        The effect Geothermal heat has to consider long periods of time, but global warming and cooling is about a long time. Plus got consider that arctic flowing cold water into ocean depths which balanced by the warming of geothermal heating.

        Anyhow our average temperature of the ocean is about 3.5 C, warming to 4 C, would have large effect and cooling to 3 C would be very bad news.
        Or when ocean ocean has been as warm as 4 C, there has been a much warmer world.
        And temperature of our ocean during the million years of our Ice Age has remained in the temperature range of about 1 to 5 C- but the last 1/2 million years has been coldest part of our Ice Age, and 5 C ocean may not have occurred during this time.
        And there no chance our ocean could warm to 5 C, within 1000 years, though within centuries, maybe 4 C.
        And within last few centuries it appears to have been warmed by about .2 C
        But in terms of 5000 year trend, it seems to me the ocean has been cooling.
        And seems doubtful to me the ocean will warm as much it was +5000 years ago within 2 centuries from now.

        But it likewise seem doubtful that we have some super volcano erupting within couple centuries and 75% of volcanic activity in within the ocean.
        So I don’t think we going have something like Yellowstone type eruption {Yellowstone super volcano, which would destroy US and parts of Canada- and there lots other super volcano in the world]. So don’t think any of them will happen {soon}.
        But it seems if had super volcanic eruption, I have no reason to assume there is not 75% chance of it happening in ocean and we “could” barely notice it. Or it could have happened, say 100 year ago, {again, quite unlikely- though within 10,000 years, it has much better odds} and we have not discovered it, yet.
        Had to look:
        https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46248
        And:
        “A volcano the size of New Mexico or the British Isles has been identified under the Pacific Ocean, about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) east of Japan, making it the biggest volcano on Earth and one of the biggest in the solar system.”
        https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/9/130905-tamu-massif-shatsky-rise-largest-volcano-oceanography-science/
        Yup, they do happen- though what Iceland and Hawaii, but in terms of finding such monsters sleeping under water.

    • barry says:

      I’m no atmospheric scientist, but if Arctic temps are caused by multidecadal oscillations, why do we not see that in the satellite record?

      Why do we instead see a fairly steady rise over forty years of 1C, with the usaual interannual fluctuations?

      https://tinyurl.com/y3qvhkov

      Over the longer term there could be an oscillation, but it sure looks like the latter period is warmer than the previous, and the rise has been steeper.

      https://tinyurl.com/y2ao5mcd

      The basic shape is the same as global for that long period, with the small hump around the 1940s and the longer, higher rise beyond.

      https://tinyurl.com/y2chgbjb

      Some eyeball evidence that the Arctic oscillation is linked to global, rather than an isolated phenomenon.

      • Richard M says:

        Barry,

        Your question is actually easy to answer. The satellite data starts during the -AMO which then became positive in the 1990s. It is still positive today. The satellite data (and Arctic sea ice levels) match that trend very nicely.

        However, correlation is not enough. We need to see what happens when the AMO goes negative. That should happen relatively soon (within 7 years?).

        My own personal guess is the PDO will go negative in 2021 or 2022. The AMO will go negative in 2024. This will start a period of cooling that will negate much of the warming we’ve seen since the 1990s by the time we reach the mid 2030s.

        Maybe that will return climate science back to reality and the oceans can be studied to determine just how long the Modern Warm Period will last.

      • barry says:

        Ok, Richard, Rob thinks it’s Arctic oscillations, you think the answer to his question about Arctic temps is the AMO. As Arctic temps match global fairly well (but more warming in recent times), we’ll put global temps with AMO together over the long term and see how they correlate.

        https://tinyurl.com/yy3l8ube

        Looks like some correlation over the past 120 years, but not for the 60s and 70s, and AMO has plateaued for the last 20 ywars while temperature keep rising.

        I guess we can wait and see if global temps turn down when AMO does. There is also the very real possibility that much of the AMO profile comes from aliasing gflobal temps…

        My own personal guess is the PDO will go negative in 2021 or 2022. The AMO will go negative in 2024. This will start a period of cooling that will negate much of the warming we’ve seen since the 1990s by the time we reach the mid 2030s.

        Average temps of the 1990s was 0.01C for UAH global temp data.

        Average of the last 5 years is 0.37C.

        You think ‘much of’ this warming will be erased.

        I will bet you either $100 or $1000 that the temperature in the mid-30s (av of 2033-2037) will be warmer than 0.30C

        I’m good for it. I’m basing my bet on AGW, so if you think you haver a better predictor of future temps, take on the bet.

        • Richard M says:

          Barry, no one climate factor is going to match global temperatures exactly as 1) there are multiple factors and 2) the global data is not very reliable prior to satellites.

          The AMO does match well enough to surmise it is one of the more important climate drivers.

          The 1990s average was significantly reduced by the Pinatubo eruption (you know, one of those other climate factors). I wouldn’t expect a return to the .01 C value either. In addition, there are two other smaller climate warming factors still in operation.

          What I do expect, if my assumptions about the PDO and AMO hold, is that we will see drops in the satellite values to about .1-.2 C during EMSO neutral NH summers. I also expect to see the Arctic sea ice begin to increase.

          However, while the AMO drives much of the Arctic loss of sea ice, the sea ice won’t return immediately. It is the loss of sea ice that has the biggest influence on the warm Arctic. As a result the temperatures won’t drop back to the late 20th century levels.

          At the likely increased rate of inflation coming after the pandemic your $1000 bet is more likely to be worth about $100 in 2037. And, considering I will be a nonagenarian by that time it’s not a good bet that I will even be around to collect. As much as I would love to make a reasonable bet (average will be below .3 C) it is hardly worth whatever effort it would take.

        • barry says:

          The AMO does match well enough to surmise it is one of the more important climate drivers.

          What if it is simply aliasing global temps? Has anyone checked to see if there is any kind of lag from one to the other? That should help us see which might be leading temperature shifts for a start.

          • Richard M says:

            Barry, it really depends on whether you attribute the sea ice loss to warmer AMO waters or to AGW. I’ll go with physics which clearly shows water has a much larger effect on ice than does the air.

            Once you decide to accept basic physics it pretty obvious the Arctic warming is due to the ice free oceans warming the air. The causal chain is simple and fits known science.

            Those who choose to ignore physics will continue to fool themselves.

          • Richard M says:

            Svante, I did get a good laugh out of your link. Essentially, they claim that ASSUMED effects of AGW explain all the warming so there’s nothing left for natural cycles. It is pure circular reasoning. Only a total fool would do anything but laugh at such nonsense.

          • Svante says:

            Their model matched global temperatures without an independent AMO.

            Anyway, the ‘O’ means oscillation so it’s pretty irrelevant for global warming. The cycle time is about 60 years and the amplitude is about +/- 0.2 C, small compared to global warming started 250 years ago and has added about 1.1 C.

            See four AMO cycles factored out in fig. 10(c).
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216

          • Richard M says:

            Svante, climate oscillations are not sine waves. Their effects vary over time. Claiming they cannot produce warming over a few centuries is silly. It is the typical science denial we see from climate cultists.

            That said, it is not my claim that the AMO has produced long term warming. It has produced about .3 C of temporary global warming most of which is seen in the Arctic and near Arctic. In addition, ENSO appears to have added some short term warming in recent years.

            When these short term factors go away so will most of the warming that the climate cult has been celebrating as evidence for CAGW. Not all the warming will go away but enough to clearly demonstrate that CO2 emissions are not a problem. It will also demonstrate climate models are pure junk.

            Finally, do you realize models are not science? They are the opinions of the programmers. That the models of your cult programmers match their cult beliefs is hardly interesting.

          • Svante says:

            Richard M says:

            Svante, climate oscillations are not sine waves.

            The AMO waves are shown in the paper.

            Claiming they cannot produce warming over a few centuries is silly.

            Such long term warming can only come from a TOA imbalance.
            Oceans are also warming so the energy is not taken from there.

            That said, it is not my claim that the AMO has produced long term warming. It has produced about .3 C of temporary global warming most of which is seen in the Arctic and near Arctic.

            Yes, temperatures could decline for a few decades. It doesn’t matter in the long run, it just means that global warming will come back at double speed.

            In addition, ENSO appears to have added some short term warming in recent years.

            ENSO is short term and therefore even more irrelevant.
            Again, ‘O’ means oscillation, no net contribution.

            Finally, do you realize models are not science? They are the opinions of the programmers. That the models of your cult programmers match their cult beliefs is hardly interesting.

            You don’t need models, you only need to see the radiative forcing fig. 4 to understand which way we are heading.

          • Svante says:

            Quotes got lost, hope you can remember what you said ☺

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        I wish we had a satellite record that went back 100 years. That would answer a lot of questions. So, we are left with surmising instead. And one of mine is that the Arctic ice was at an extent maximum when the satellite record began. And the four decade decline of the Arctic ice just looks like something unusual is going on. It is worth noting that the sea ice decline is slowing down during the past 13 years.

      • barry says:

        We have other records of sea ice prior to the satellite record.

        Since 1953: https://tinyurl.com/ojz3krq

        Since 1850: https://tinyurl.com/jj7v3cw

        Since 1901: https://tinyurl.com/y6e896fu

        The latter link is to a study put together by climate ‘skeptics’.

    • Richard M says:

      Rob Mitchell,

      You are exactly right. This point has been made by skeptics for the last 20 years. It became obvious when the sea ice reached an equilibrium point in 2007. The AMO is the primary driver of Arctic sea ice although ENSO does have some short term influence.

      When this is added to the long term ocean warming (last 400 years) driven by the MOC, you have the warming from the Little Ice Age explained very simply and without any need for significant warming from CO2.

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        Richard, I worked in Alaska back in the summer of 2007, and I noticed the polar easterlies were particularly strong that year with a lot of southerly components. This had the effect of pushing the ice on the Beaufort Sea side towards the North Pole, thus compacting the ice. The alarmists got all excited about it and they thought the ice was melting away to oblivion. How many predictions of an ice-free Arctic did you see immediately after that year? I know there were several, and with devout conviction it was going to happen just within a few years. I knew those predictions were nonsense because I was forecasting weather and sea conditions off the northern slope of Alaska back then. I knew wind vectors have by far more of an effect on the Arctic ice than atmospheric CO2 concentration.

      • barry says:

        Reached an equilibrium point in 2007? How the hell do you figure that?

        The minimum extent record was broken again in 2012. The trend is a strong decline, and the trend is statistically significant.

        Annual ice has declined, but the “ice free” predictions were made about Summer sea ice in the Arctic. Here’s the graph for that.

        https://tinyurl.com/y2ew33x2

        “Ice free” = less than 1 million sq/km in September, as it is expected there will be some thicker glaciers still tonguing into the ocean from Greenland.

        Predictions ranged from early as 2013, but most predicted to the middle of this century, maybe 1930-40 at the earliest.

        • Richard M says:

          Barry, why is it so many science illiterates think a trend is something magical? What part of “reached an equilibrium point in 2007” did you not understand? Here is the data since 2006.

          https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/MASIE-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Extent.png

          Does that look like “a strong decline”? Looks more like a few dips here and there followed by returns to the mean.

          What happened is warm AMO waters slowly ate away at the sea ice between 1995-2007. At that point it appears to have reached a new equilibrium. When the AMO goes negative the sea ice will slowly return although a negative PDO could speed up the process.

          Once that has occurred we will reach a new equilibrium which will likely be lower than the 1980s but higher than today.

          • Svante says:

            Neat trick using a logarithmic scale and a myopic view.
            Still, your mean is going down.

          • barry says:

            The trend since 2006 is not statistically significant. You can’t say whether there is a trend or not. Failing to disprove the null doesn’t therefore prove it.

            You need more data.

            Here is a way to do it. We’ll retain the annual cycle.

            https://tinyurl.com/yygdsd89

            Doesn’t look like the down trend has levelled off at all since 2006.

            If we want statistically significant trends, we remove the annual cycle.

            https://tinyurl.com/y6qq2rlc

            Don’t see any indication that the decline of sea ice has slowed since 2006.

            The only way you could get that impression is if you isolate the data from 2006 from the rest of the data.

          • Richard M says:

            Svante, no log scale was used. Try again.

            Barry, torturing the data does NOT change what is obvious from a simple quick glance at the data. There is no sign of any additional reductions is the sea ice. Almost 15 years of the highest forcing ever from CO2/CH4 increases and yet the ice doesn’t change.

            What this tells any reasonable person is the CO2/CH4 increases were NOT responsible for the initial ice loss either. And, guess what? We have another candidate that can easily replace it. It’s called the AMO. Interestingly, the AMO also explains all the anecdotal observations of losses in the early 20th century.

            Occam’s razor is your friend.

          • Svante says:

            Richard M says:
            “Svante, no log scale was used.”
            You are right, I was wrong!

  11. Tim S says:

    I have seen statements that CO2 is 20% of the overall greenhouse effect. I think it should be closer to maybe 7% at most. Water vapor content (mole percent) in the tropics is 50 to 100 times CO2.

    What is the answer?

    • Bindidon says:

      Tim S

      A very short answer: CO2’s activity starts where that of H2O in WV form stops, because it is a condensing gas: above the Tropopause, till an altitude of about 50 km.

      And its effect, namely to lower the efficiency of Earth’s energy output to space through IR interception at high altitudes, IMHO didn’t really begin yet.

      I know of a really great paper, but unfortunately it was written in French:

      documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf?sequence=1

      J.-P. D.

      • Tim S says:

        You wrote:

        “A very short answer: CO2s activity starts where that of H2O in WV form stops, because it is a condensing gas: above the Tropopause, till an altitude of about 50 km.

        And its effect, namely to lower the efficiency of Earths energy output to space through IR interception at high altitudes, IMHO didnt really begin yet.”

        At some high enough altitude the greenhouse effect reverses and becomes a cooling effect because contrary to the hype, the GG’s do not “trap” heat, they transfer heat. At what altitude do you think the cooling effect begins, and since CO2 does not condense, is it possible that increasing CO2 produces a net cooling effect due to convective heat transfer and latent heat from cloud formation and rain at high altitude?

        • Bindidon says:

          Tim S

          ” At some high enough altitude the greenhouse effect reverses and becomes a cooling effect because contrary to the hype, the GG’s do not ‘trap’ heat, they transfer heat. ”

          This is simply wrong.

          1. Apart from NASA’s bloodily simplifying discourse, no one says that IR intercepting gases would ‘trap’ heat!

          That, Tim S, is nonsense spread out by people who don’t understand the difference between heat and radiation.

          2. The greenhouse effect never ‘reverses’ because it is nothing else than the fact that Earth’s IR radiation is absorbed by IR-sensitive molecules and reemitted by these in all directions: half down, half up on average, and hence less of it reaches outer space directly.

          3. Moreover, as pretty good explained by Dufresne / Treiner in their 2011 paper, the higher this takes place where CO2 is present (up to 50 km), the lower will be the energy reradiated, because this energy depends on the temperature of the reemitting molecules (between 200 and 250 K).

          4. Above the tropopause (around 12 km), water vapor becomes, AFAIK, less and less significant compared with CO2.

          J.-P. D.

      • barry says:

        GHGs abosrb radiation and pass the enrgy along throgh re-emission or collision. This goes on throughout the atmosphere where they are present, until eventually radiation escapes to space (which is how the atmosphere cools). The optical properties of a gas don’t suddenly reverse at a certain altitude.

        • Tim S says:

          You are incorrect. I stated that the effect reverses, not the optical properties. The optical properties do not need to change for the effect to change. The back radiation effect is to slow the cooling of the earth to outer space, not to trap heat. Cooling of the earth is slowed because the gases are giving back some radiant energy although at a lower intensity. cooling is, not stopped (except possibly when there is a temperature inversion in hot high pressure weather). GHG’s in the lower atmosphere keep the earth warmer than it would be without them. Humid areas cool much slower than dry areas.

          In the upper atmosphere the heat transfer effect is the opposite. Instead of slowing the heat loss by back radiation, the GHG’s increase the rate of radiant heat transfer (loss) and cool the atmosphere faster than it would cool without them. The EFFECT is the opposite because radiant heat transfer works both ways (I can’t use that forbidden word, but the opposite effect is transmission).

          • Bart says:

            Agreed. If CO2 impedes heat radiated from the surface from reaching space, it must also impede heat radiated from higher altitude from returning to the surface. So, increasing CO2 enhances cooling when heat is convected above the break-even altitude.

            Thus, there is both a heating and a cooling potential from increasing CO2. Which one wins out depends upon the state of convection.

          • Nate says:

            “the GHGs increase the rate of radiant heat transfer (loss) and cool the atmosphere faster than it would cool without them”

            The point is this cooling ability of these molecules is really no different than the ability of the last fiber glass molecules on the surface of my attic insulation to pass the heat on to the air.

            Adding more fiberglass decreases the heat transfer, or increases the temp difference across the batt.

            Adding more co2 decreases the heat trsnsfer or increases the temp difference from bottom to top of atmosphere.

          • bdgwx says:

            Tim S,

            As with any thermal barrier GHGs cause the warm side to warm further and the cool side to cool further. And because the atmospheric lapse is positive for the bulk of Earth this causes warming down low and cooling up high. And that’s exactly what UAH observes. The TLT minus TLS trend is +0.42C/decade with TLT being +0.14C/decade and TLS being -0.28C/decade.

            There is an interesting caveat with central Antarctica where the lapse rate is often negative that we can discuss if you like.

          • ClintR says:

            The atmospheric lapse rate does not cause “warming down low and cooling up high”!

            It’s the other way around. The heat transfer from surface to tropopause causes the lapse rate.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ClintR, The tropopause isn’t the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA). The effects mentioned above are a warming in the Tropophere and a cooling above in the Stratosphere. For a (nearly) constant lapse rate, if the height of the tropopause increases (which has been detected) with a (nearly) fixed temperature at the tropopause, the result would be warming at the lowest levels near the surface.

          • Bart says:

            If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon.

    • Eben says:

      No one knows , it cannot be measured , but here is a fun fact , if you squint just right you can see CO2

      https://i.postimg.cc/MKzG4nrM/gretaface.jpg

      • Tim S says:

        That is what I thought. The two gases have very different properties, so it would seem very difficult to estimate the effect of different mixtures, but it does seem that CO2 should have a stronger effect at the same concentration as water vapor.

      • barry says:

        Paper I read years ago had CO2 contribution to global surface budget at 9% – 26%.

        Some things to think of are that WV thins out with altitude, while the CO2 remains relatively concentrated higher up, so there is a changing effect with altitude.

        There is overlap in the bands of absorp.tion between the two gases, but the absorp.tion lines are very thin, and the frequencies are not exact. Think of it as stripes on a window – WV covers some part of the window, and CO2 (and other IR-absorbing gases) are stripes on different parts of the window.

        (Tim, I wonder if you had been trying to post the word absorp.tion before, when you were having trouble. It’s another one of the weird anomalous letter-strings that breaks the site)

      • barry says:

        Hey Tim, this paper is (a bit) more recent than whatever I read over a decade ago.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014287

        Puts CO2 greenhouse effect at 20% of total (incl water vapour).

        • Tim S says:

          LOL! Did you just propose a climate model produced by Gavin Schmidt as objective evidence? He is entitled to his opinion, but I am sure there are others, and I now feel very confident that 20% is an extreme upper limit and the actual number is much less. After all, a wild guess (WAG) is just a wild guess.

          • Tim S says:

            Has science become a voting game now? Maybe the Russian model is the only model that is correct. At some point common sense combined leads to the conclusion that some people are trying too hard to create exciting news.

          • barry says:

            I thought you were interested in seeking potential answers to a scientific question. It appears I was mistaken.

          • Tim S says:

            I stated that Schmidt is entitled to his opinion, and I am sure that he can express his opinion with a lot of scientific flare, but it is still just his opinion. Having more people state the same opinion does not make it more correct, or most importantly, make it more possible to predict something with such a high level of complexity and uncertainty. Regional predictions for defined conditions have a better chance of being close to reality. Whole earth predictions that are proven to be inaccurate are therefore proven to be unreliable.

          • barry says:

            This was your query:

            “I have seen statements that CO2 is 20% of the overall greenhouse effect. I think it should be closer to maybe 7% at most.”

            I hunted up a couple of papers to help you. I found them in google scholar with the search terms based purely on your query, and without inserting any percentage values. I didn’t care about the authors or the results. They were the first and only 2 papers I found.

            I didn’t expect any thanks, but neither did I expect you to piss on my effort. Either way, you can do your own research.

          • Tim S says:

            barry, if you believe Schmidt that is on you. Most people including his followers understand that he is an advocate and his work should be looked at as speculative.

          • barry says:

            Belief has nothing to do with it. There is information available for you to process if your curiosity is genuine. I linked the two papers I found, one not by Schmidt, and yet you bang on about Schmidt.

            Your interesat in this is clearly driven by something other than curiosity and learning about the topic. The link to google scholar is available to you if you can tear yourself away from repeating your opinions on Schmidt.

            In case I’m wrong – a regional approach to your query isn’t going to answer it. Humidity is variable in the atmosphere latitudinally and vertically, so you can’t extrapolate one region for global.

          • Tim S says:

            You wrote:

            “Your interesat in this is clearly driven by something other than curiosity and learning about the topic. The link to google scholar is available to you if you can tear yourself away from repeating your opinions on Schmidt.”

            My interest is in reliable science. Being skeptical about people with a very clear agenda is part of having an interest in reliable science. Your reaction suggests you also have an agenda and that “clearly” gives me the higher level of “curiosity and learning about the topic”. I have not criticized you beyond expressing humor that you thought I was going to accept speculative computer simulation as science fact. There are other opinions based on very basic science claiming that the effect from CO2 has grown from 5% preindustial to about 8% now. I am less skeptical of those claims because the reasoning is very clearly stated. If you are not aware of those claims, then maybe you are the one needing to do more research. I fully understand all of the theoretical science involved in climate research, and that is why I am very skeptical that any certainty cam be claimed about a very complex and dynamic subject.

          • barry says:

            “There are other opinions”

            I know, I supplied another – which you still haven’t mentioned, preferring to make it all about one author.

            Do you have a link to these other opinions? What about them made you think they were more accurate?

          • barry says:

            Well it’s clear now that you have zero scientific interest in your query, and are all about the personalities, talking points and soundbytes. I supplied links to 2 papers on your query, and you then spent none of your 4 following replies exploring the topic. Nor did you bring up any other science on your query.

            Because science is not your interest.

        • Nate says:

          Tim seems more confident in his own opinions on the number, than the science-based ones.

          • Tim S says:

            The correct answer was given by Eben:

            “No one knows , it cannot be measured”

            I then responded in agreement:

            “That is what I thought. The two gases have very different properties, so it would seem very difficult to estimate the effect of different mixtures, but it does seem that CO2 should have a stronger effect at the same concentration as water vapor.”

            The fact is that Schmidt is making an educated guess based on speculative assumptions. He is not stating a science fact. For the record, I do not know the answer and that is why I posed the question. If someone wants to take the position that Schmidt and his followers BELIEVE the number is 20% that is okay with me. To say that is science fact is a mistake that I do not want to make.

            Otherwise, carry on with your advocacy of peoples opinions that have no scientific certainty if it makes you feel good.

          • Nate says:

            He did physics based modeling to arrive at an answer. Not the last word Im sure. A nonscience based opinion on this is not a useful alternative.

      • David says:

        Yes, the relative GHG contributions to warming are known, with uncertainties. Here they are from the AR5:

        http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg

  12. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Does the USA have an official, accepted figure for the uncertainty envelope around the ordinary, usual, daily temperature?
    How far apart do 2 temperatures need to be, before the difference can be called statistically significant, not just due to noise?
    I have tried for several years to get a figure from Australia’s BOM, but they obfuscate.
    Is there a reference to this topic for the UAH and RSS satellite-based data? Geoff S

    • Bindidon says:

      Geoff Sherrington

      ” Is there a reference to this topic for the UAH and RSS satellite-based data? ”

      Maybe I’m a bit dense today evening; could you please be a bit less cryptic?

      J.-P. D.

      • Geoff Sherrington says:

        J.-P.D.
        Sure. If UAH or RSS report (say) a monthly temperature for a place, then another monthly temperature for the same place, how far apart are these temperatures once uncertainty is accounted for. What is so hard to understand about this? I was trained in my science to regard the un certainty of a number as almost as valuable as the number itself. Were you not? Geoff S

      • barry says:

        The smaller the area, the greater the uncertainty. I doubt you will find uncertainty estimates for UAH monthly temperature of North Dakota, for example. I think you will find uncertainty estimates for monthly, global anomalies. But that information takes a bit of time finding, as it is not a very interesting metric. The uncertainty in the long-term trends are more useful.

    • barry says:

      I believe UAH have uncertainty for monthly global temp anomalies buried in one of their papers. From memory it is +/- 0.1C.

      I would imagine similar for monthly anomalies in other datasets. But I’m not sure how interesting that is compared to uncertainties in the long-term trends.

      • bdgwx says:

        That’s what I remember seeing as well. This compares to published uncertainties of surface and reanalysis datasets of around +/- 0.05C.

  13. AaronS says:

    Haha. So I guess global average temperature is static for a few months and the page jumps to disagrement about rotation. I will throw in my two cents, but I dont see that there is a definite answer.

    If the sun rotates around an axis then so does the moon. I say this because each roatation also requires the axis to be dynamic in time. For the sun, the axis moves for obliquity, eccentricity, and precession. For the moon axis it is the sun axis movement plus the moon axis movement. I dont see why adding one more example of a moving axis for the moon system changes the definition used for the sun.

  14. AaronS says:

    Take 2.
    Haha. So I guess global average temperature is static for a few months and the page jumps to disagrement about rotation. I will throw in my two cents, but I dont see that there is a definite answer.

    If the earth rotates around an axis then so does the moon. I say this because each roatation also requires the axis to be dynamic in time. For the earth, the axis moves for obliquity, eccentricity, and precession. For the moon axis it is the earth axis movement plus the moon axis movement. I dont see why adding one more example of a moving axis for the moon system changes the definition used for the earth.

    Reply

  15. barry says:

    Pretty much a dead cert 2020 is going to be the second warmest year in the UAH record. Next month’s anomaly would have to be less than 0.13 to prevent that.

  16. Craig T says:

    Lord, DREM is still going on about the Moon’s rotational axis not existing? And the climate isn’t warming and nobody is dying from Covid.

  17. Curios says:

    NASA disagrees with you. NASA states it is a misconception the moon doesn’t rotate and that it rotates on its axis.

    https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/#:~:text=The%20Moon%20does%20not%20rotate.&text=The%20time%20it%20takes%20for,towards%20Earth%20throughout%20the%20month.

    Space.com also clearly states the moon rotates on its axis as well as explaining the moon used to rotate on its axis faster.https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html

    Scientific American, per the Carnegie Institution of Washington, mentions the moon spins at the same rate it revolves. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-just-a-coincidence/

    Discover Magazine explicitly states the moon is not stuck with one side facing the Earth, but rotates. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-do-we-always-see-the-same-side-of-the-moon

    Also, the merry-go-round analogy (and the ball on the string) don’t work. Merry-go-round horses maintain a fixed position with respect to the center. If you were standing at the center watching a particular horse, it wouldn’t appear to be orbiting at all. If the moon behaved like a merry-go-round it would be fixed over the same spot on Earth and there would be no moonrise or moonset.

    • Tim S says:

      You were doing really well until the last sentence of the last paragraph. The moonrise and moonset are caused by the rotation of the earth, not the orbit of the moon. Otherwise, in order for the same face to always point toward earth, the moon must rotate in space, but not with respect to the earth, and not about its axis because the axis is also moving in space. The merry-go-round analogy does work, except the analogy proves the horse also rotates with respect to space, and with respect to an observer on the merry-go-round, but not about its axis. Some of this may be semantics.

      • Tim S says:

        So I confused myself with edits. The horse does NOT rotate with respect to an observer on the ride, but it does with respect to an observer NOT on the ride. Still the horse does not rotate about its axis which is rotating along with the rest of the ride.

        • Bart says:

          Motion of any kind is always relative. Saying something is moving at 100 mph has no meaning unless one specifies a reference relative to which it is moving at that speed.

          Similarly, rotation is necessarily relative to some frame of reference. So, your description is valid: the horse does not rotate with respect to the rotating frame of the ride. It does rotate relative to an observer standing stationary on the ground away from the ride.

          For dynamical treatments of translation and rotation, we generally choose an inertial frame of reference which is fixed relative to the distant stars. The reason is that Newton’s Laws hold only in an inertial frame of reference.

          The Moon nominally does not rotate with respect to a frame of reference rotating in synchronization with its orbit because of tidal locking (though there is a bit of wobble in that angular trajectory).

          The Moon does rotate relative to the distant stars. That is a trivially true since any fixed point on the Moon’s equator will see different stars over the course of time. Newton’s 2nd Law can be used to derive Euler’s equations, which tell us how that rotation will evolve in time.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_equations_(rigid_body_dynamics)

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Bart is still letting reference frames confuse him. If you center your coordinate system on the moon itself, then relative to the distant stars the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis, because you have removed the necessary context to tell that the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. It is “orbiting”, and not “rotating on its own axis”. You have to “zoom out” your reference frame by cantering your coordinate system on the Earth/moon barycenter. Then, relative to the distant stars you can see that the moon is “orbiting”, and not “rotating on its own axis”.

          • Geoff Sherrington says:

            Bart,
            Thank you for a sensible comment based on science that can be replicated. Geoff S

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sadly, it was wrong, as explained.

          • ClintR says:

            Bart believes: “The Moon does rotate relative to the distant stars.”

            Moon APPEARS to rotate about its axis relative to the distand stars. But that appearance fools many. Moon is orbiting, NOT rotating about its axis. The “inertial” frame of reference fails to be an accurate measurement system for Moon axial rotation.

            That’s why the simple analogy of a ball on a string is so useful. And that’s why idiots so hate simple analogies.

          • Nate says:

            “as explained”

            Sadly, not. All that is there is assertion.

          • David says:

            ClintR says:
            Moon APPEARS to rotate about its axis relative to the distand stars. But that appearance fools many. Moon is orbiting, NOT rotating about its axis

            If you stand on the surface of the Moon, you will see all the stars in the universe sweep before your eyes.

            Because, and only because, the Moon is rotating.

            If it weren’t rotating, you’d see the same patch of stars all the time.

            Obviously.

          • Davi d says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
            Bart is still letting reference frames confuse him. If you center your coordinate system on the moon itself, then relative to the distant stars the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis, because you have removed the necessary context to tell that the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. It is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis. You have to zoom out your reference frame by cantering your coordinate system on the Earth/moon barycenter.

            Hey Einstein,

            Again, you don’t have to do ANYTHING with your reference frame.

            It’s a shame you never took a class in physics or you would have learned this.

            It’s called relativity. Not the Einstein kind — just simple relativity.

            You think there are preferred frames of reference. You’re completely wrong.

            Roy, why are you putting this troll here? What are you getting out of it? It’s time to come clean.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David App.ell, why are you appealing to Dr Roy? He banned you.

      • Curious says:

        A horse on a merry-go-round completes one orbit every time the center completes one full spin. Thus, if the moon were a merry-go-round, it would complete one orbit in 24 hours instead of 27.3 days. As a result, the moon (as viewed from Earth) would always appear to be fixed in the same point in the sky.

        Aren’t moonrise and moonset caused by the difference in speed between the Earth’s rotation and the moon’s orbit? If the Earth didn’t spin but the moon still orbited, there would still be a moonrise.

        Another illustration would be a playground roundabout. Standing on the roundabout while it spins is different than walking on the ground around the roundabout while it spins. The former is like a merry-go-round, the latter is like the moon.

        If, like the moon, you try to walk on the ground around a roundabout, you have to turn slowly. Otherwise, you will keep walking in a straight line. If the roundabout had a strong enough gravitational pull to lock you into orbit and you didn’t turn, you would always be facing the same direction and would have to walk sideways and backwards.

        Finally, if the moon doesn’t rotate because it is orbiting around the Earth, then it would follow that the Earth doesn’t rotate because it is orbiting around the sun. Both the Earth and the moon rotate on their own axis. The difference is the moon rotates and orbits at the same speed, while the Earth rotates substantially faster than it orbits.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “Orbital motion without axial rotation”, or simply “orbiting”, is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves. So, the Earth is “orbiting” plus “rotating on its own axis”, the moon is only “orbiting”.

          • Curious says:

            Not according to every link I posted, including NASA, plus every other source I found on the internet.

            According to those sources, the moon is orbiting plus rotating on its axis and the reason the same side of the moon remains oriented toward the center of the orbit is because the moon spins once per orbit.

            Grab something you can hold with one hand and pass it around your body. The same side of the object will not remain oriented toward your body unless you spend extra energy to turn it as you pass it around.

            If I hold the object in front of me and spin in circles (like a merry-go-round), it will stay oriented toward me, but it will also always be in front of me. The moon doesn’t do that.

            If I combine the two motions, passing it around my body while spinning myself, then again, the same side does not remain oriented toward me unless I also deliberately spin the object at the same rate I pass it around.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, the vast majority of sources you can find will tell you the moon does rotate on its own axis. If you like authority figures, Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis:

            https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions

            https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation

            https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up

          • Nate says:

            And as these guys know full well, Newton explained that the Moon was spinning on its axis in the Principia. They want you to believe that Newton got it wrong.

            Of course he didnt.

          • David says:

            If Tesla said that, he was wrong. (Also in the vast minority.)

          • David says:

            Tesla’s mistake, like DREMT’s, is that he’s looking at balls attached to rods.

            There is no rod attaching the Moon to the Earth.

            It’s amazing how this simple fact is completely ignored and overlooked.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Tesla was just trying to get a simple point across. He does not literally mean there is a rod attached to the moon from the Earth.

          • Curious says:

            Thanks for the link’s to Tesla’s article. It was nice to have some actual science to support your idea.

            One thing that jumps out at me is that Tesla’s view on axial rotation appears to be largely influenced by his belief as to how the moon formed. He indicates if the moon was thrown off from the Earth it couldn’t possibly spin on its own axis. He also concludes that if a planetary body keeps its same face toward the mass it was separated from, this is proof that it was thrown off. It is no longer a popular theory that the moon was spun off the Earth, which undermines Tesla’s rationale for why the moon must not be rotating.

            Tesla also didn’t have the benefit of the research on Mercury and its tidal locking at a 3:2 ratio rather than a 1:1 ratio. Tesla called the idea that an object’s rotation would be perfectly controlled by tides miraculous. He indicated the number of satellites that do just that would be too many miracles to be probable and that they therefore must not be spinning at all. Mercury being locked at a 3:2 ratio would likely cause him to question whether tidal locking is actually miraculous. It is possible Mercury is continuing slow and it is just a coincidence that we observed it at a 3:2 ratio. But in the words of Tesla, that would be miraculous.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “It was nice to have some actual science to support your idea”

            It’s not my idea.

          • Nate says:

            Tesla never made a sound logical argument. After his first article many astronomers wrote into the periodical to point out his errors. He tried to address these criticisms in the later articles, but ultimately he failed.

        • ClintR says:

          “Finally, if the moon doesn’t rotate because it is orbiting around the Earth, then it would follow that the Earth doesn’t rotate because it is orbiting around the sun.”

          Wrong.

          Orbital motion has NOTHING to do with axial rotation. The two motions are seperate and distinct.

          • Curious says:

            I never said they aren’t. However, I do withdraw that particular argument. It refutes the idea that the moon can’t rotate on its axis while orbiting the Earth but in retrospect, nobody ever said the moon can’t rotate, merely that it doesn’t.

          • ClintR says:

            That clears it up.

            Thanks!

        • Nate says:

          Just repetitive declarative statements, that have no logical or factual basis.

          If I can ‘win’ an argument that way, cool. I declare that DREMT is a steaming pile of dog shit.

          Now if I repeat a few more times, I win the argument! The debate is then over.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, your problem is that you are unable to recognize “logic or factual basis”. You reject reality as you make up nonsense. That makes you an idiot.

          • Nate says:

            Applying Svante’s translation rule, You are saving Im a genius. Thanks!

          • Nate says:

            And btw “Orbital motion has NOTHING to do with axial rotation. The two motions are seperate and distinct.”

            This is true, though “Orbital motion has nothing to do with the orbiting object’s rotation” is more comprehensive.

        • ClintR says:

          Curious claims: “Thus, if the moon were a merry-go-round, it would complete one orbit in 24 hours instead of 27.3 days.”

          Curious, you have to be responsible for your comments, unless you are a troll.

          So, how is Moon a MGR? How does it compete an orbit in 24 hours?

          • Curious says:

            The moon doesn’t complete an orbit in 24 hours, ergo, the moon is not a horse on a merry-go-round. DREMT was the one who said the moon is like an MGR.

            MGR horses complete exactly 1 “orbit” for every 1 complete rotation of the central axis. In actuality, they aren’t orbiting at all, they are simply spinning on the merry-go-round the same way you and I are spinning on the Earth.

            The moon is more analogous to a parent watching a kid on the merry-go-round. If the parent walks around the MGR, the MGR doesn’t turn the parent. Rather, the parent has to turn himself in order to stay facing the merry-go-round, just like the moon does.

          • ClintR says:

            Curious, I don’t know what to say. It appears you may be one of the most creatively stupid idiots we have on the list. I will defer to DREMT and Gordon for a final decision.

            But your entry is incredible:

            “The moon is more analogous to a parent watching a kid on the merry-go-round. If the parent walks around the MGR, the MGR doesn’t turn the parent. Rather, the parent has to turn himself in order to stay facing the merry-go-round, just like the moon does.”

          • David says:

            Again ClintR substitutes insults for an argument.

            Always a lot easier.

          • Nate says:

            Thats his specialty…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

          • Curious says:

            Thanks Clint. It’s always nice to be good at something, double so to be good at something as beneficial as creativity.

            I’ve subsequently discovered the 2-coin experiment, in which you place a quarter on a table, a penny with Lincoln’s head facing the quarter, and then move the penny in a circle with your finger, keeping the head facing the quarter. This necessarily requires you to rotate your hand (and eventually pick your finger up and replace it, since you can’t rotate your hand 360 degrees), and neatly demonstrates why a 2-body system like the sun and the moon differs from a 1 body system like a MGR.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, there are many ways you can fool yourself.

  18. Tom says:

    Wondering if someone can tell me when the 5-year average was last up at +0.42.
    Thanks.

      • Tom says:

        Indeed! The trend from 1979 to 1998 when extrapolated takes us pretty much exactly to where we are now. It’s as though the pause never happened.

        These people need to understand that the warming is punctuated due to factors other than the greenhouse effect, and when these other effects change phase, there is a lot of catching up as the trend returns.

        They pretend that the models are ‘wrong’ because they don’t capture these excursions from the trend, when in fact the long-term greenhouse trend is the only claim these models attempt to make.

        But of course their agenda demands that they will continue to misrepresent these excursions in order to cast doubt on the models, claiming at every dip that “the warming is over”. You would think it would finally sink in that this claim has never been right.

        On the flip-side of the coin, the Guy McPherson catastrophists pretend that the rate of warming of the last 5 years will never again slow, and will only accelerate from here.

      • David says:

        What is the point of a “centered mean?” And how is it calculated exactly?

        I’ve never understood this. Thanks.

  19. SkepticGoneWild says:

    https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/caroline-lucas-apologises-for-comparing-climate-change-denial-to-holocaust-denial-1.483207

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-change-denial-worse-than-holocaust-denial

    I could post countless more articles, Nate.

    The denier label is a cheap shot, and I don’t put up with that bull****. It’s why I quit arguing about climate change a long time ago. And people who use that label can go **** themselves.

    • Tom says:

      Yet you have no problem using the “Alarmist” tag.
      You can’t expect to have it both ways.
      And please don’t come back with anything akin to “they did it first”.

    • Entropic man says:

      I follow Neil Dr Grasse Tyson’s definition.

      “A sceptic questions the claims and then embraces the evidence. A denier questions the claims and then rejects the evidence.”

      Do you embrace the evidence for AGW and climate change or reject it?

      • ClintR says:

        Entropic man, your definitions from your cult don’t count.

        And your cult leader’s name is “Neil deGrasse Tyson”, not your perverted version.

        You haven’t been attending your cult classes enough.

        Shame on you.

  20. Lou Maytrees says:

    Following the little red bouncing running centered 13 month average line, UAH is now averaging +.185*C per decade since 1980.

    -.22*C in 1980, +.52*C in 2020

    +.74*C in 4 decades for the Global Lower Atmosphere (Version 6.0).

    +.185*C per decade for the centered running 13 month average.

    • Tom says:

      You can’t find trends by subtracting the endpoints and dividing. That is where people come up with the nonsense statement “no warming since 1998”. The trend is +0.134 per decade from June1979 to May 2020.

      • Lou Maytrees says:

        Tom,
        even Dr Spencer says the linear warming trend is +.14*C in his first sentence below the UAH graph (not +.134 as you state)

        The centered running 13 month average still shows +.185*C per decade for the Global Lower Atmosphere.

        • Lou Maytrees says:

          also Tom, the UAH graph goes to Nov 2020, not May 2020.

        • Tom says:

          The trend of monthly data is +0.138 per decade (hence the +0.14).
          The trend of the 13-month averages is 0.134.

          Surely you understand that the CENTERED 13-month data finishes in MAY 2020.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Running the numbers quickly through Excel, I get trends of:
          0.137 C/decade for the raw data
          0.134 C/decade for the 13-month average

          Minor statistical point — taking a trend of an average can be problematic. In this case with the 13 month average, the very earliest 6 months and very latest 6 months get weighted less heavily than the months in between. Since the first few months are extra cold (ie below the trend line) and the last few months extra warm (ie above the trend line), this leads to an artificial decrease in the trend (0.137 to 0.134).

          The correct way is to use the individual months, not the averages.

        • barry says:

          Deriving a trend from 12 (or 13) month averages reduces autocorrelation.

          • Bart says:

            It reduces bandwidth, not autocorrelation.

          • barry says:

            Averaging is the basis for common autocorrelation models. It also reduces bandwidth.

          • Bart says:

            Averaging, in fact, extends correlation time.

          • barry says:

            Although, I wouldn’t call it ‘bandwidth’, rather ‘amplitude’.

            Austocorrelation weakens the further you get from the initial variable. Time step 6 is not as strongly correlated with time step 1 as time step 2, so averaging bunches of them reduces the autocorrelation overall. Now you are dealing with bunches of averages with weakened autocorrelation within. It doesn’t solve the problem entirely, just reduces it. You also now have less information. It’s a trade-off. Some autocorrelation models employ (rolling) averages, such as the ARMA (1,1) model in the applet below.

        • barry says:

          This neat applet performs an ARMA (1,1) regression on monthly global temperature data to account for autocorrelation.

          http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

          You can also change the moving average for a different smooth. It’s defaulted to 12 months.

          • Bart says:

            An arbitrary autocorrelation model. Great.

          • barry says:

            Having checked the paper that underpins the use of this a/c model, what makes you say it is arbitrary?

          • Bart says:

            Global temperature data exhibit several non-stationary and cyclo-stationary processes. Describing them by a 1-box model is… just silly.

          • barry says:

            The authors test the nature of the data. Global temp data doesn’t exhibit cyclostationary behaviour on the UAH time scale. It certainly does over hundreds of thousands of years, and possibly over a century (but that is by no means sure).

            Regardless, the autoregression model is not going to produce wildly wrong results. The data from 1979 onwards clearly have a trend which passes any kind of reasonable statistical test, and 1st order linear trends are useful for getting an idea of the amount of change.

            What autoregression model do you think would best fit the data? I would guess that you are going to eschew all of them, and am very confident you won’t have formally tested the nature of the data.

            The authors of the paper behind the applet certainly have done that testing.

  21. AaronS says:

    Tim,
    The application of a running average somewhat removes the noise from inter annual climate variability from el nino and la Nina. I would argue the opposite, an instantaneous trend that excludes the drop from this La Nina, but includes the previous el nino warming does not represent the climate trend any more than a trend including the maximum trough in temperature that we will most likely see in a few months. By definition climate is long term average- something like 30 year average.

    So technically the satellite data sets are pushing the definition of climate because they are so short. This is important because other proxy like Glacier isotopes to reconstruct climatic temperatures are not sensitive to short term changes in global temperature. Even in academia they often stitch together from ice derived temperatures to thermometer or satellite temperature. Notice they never talk about the Ice derived temp derived from snow being deposited today, and when you look it up specifically you realize the isotope record does not match the 1 degree C of warming recorded (glacial isotopes require significant sea level change to fractionate O isotopes). So we have no idea how many times similar 1 degree C jumps have occurred in the past. There is no way to statistically say if this climate change is faster or slower than natural change.

    • barry says:

      Glacier isotopes are sensitive to local changes, but you can get ice cores that have annual resolution back for a few thousand years. Eg:

      https://escholarship.org/content/qt8w75f0wz/qt8w75f0wz.pdf (31K years annual resolution)

      The difficulty is getting global coverage at high resolution. I haven’t checked the literature since this core was dug up, to see if it had been dates against other cores from Greenland and South America etc.

      • Bart says:

        Source does not confirm assertion. In fact, we cannot know, because there is no control experiment.

      • barry says:

        Of course there is no control. That is purely argumentative, Bart. The best they have is the NGRIP cores from the middle of Greenland, where there is little lateral subsurface flow.

        The layers are easy enough to see with the naked eye. I see now they have dated the core by comparing it with nearby cores and those further afield. In this paper they compared with Greenland cores and others in Antarctica, dating according to methane levels, volcanic dust (large-scale eruptions, global coverage), and oxygen isotopes. Sharp excursions are easiest to match, such the Dansgaard–Oeschger events.

        Whether or not this core has been added to the multiproxy global temp (and CO2) record I don’t know. Probably, but I haven’t read on ice cores for a while.

  22. What I monitor for possible global cooling to take place. Now this could be wrong in total or it could be lag times have not been appreciated. In other words the lag times are longer.

    I know many of you will say this theory is BS, nothing is happening not even in the slightest and you called for this over and over again. That is fair, and so far I am wrong and more wrong with each passing month.

    Still I want to put it out there despite the data which lends no support thus far. I am a realist.

    CLIMATE THOUGHTS – a brief concise report of how/why
    I have not forgot co2 but one thing to remember is as it increases it’s climatic effects decrease due to saturation levels, where an x amount increase in co2 does not result in much less out going radiation from earth escaping into space. In addition co2 always has followed temperature changes in the past, not led.

    The climate trend to cooling would be known way in advance, unlike a Carrington event which would be more out of the blue.
    The cooling thought is based on lower then average solar activity, an increase in charged particles(cosmic rays) tied to solar activity and a weakening geo magnetic field (the weakening magnetic field compounds charge particles /cosmic ray effects), which in turn translates to more global cloud coverage (increases earth’s albedo —reflectivity ) , an increase in major volcanic activity(increases earth’s albedo once again).
    ALBEDO – changes in albedo hard to accomplish/take place, but have nevertheless the number one climatic impact by far.
    In addition ENSO being more in a La Nina mode.

    Finally as a result of low solar activity a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern(due to less UV light) would likely increase global snow coverage which would also contribute to an increase on earth’s albedo and hence global cooling.
    MILANKOVITCH CYCLES -neutral for the most part.

    We will see ,so far no sign of global cooling, but those lag times are involved. I have confidence in this theory ,time will tell.

    • bdgwx says:

      CO2 both causes warming and responds to warming. It can both lead and lag the temperature depending on whether it was the initial catalyzing agent or some other agent catalyzed the change. There are many periods where CO2 catalyzed the change and thus leads temperature. The PETM is considered to be among the best analogs to the contemporary warming period. But even for the glacial cycles of the Quaternary Period the lag relationship you often hear about is not as cut-n-dry as the blogosphere will have you believe. For example, Shakun 2012 found that there was likely see-sawing of temperatures going on between the NH and SH with CO2 leading in the NH and lagging in the SH.

      • ClintR says:

        CO2 does not “cause warming”. CO2 absorbs infrared from Earth’s surface, which was warmed by Sun. It is Sun that “causes warming”.

        Turn off Sun, and very soon you will see how stupid the “CO2 causes warming” nonsense is.

        • Tom says:

          It causes increased retention of heat, which causes the earth’s temperature to rise, which reasonable people would refer to as “warming”.

          • ClintR says:

            Well Tom, it is confusing. CO2 absorbs energy, but it is really low level. It does help to stabilize the atmosphere, through molecular collisions. But the energy is not able to raise surface temperatures. This goes back to the nonsense spread by idiots that claim two ice cubes can make something warmer than one ice cube.

            Reasonable people would know more ice cannot warm more than less ice.

          • Tom says:

            Given that you are already referring to ‘idiots’, it is clear you are someone who cannot be reasoned with and are not worth having a discussion with.

          • ClintR says:

            If the word “idiots” offends you Tom, what word would you prefer for those that reject reality?

          • Svante says:

            Splendid logic Tom, the rest of us spent a lot more time before arriving at the same conclusion.
            Passes the time if you’re seriously bored of course.

          • ClintR says:

            Svante, got a link to how you idiots claim ice cubes can add?

            Let’s see if you can support your own cult nonsense.

          • Tom says:

            ClintR
            I don’t recall referring to being offended. Please read my comment again, this time not assuming anything I did not write.

          • ClintR says:

            Okay Tom, if you want to move away from your comment, I accept that.

            That puts us back to this:

            “Well Tom, it is confusing. CO2 absorbs energy, but it is really low level. It does help to stabilize the atmosphere, through molecular collisions. But the energy is not able to raise surface temperatures. This goes back to the nonsense spread by [incompetents] that claim two ice cubes can make something warmer than one ice cube.

            Reasonable people would know more ice cannot warm more than less ice.

            Notice I replied “idiots” with “incompetents”. That’s so snowflakes will be less offended.
            ‘.

          • Midas says:

            If you insist on assigning words to me that I did not say, another reason for not engaging with you. You get the last word. Good luck in your search for a friend.

          • ClintR says:

            “Tom” was “Midas”?

            That’s a trick used by Snape/Doris/Ramona/….

            It’s anything to pervert reality.

          • David says:

            ClintR relies on personal insults to cover up his lack of physics knowledge.

            Like about torques.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

      • Bart says:

        “CO2 both causes warming and responds to warming.”

        You’re talking positive feedback then. What stabilizes it?

    • barry says:

      You know that a couple of us have saved many posts of yours over the last decade, Salvatore, all predicting imminent cooling.

      As each has failed to materialize, you never change your mind. Each repeated experiment seems to have no impact.

      It is clear that you want cooling, and all the rationales you give serve that hope.

      • Barry I know I have been wrong. I am not going to refute the data.

        I am a realist. This is why I have been quiet.

        • skeptikal says:

          Salvatore, a lot of people believe that your prediction was right… it’s just that your timing was wrong.

        • David says:

          “Your study, the CO2 man made global warming hoax, don’t mean anything because in the next few years we will know ,who is right and who is wrong.
          I will be proven correct along with many in my camp that predict this will be the decade of global cooling and a large part of that cooling will be due to LOW solar activity. Mark my words.”
          – Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
          http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428

        • MikeR says:

          Salvatore, very refreshing honesty.

          As skeptikal says, you might have to wait as everything comes true in the end.

          Mark my words, global cooling will definitely occur when we finally arrive at the terminal state of the universe.

      • Yes I want cooling but you can see in the case of the virus /election fraud I am of my own mind.

        I want to be correct doesn’t everyone. Thus far I am wrong.

        • skeptikal says:

          You want cooling and you will get cooling… it will start early next year and it will be slow cooling but by the end of 2022 it will be undeniable.

      • barry says:

        Why, my friend?

      • barry says:

        Forgot to quote you:

        “Yes, I want cooling”

        Por que?

        • Why? Because I want to be correct.

          • David says:

            “Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
            – Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
            http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428

          • barry says:

            I have lots of those but don’t feel inclined to beat Salvatore with them when he is owning them already.

        • barry says:

          I would like you to be correct, too, but that doesn’t answer the question.

          If you only wanted to be correct, you could have predicted warming all this time, and you are more likely to be correct if you start predicting warming from this time forward. Past experience should be teaching you that.

          So I ask again, why do you want there to be cooling?

  23. What makes me less confident in addition to the data so far is so many sites that don’t believe in global warming, also have been 100% wrong in the down playing of the virus and on the election fraud.

    It is scary company to be in agreement with on any subject given how clueless they are in other areas. I must admit.

    • Tom says:

      Your name is associated with a link which doesn’t work.

    • Bindidon says:

      Salvatore

      ” … also have been 100% wrong in the down playing of the virus and on the election fraud. ”

      Thank you very much for this comment.

      And please feel free add to these various faces of flat-earthist antiscience a few other ones, namely for example the denial of Einstein’s work and… that of the Moon rotating about its axis.

      Buona notte
      J.-P. D.

    • David says:

      Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way).
      – Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
      http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428

  24. Tim Folkerts says:

    “Orbital motion without axial rotation”, or simply “orbiting”, is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves. ”

    That is certainly one way to define “orbitting”. And it works perfectly well for a perfectly circular orbit. So kudos. That is an interesting starting point.

    I’m curious though, how you would extend this for elliptical orbits.
    What is “orbital motion without axial rotation in real (elliptical) orbits”?
    a) is it still “the same side of the body remains oriented towards the center of the orbit” — ie toward the barycenter?
    b) or one side oriented toward the center of the ellipse?
    c) or maybe one point always pointing ahead along the orbit?

    It turns out ALL of these are identical for a circular orbit, but all are different for elliptical orbits. So only one could be correct (or they could possibly all be wrong!) Or maybe you have some OTHER definition (d) for elliptical orbits?

    • ClintR says:

      Folkerts, it’s fun to have you back perverting physics again.

      In an elliptical orbit, the orbiting body faces the “center” of the orbit. If you understood orbital motion, you would understand that that “center” means the foci of the ellipse.

      That’s why we see Moon’s libration, which confuses Bindidon. (Idiots are so much fun.)

      Awaiting your next effort to pervert physics….

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “In an elliptical orbit, the orbiting body faces the “center” of the orbit. If you understood orbital motion, you would understand that that “center” means the foci of the ellipse.”

        First it can only face one focus, not both of the two foci. So presumably you mean is would face one focus always.

        But the central planet is at the focus. So you are saying that one side of the moon always faces the earth even with an elliptical orbit.

        But that would mean no libration. And there we have it. You have just contradicted your own definition! Libration is causes when different parts of the moon face the earth at different parts of the orbit.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

        • ClintR says:

          That’s another great effort to pervert physics, Folkerts. We expect no less from you.

          And you combined your perversion of physics with perverting my words. I never said libration did not exist. Libration is caused by the lunar orbit. That’s another thing you and Bindidon can’t accept.

          Awaiting your next attempt to pervert physics….

    • Bindidon says:

      Tim Folkerts

      Newton pretty good explained this in his Principia Mathematica (Book 3, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV), written in Latin – at that time, Latin still was for scientists the international communication language:

      Quoniam vero Lunæ circa axem suum uniformiter revolventis dies menstruus est, hujus facies eadem ulteriorem umbilicum orbis ejus semper respiciet quamproximè, et propterea pro situ umbilici illius deviabit hinc inde a Terrâ.

      Hæc est libratio Lunæ in longitudinem: Nam libratio in latitudinem orta est ex latitudine Lunæ et inclinatione axis ejus ad planum eclipticæ.

      or, in Andrew Motte’s translation

      But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon’s latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.

      *
      The upper focus is always that where we find the orbited body; the other one is always empty.

      *
      Btw, you may enjoy the two smart, knowledged reaction to a couple of my comments referring to the same original text written by Newton:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-559952

      *
      Newton seems, according to the genius, to have been very confused as he wrote that wonderful piece of science… perfectly confirming what Domenico Cassini had discovered, and was confirmed in 1748 by Tobias Mayer!

      J.-P. D.

  25. Coolist says:

    A question on this debate… Hypothetically, if the earth suddenly ceased to exist and its gravitational pull was instantly lost, the moon would carry on in a relatively straight line. As it moved off in a straight line, would it rotate on its axis and why?

    • ClintR says:

      It would depend where Moon was in its orbit. If it were heading toward Sun, it would continue, due to Sun’s gravity. If Moon were heading to space, it would likely escape Sun’s gravity.

      But, in either case, it would not be rotating about its axis, since it is not rotating about its axis now.

    • barry says:

      The moon’s rotation has angular momentum, so yes, it would rotate if the Earth disappeared.

      Like a ball on a string if you let go the string while whirling it about. You can see it here, before the drag on the ‘string’ interferes with the rotation too much.

      https://youtu.be/osLNbeFhn04?t=964

      Angular momentum is calculated:

      https://www.slader.com/discussion/question/a-what-is-the-angular-momentum-of-the-moon-in-its-orbit-around-earth-b-how-does-this-angular-momentum-compare-with-the-angular-momentum-of-t-e2507991/

      • ClintR says:

        barry, if Moon were actually rotating about its axis, then it would have angular momentum. But, it is NOT rotating about its axis, as can be easily observed.

        You are confused by the nonsense spewed from institutions. You don’t understand the basic physics, and you refuse to learn. You reject reality, in favor of your cult religion.

        That makes you an idiot.

    • Bindidon says:

      Coolist

      All celestial bodies orbit around another one, and all celestial bodies have spin.

      The two properties exist in common for these bodies since their very beginning within young stars’ accretion disks.

      The Moon can’t get rid of its angular momentum just because Earth stops existing.

      What is rather unknown is whether or not its rotation speed (synchronous to its orbit) keeps as it is. It might change because the torque exerted by Earth then suddenly would disappear.

      J.-P. D.

      • ClintR says:

        JD says: “…and all celestial bodies have spin”.

        JD, that’s wrong. Moon does NOT “have spin”. Many other moons in our solar system also do not have spin.

        JD says: “It might change because the torque exerted by Earth then suddenly would disappear.”

        Wrong again, JD. Earth’s gravity does not produce a net torque on Moon.

    • Bindidon says:

      Coolist

      Maybe you are interested in scientific material (of course: automatically rejected and denigrated by those who call us ‘idiots’).

      Origin of the Moon: Dynamical considerations
      Gordon MacDonald, 1966

      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1966ems..conf..165M

      There are many more papers concerning spin-orbit coupling in celestial bodies, but this one is very interesting.

      J.-P. D.

      • Bindidon says:

        Oh the blog’s bloody scanner!

        https://tinyurl.com/yclbtxcb

      • ClintR says:

        It’s fun to see “papers” like that. The author, it turns out, is a geophysicist. That usually means he knows little about physics. And he demonstrates that in this paper. Just in the first two paragraphs, he compares Moon’s mathematical construct of “orbital angular momentum” with Earth’s rotational angular momentum. A meaningless comparison. He goes on to imply Earth is transferring angular momentum to Moon!

        Idiot.

  26. AaronS says:

    Salvatore,

    I am skeptical to write off the sun’s activity myself. I have always agreed CO2 is contributing to global warming, but I also could not eliminate the combination of solar irradiation (particularly the UV spectrum) and magnetic field strength (via clouds) was also contributing to the warming during the sustained solar max until the turn of the century. There could still be a lag between solar activity and global warming, but it would be an unlikely bet after 20 years of decoupling between the factors. Of course an interesting analogy is the daily cycle where on average peak solar activity is mid day and peak temperature occurs on average in the late afternoon- a lag. Not a perfect analogy, but there is “memory” in ocean circulation patterns that could still be masking the impact of reduced solar activity. But like I said, I wouldn’t bet on it at this point. Regardless, glad to have you post.

  27. Thanks Aron. I get 15 years 2005-2020, regardless time is ticking by with still no signs of cooling.

  28. Trump is horrific . I am so glad he lost.

    • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

      Do you have a 401K?

      • David says:

        The US stock market under Trump only has done marginally better than it did during Obama’s second term. Nothing extra to get excited about. Given the collapse in the economy during Trump’s term, many more people are unemployed than when Trump came in to office.

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          The collapse in the economy was due to leftists. First, the virus came from leftist China. Then leftist governors shut down the economy and caused the financial collapse. However, it has rebounded nicely. However, if Biden is elected, his idiotic leftist policies will collapse the economy like the China virus.

      • Equities which I own have been and will do quite well as long as vaccines work and it has nothing to do with Trump.

  29. Murray says:

    About AGW theory…..my difficulties.
    1. No other causes of warming have been seriously considered.
    2. There isn’t enough energy in the bandwidths that exite CO2 to be the only cause
    3. Energy that has been ad+ sorbed by CO2 will move to areas of less energy rather than back to areas of higher energy.

    As an Australian I’ll report that this November has been unusually hot ( mostly trapped inland in desert regions).
    I’ll add that the UV index has also been at record levels ( skin cancer is also increasing again); that UV has about 48 times the energy of IR and the hole in the stratospheric Ozone layer has not been as large as this last two months this century. ( The polar vortexes have been particularly stable and Ozone depleting chemicals have reached last century levels again….yes yes the Halons aren’t greenhouse gases but keep lol ozone just as well as the CFCs).
    Maybe just maybe more energy entering the system explains a systems increased energy balance as well or better than less energy leaving the system ? Surely it might be at least considered ?

    • barry says:

      1. No other causes of warming have been seriously considered.

      Other causes of global warming have been studied at length for decades. The IPCC reports collate and summarize thousands of studies on solar influence, cloud cover changes, cosmic rays etc etc etc.

      2. There isn’t enough energy in the bandwidths that exite CO2 to be the only cause

      No one said CO2 could be the only cause at all times, but it is said to be the dominant cause since the 1950s.

      3. Energy that has been ad+ sorbed by CO2 will move to areas of less energy rather than back to areas of higher energy.

      Re-emitted radiation does not know which direction to go. It has no way of selecting whether to shoot into an area of higher or lower energy. It is essentially a random process.

      You might be confusing the discrete movement of radiant energy with the net flow of heat per classical thermodynamics.

    • David says:

      Murray says:
      2. There isnt enough energy in the bandwidths that exite CO2 to be the only cause

      Murray, are you aware there are over a half-million bands in CO2’s spectrum in the range of Earth’s outgoing IR spectrum?

    • David says:

      Murray says:
      3. Energy that has been ad+ sorbed by CO2 will move to areas of less energy rather than back to areas of higher energy.

      Murray, Murray, Murray….

      ever hear of conservation of energy?

      Energy doesn’t “move” to some place with less energy. Energy is conserved. It stays the same.

      Did you take basic physics, Murray?

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      David, please stop trolling.

    • ClintR says:

      Murray, your points 2) and 3) are correct.

    • Bindidon says:

      Murray

      ” 2. There isnt enough energy in the bandwidths that exite CO2 to be the only cause ”

      As barry wrote: no one, alarmists excepted, pretends that it is.

      What is said is very different: while the main GH warming cause is until now H2O and will keep so for a long while, CO2 is a steadily increasing addendum, as it is resident up to 50 km altitude, as opposed to H2O which precipitates the latest when reaching the tropopause.

      *
      ” 3. Energy that has been ad+ sorbed by CO2 will move to areas of less energy rather than back to areas of higher energy. ”

      No. ALL energy (radiated from Earth’s surface) absorbed (and soon reemitted, but in all directions) by CO2 is energy that doesn’t reach outer space directly and therefore disturbs the energy balance at TOA, what results in warming.

      Currently tiny amounts, of course. But over the next century certainly not.

      J.-P. D.

      • ClintR says:

        “…and therefore disturbs the energy balance at TOA, what results in warming.”

        No JD, that’s wrong. It’s the same mistake bdgwx makes. Just because CO2 absorbs energy, that does not “disturb the energy b