and the Moon does not affect tides
"Even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government."
"In the utter darkness
Of a moonless night,
A powerful wind embraces
ancient cedar trees."
Neutral gravity zones
According to theories of heliocentrism, the Earth is said to have six times the gravitational force of the Moon, tête-à-tête. And where six are pulling against one, from one side of
a dividing line, they should pull the one that is alone over, yet in thousands of years of history the Moon has not been pulled down to Earth.
At some point between Earth and Moon, therefore,
as whereto tends all this, the force of Earth's "gravitational attraction" on an object is cancelled by the Moon's force of gravitational attraction. To entertain heliocentrism and explain this, it is understood that there must be a neutral gravity zone between
them. Where the Moon is currently estimated to have about ¼ the radius of Earth, and 1/81 its mass, and 1/50 of its volume, by the theory of gravity itself, if there were not a significant neutral gravity zone, the Earth would pull the Moon with
greater power, and eventually bring it crashing down on the beach.
If there are six Clydesdales on one side of a dividing line, and one on the other, the one Cyldesale representing
1/6 the pulling force of the others will not field enough strength to tractor pull them over the line. Between the six and the one, the one loses its force at the border of potential strength formed between it and the other five. The pulling depth of
the one only goes mathematically as far as the first one of the other six, and it does not reach as far as the other five. That way again the one will get tractor pulled over the line by the team of six.
it goes vis-à-vis the Moon. Therefore, it is mathematically certain that a neutral gravity zone exists between the Earth and Moon.
According to booknotes from Werner von Braun and Brian Dunbar, Public Affairs Officer at NASA, it is 216,000 miles above the surface of the Earth and 24,000 miles out from the Moon. Using a mean distance between them of 240,000 miles, this figure would represent
a line in 1/10th of the total, and is said to be where there is a neutral gravity zone at work between them. This area of demarcation represents the gravitational border beyond which the Moon’s gravitational field does not reach, and therefore also beyond
which it cannot affect the Earth’s tides.
With only 16.66% the force of the Earth, in terms of its "gravitational pull and power", the Moon’s gravitational field cannot stop in the
distance of outer space, at a profound zone of neutral gravity, so far from the surface of the Earth, and then start up again at the surface of the Earth to affect tides.
Isaac Newton himself used a mean lunar-earth distance of 238,900 miles and believed neutral points occured at 23,900 miles from the Moon's surface. He may not have realized the vulnerability in the admission, that
in this way he contradicted his theory of universal gravitation and the notion that the Moon affects tides. In a 1969 edition of Time magazine, in an interview with Werner Von Braun, Time reported that "43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force
equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant," far away from boats in the harbor where the tides come and go.
may reasonably disagree with the numbers and method provided by NASA, Newton, Time Magazine, and von Braun for the zone of neutrality. It is unclear why they settled on simply subtracting about 1/10th
from the total mean of 240,000 miles, to get the 216,000 for 9/10 and 24,000 for the remaining tenth on the other side before the Moon. If there are six horses on one side and one on the other, the distance between the Earth and Moon should be divided
by seven, since the value of each potential agency should be counted once. Science could say, therefore, that the neutral gravity zone starts at 1/7 of the way between them, or 34,285.714 miles from the surface of the Moon, if one uses a mean distance of 240,000
miles and divides by seven. This would be closer to 205,714 miles from the surface of the Earth.
There may be a few more ways
to look at it. Between the six on one side and the one on the other, what could really nullify the traction and force of the one against the others except a neutralization effect that spreads over the five in between? For the Moon not to get pulled down to
the Earth, the two on the outside should cancel each other out first, and then the others in the middle even out across the remaining balance for the interstitial equilibrium. Something maybe preternatural or weird in between, and 2.5 this way and 2.5 that
way keep the Moon from falling down out of the sky. And 5/7th of 240,000 miles, for a mean distance in this case, would give a neutral gravity zone of 171,428.5714 miles.
If an astronomer wanted to divide by seven instead of ten, or six instead of seven, it could not make much difference to the case in the end, anyway, because the fact is that there must be a neutral gravity zone between
the Earth and the Moon; and any neutral gravity zone must also be extensively complete. For what it is, if there is any neutral gravity zone at all between the earth and the moon, it naturally represents, in fact, the complete distance between the two. That
is the only way.
If there are any two points in space, like A and B, and C is between them, wherever C is, it is in between the entire distance from A to B. Between 1 and 7, whatever is between
them is in the betweens of the whole measure. By the simplest simplifications of metaxology, qua qua 1/7, 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 5/7, and 6/7 represent six distinctions without a difference, when considered in simple terms of being between .0000000000001/7 and 7/7.
They are all equally 1 of 7 marks, and the numerical evaluation of the numerator involved in the fraction does not matter for the point on the line to be between A and B, once in beween, and whatever is between them is somewhere along the whole length of the
They are all commutative terms logically between 1 and 7. (1/7 + 6/7 or 6/7 + 1/7), (2/7 + 5/7 or 5/7 + 2/7), (3/7 + 4/7 or 4/7
+ 3/7) are all the same difference in total between A and B, where the distance of A and B is 7 units of whatever kind.
As parts go to a whole, all the different fractions go aside in view
of the integral phenomenon defined, since logic dictates that once there is a neutral gravity zone, it floods like a river the entire distance between them, even as a whole takes up its parts. If there is a spec of black in a white sea, there it is between
all the ends.
If the Moon's gravity does not work on the surface of Earth from 24,000 miles out, then it does not work from a few miles up in a hot air balloon, or 239,000 miles out, either way
out of all the miles. Like a breach in a wall, where the entire flood and all the numbers of separation come through, the neutralized effect is an essential property also in the sum total. Therefore, certainly, the Moon with its gravity cannot affect the surface
of the Earth, or the tides, and the Earth does not add any push or pull to the Moon around the Earth either.
The orb of the Moon does not cause big waves, small waves, inundations, or monster rogue
waves out at sea; and it does not cause the highest tides and greatest tidal range in the world that are found in the Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick, Canada.
Between the Moon and the Bay of Fundy
there is nothing in gravity or the theory of gravitation that would distinguish it from any other place North or South. According to Newton's abstractions of mechanistic laws of universal gravitation, the Moon's gravity cannot figure any difference between
the Bay of Fundy and any other place on Earth from the rest of the 45th parallel. Rather, the tides there must be a result of residual geological forces, the seafloor impression, and the unique formation
of the bay itself. It is strictly an Earth phenomenon and nothing to do with the Moon or its phases.
Would the Moon spin the wind at Fundy, cause the gusty roar in pines on distant mountains, float
feathers, roll marbles and direct clouds any more than gravity? The Moon does not cause beach erosion, volcanic eruptions, or earthquakes. It does not create any of these terrestrial effects, yet it would
somehow move tides? Which would be easier to move, whisky barrells full of air or ones full of eaux de vie -- like a large 55-60 gallon drum of Bombay gin or one only of air? If the Moon moves much
greater quantities of water than 60 gallon drums, like the massive tides of the oceans, then why does it not also move little buckets of air or the smoke in pipes?
To help demonstrate that the moon does not affect the earth's oceans, place a marble on a glass table in the open air, at the center of the rooftop observation deck of a high tower, and wait for the full Moon. See if the full
Moon will move the marble. Of course, it will not at all, but then it moves tides? The wind or a little white mouse may move the marble, but there is no gravity from the Moon that will.
Moon may go spooky over water, and people have heard of mind over matter, and seen David Copperfield pass through the Great Wall of China. La vie mysterieuse et histoires de l'autre monde captivent. Dutilleul le Garou-Garou de folie, for example, is still
stuck in the wall at Montmarte; but Daniel Hume could play an accordion without touching it, they say; and Nina Kulagina became famous for being able to move matches on a coffee table without touching them. Uri Geller could bend spoons, but no one would expect
them to bring in or send out tides.
Chacun sa part, et puis la lune. Gusts of wind may move empty cans and paper cups on the highway,
and a marble on a glass table in the open, but not the Moon.
In the way of scales, it should be clear
that the Moon does not affect the sea; and it does not make trees, grass, or corn grow. Rather, there is the very real fact of a powerful neutral gravity zone that exists between the Earth and the Moon. This neutral gravity zone of space represents
a chasm and a barrier to any effect of the Moon’s gravity on the Earth or its oceans --- an abyss nullifying the gravitational effects of either pulling or pushing the other, et cetera.
The idea that the Moon affects the Earth’s tides followed a superstition given false scientific cover by Kepler, in his early theory of universal gravitation and the ellipse, where he hinted at an "attractive force" between them.
Related to the theory that gravity from the Earth actually causes the Moon to move, from his "Mysterium Cosmographicum", 1596, he wrote: "the moon follows, or rather is drawn, wherever and however the earth moves along".(1) Newton later picked up
this unscientific thread and advanced it further in his “Principia”, but even Galileo rejected the hypothesis as absurd.
Galileo himself regarded the idea
as superstition and never taught it. In fact, when he was old, he even confessed in a private letter that if he could not explain it exactly, he felt he had been wrong all along about Copernicanism.(2)
Although Kepler and Newton adopted the lunar theory of the tides, and it has been widely popularized, the idea is bogus. It constitutes
the remains of an accidental superstition that is based only on patterns of coincidence not any efficient cause. Similar to the theory that the earth moves to orbit the sun, the hypothesis that the Moon triggers the tides has no reasonable scientific basis.
In 1609 Kepler wrote that “the sphere of influence of the attraction which is in the moon extends as far as the Earth, and
incites the waters up from the torrid zone …”(3) but Kepler and other proponents of the Moon theory of the tides could never offer any scientifically justified explanation for such an influence. It
was not until 1687, when Newton published his theoretical law of universal gravitation by the inverse squared, which itself is unscientific all the way around, that Kepler’s principle of remote attraction by an occult and undetectable action-at-a-distance
gained its most significant support.
Newton (1642-1727) was the first after Kepler to explain that the ocean’s tides were the product of gravitational attractions
of distant astronomical masses or bodies. The explanation of tides published in the Principia used the theory of universal gravitation to jusitfy the idea that lunar and solar attractions from vast astronomical distances were an actual origin of tide-generating
forces on Earth. As improbable as it was, Newton worked over the problem area with very arcane math fummdiddles, and ironically from the perspective of a static system (equilibrium theory), that
provided an approximation that described the tides that supposedly would occur in a Copernican ocean evenly covering the whole Earth.
In "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", Salviati, who is a thinly disguised stand-in for Galileo, says: “Among all the famous men who have philosophized about the tides, I wonder more at Kepler than any of the rest”
… because “he has lent his assent to the Moon’s dominace over the oceans and to other occult happenings and other such trifles.” Like Salviati, Galileo found the idea that the Moon caused the tides “a lamentable piece of mysticism."
Where Galileo’s theory of the tides allowed for a type of Coriolis effect from the supposed rotation of the Earth, since he made the mistake of following Copernicanism, it still did not allow
for any influence from the Moon.
The occult and witchy reasons Kepler
and Newton incorrectly taught the theory that the Moon affects tides are perhaps not too difficult to discover. At times the full Moon low over the water can make an almost preternatural
impression. In astrology and alchemy the Moon is the planetary body that rules the element of water, and also over the deep abyss of the 4th House, of the astral plane called "Genitor", in the sign of Cancer at the imum coeli. Yet if people have imagined that
the Moon is a symbol of the element of water, and of subtle and deep things, and transitional phases like tides, and that it affects the surface of Earth, it is only because of coincidence and unassailable superstition. Even if more than an accident, coincidence does not represent a causal connection or such a special relation of effect; and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is an old fallacy of coincidence, and this Newtonian theory of the Moon and tides
is one of them.
Since Kepler and Newton were influenced by astrology and alchemy, and astrological metaphor is also elemental (not only about mathematical degrees of aspects between the
planets and stars) ... and Scorpio and Aquarius are the two other water signs of the zodiac, besides Cancer, would people under too much fascination from the stars and their signs then believe that they affect tides also? If the Moon affects tides, why not
Antares in Scorpio? Why not Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn in Aquarius?
Well, the Moon is bigger and closer and looks more mysterious and tidal, the way it goes through phases and hovers in the sky; and even if people can be fooled by their imagination, and astrology, alchemy, and the occult may seem convincing,
it should not go too far for credibility's sake.
If coincidental appearances would continue a sense of confusion
or superstition, and that way people could imagine that it affects the bodies of water on earth, coincidence, however, is simultaneous, and things that are simultaneous are not caused by each other. There obviously is a simultaneous connection between the
sky and the oceans; and there may be endless variations of coincidence between them, since there is such a wide simultaneous relationship in them around the world; but tides and phases of the Moon can all be put on the calendar and the patterns are merely
coincidental and accidental not causal.
The myth that the Moon generates tides
has gotten so bad at times that some science writers have imagined that the Moon’s gravity even tugs and pulls and moves the dry landmass surface of the Earth. While tides are normally associated with oceans and large bodies of water,
it also is said with a straight face by some that Newtonian forces of gravity supposedly can create "tides" even in the lithosphere ... and the tidal bulgings of the lithosphere would be usually limited to approximately 4.5 - 9 inches, twice a day,
and, of course, nobody will ever notice. Not even the most astute among prairie dogs.
Some heliocentric scientists have estimated
even more that the force of the Moon will sometimes move the dry surface of the Earth on occasion as much as twelve inches over a day. That is a foot and spooky weird science on any golf course, and a little more than average height among prairie dogs, and
blue jays, from tip of the tail feather to end of the bill.
Glines, for example, wrote in "The First Book of the Moon" ... "Strange as it may seem, what we normally think of as the solid body of the Earth is also affected by the moon, so that it too [the lithosphere of the Earth, that is] has a tide. The landmass of
the Earth is elastic and actually rises and falls about 4 1/2 inches" a day because of the Moon. "We do not feel these land tides ... but they do take place."(4)
On the golf ball, however, it has no effect, and in his book, "The Lunar Effect", Arnold Lieber says that "the pull of the moon distorts the
earth as if it were a rubber ball. The North American Continent may rise so much as a foot when the moon is overhead."(5)
famous science writer Asimov wrote that "the earth, so to speak, is stretched in the direction of the moon. The solid earth does not stretch much, however (only about nine inches on each side), and only delicate measurements can show this stretch."(6)
"Delicate measurements" indeed, yet no measurements at
all show this supposed tidal affect in the land.
However, for land tides and the Moon around the Earth, in a
kid’s science book they write, that "now the land of the earth does not move easily, but the waters do. The waters on the side of the earth closest to the moon pile up in a 'bulge', causing a high tide. But at the same time there is a high tide
on the other side of the earth. What do you suppose is the reason for this? The answer is that, as the moon’s gravity pulls the water nearest to it a little away from the earth, it also pulls the whole earth a little away from the waters in the ocean
on the farthermost side, setting up a second high tide there."(7)
In "The Moon: Earth’s Natural Satellite" Franklyn
Branley repeats the same distortions, saying the same things in explaining his diagram for the tidal phenomena: "...the ocean at E [the furthermost from the moon], because it is so much farther away is not pulled toward the moon as much as the solid Earth;
the Earth is pulled away from the water; and the water is therefore deeper during this part of the tidal cycle."(8)
more example of heliocentric folly, for those who obtain this book, Branley then gets into some make-believe-numbers which grow out of the myth of moontides on land and water. The numbers are so contradictory as to be comical, if the world were not already
mesmerized by the deception: "The tide-raising force of the moon is very small indeed, compared to the force of gravity. The tide-raising force of the moon is about 1/9,000,000 that of the earth’s gravity...."(9)
Marshall Hall commented in response: "Wow. One nine millionth! Let’s see; that means the earth’s pull toward its own center on its own crust and
oceans and seas is nine million times as great as the Moon’s pull on the same features, doesn’t it? Nine million to one. Whew! Amazing, is it not that nine million mule power could be pulling something one way and one mule power could overcome
all that every hour of every day and stretch the Earth and cause zillions of cubic feet of water to shift around everywhere! Yes, just amazing, especially when that one mule power stopped out there at the 216,000 mile neutral gravity zone!"(10)
In the September 1989 issue of "Audubon", there was an essay entitled "Pull of the Moon". In it the author incorporated the conventional
"wisdom" about tides in a way that speaks volumes about how deeply the myth has penetrated perception: "There was plenty of reason for ancients to worship the moon. The moon exerts a profound influence upon the earth. As it passes overhead, its gravitational
force pulls a bulge of sea water, causing the high tides. As it lines up with or opposite the sun -- at the times of the new or full moons -- the tides are highest. It even pulls a bulge in the earth as it passes. Moscow rises twenty inches twice a day.
And at times the Empire State Building is sixty-three feet closer to the Eiffel Tower. Because it tugs harder on whatever is closer, it pulls the earth more than it pulls the water on the far side of the earth. So there is a bulge of water on the backside
of the globe too -- a second daily high tide."(11)
For a theory of occult doctrine in magneto-tropism, a very obscure and esoteric matter of exchange, Kepler mistakenly associated the fictive force of gravity with magnetism. He imagined that
what he described was like an extensive species of "soul power", an occult-action-at-a-distance, that moved things at will with an aethereal or mysterious traction. Thus Kepler thought that the Moon affected the oceans of the Earth, and that the Earth in turn
affected the Moon, as esoteric matters of exchange would be interpreted, in occult magneto-tropics and preternatural effluvia, a invocationibus Deucalione, etc.
He concluded that a "force of gravity" pushed and pulled things around the cosmos; but "gravity" today is acknowledged as the weakest of any fundamental interactions, far weaker than all the
most diminshed forces that can be experienced directly -- and it is not even lateral in a true sphere, or vertical, since up or down in a true sphere are arbitrary distinctions, etc. The gravity of the Earth itself is weaker even than
the tiniest refrigerator magnet, or the littlest orphan kitten, and the gravity of the Moon itself is only 1/6 of that. The gravity of the Earth cannot pull or push or move the littlest refrigerator magnet that is very near to its own surface, then how does
it drive the Moon around it in its orbit? The Moon is a large celestial body much further away, and traveling with a tremendous astronomical velocity. If the gravitational field of the Earth does not move little objects like refrigerator magnets that are very
close to its surface, it is not reasonable to assume that it moves the Moon.
How does the Moon affect tides but not have any other jokes? Why does a full Moon not drag up at least a little higher into the sky the largest flames of forest wildfires, blazing away on the tops
of mountains, or add the tiniest drag on cigarettes, when people are smoking outside, if it moves tides? The Moon cannot move a pebble, yet it pushes and pulls large bodies of water and the tides?
Is this what prairie dogs and blue jays or a responsible scientist should believe? Would the moon make corn grow from ionic libration in the rustic shadows of a stone wall? No, no, not from any shadows
on the wall or the barn. What it is is an invisible smoke from the Moon that descends upon the Earth to touch the waters and make corn grow … and that way it also affects tides. If since the Moon stirs tides and makes corn grow, maybe it affects the
Foucault pendulum and the Rockefeller Foundation of the UN, and the ceremonies of the budget economy as well as NASA?
resourcing astrological metaphor, if not to the point of superstition, Kepler developed his unscientific ideas of mutual and universal gravitation by incorrectly extrapolating from William Gilbert’s theories of Earth magnetism. Kepler thought the sort
of magnetism that was demonstrated by iron and lodestone in the Earth, for example, would also be like the root of an invisible force that is driving and governing the planets in their orbits, by some sort of similar power of attraction, yet from far away
and without any form of direct contact among the stars.
He cultivated unsubtantiated ideas, derived from Gilbert’s
observations on magnetism and magnetic affects, and thought there was an effluvia of magneto-motive force from the Moon that caused the Earth’s tides by pulling water from the Earth towards it. Thus Kepler proposed that there was an effluvia of magneto-motive
force from the Earth that pushed and pulled the Moon in its orbit around the Earth. Besides a sort of superstition, the idea of mutual and universal gravitation from Kepler and Newton dissolved in obscurantist theories, erroneously
derived from magnetic principles. The notion of occult actions-at-a-distance operating between Earth and the Moon, and between planets and stars, was a metaphor for magnetic force; but actual magnetism and so-called gravity are not the same thing. Magnetism
has been known since prehistory, probably since the development of iron smelting, and geomagnetism is of the Earth's magnetic field.
The magnetosphere and "gravity" (unique weight, mass, density, collection) of the Earth are not exactly the same. Magnetism is based on mutual attractions between a dipole, but gravity by the inverse squared is not ... not actually
even there any more than it is not innate to matter.
William Gilberts’s experiments with a magnetic model
of the Earth he called a terrella convinced him that the Earth itself is a large magnet, and his publsished work "De Magnete" exercised a great influence over Kepler and the development of his astronomical theories of planetary and stellar motion. The mineral lodestone is rich in the magnetic mineral magnetite and can be magnetized by a lightning strike, and most meteorites may attract cheap magnets because they contain some iron-nickel metal. Pliny the Elder in his "Natural History"
recounts a legend about a shepherd called Magnes on the island of Crete, whose iron-studded boots kept sticking to the path.
earliest recorded ideas on the nature of magnetism are attributed to Thales (c. 624 BC – 546 BC), whose theories of magnetism involved the notion that there is some natural principle of sympathy and attraction between similar forms and
particles of objects in the elements. It seemed perhaps that there was an effluvia, or a cloud, or a stream of atomic particles seeping through pores of the materials.
In mysterious metaphysics of natural philosophy, it was thought that sympathy existing between similar objects and instances of magnetism was mediated by a purposeful life force that strove toward perfection. This theory can be found
in the writings of Pliny the Elder and Aristotle also, who claimed that Thales even attributed a basis of soul or principle anima to the magnet. In China, a similar life force, or qi, was believed to animate magnets. Whatever the form in the mechanism,
the results were essentially the same, where a magnet has two poles and a tendency to point.
Based on Gilbert’s theory
that the Earth itself is a great magnet, "magnus magnes ipse est globe terrestris", Kepler developed his school of the elliptical orbit of the Moon, and his lunar theory of tides. But rather than move the Moon, the gravity (density, weight, and compression)
and magnetism and natural condition of the Earth tend to bring things around it to rest and collection not set them in motion. If the Moon were really under the influence of the gravity and magnetism of the earth, the Earth should bring it to collected rest
on the beach not set it forward in motion.
The Earth, like Telluride, Colorado, or tellecor of the middle, does
not itself move the International Space Station or satellites. Cyclical surface and air temperatures, with pressure systems and seasonal conditions, contribute to the development of wind patterns, but the earth itself does not move things above it. It
does not move any heavy or light objects, like leaves, dust, pollen, or hot air balllons, or bags of sand or rocks, so then how does it move the Moon? The same things like a marble on a high glass table on the roof of a high tower that the full Moon does not
move, neither does the Earth, not even a paper cup lost on the road. Rather the gravity and magnetism of the earth tend to support things coming to rest, and remaining still, as it is itself. The only instances in which the Earth moves anything above it are
in volcanic eruptions, floods and rivers, mudslides, sinkhole collapse, and geyser explosions, et cetera.
around the Earth flow North or South, East or West, or whatever way of the eight cardinal directions, not because of universal gravity by the inverse squared, but because of vectors of motion established by variations of terrain, elevations, impetus, momentum
or a little of the pressure in those places in quale quid.
2. "It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover", and NASA
says the circle of the Moon has a fundamentally false appearance, yet no one can prove it. Of the Moon, NASA says "non esse quam videri", what you see is not what you get, and every day from recorded history until now.
Why say such a thing and pretend that that is scientific, and if the way of the
Moon is false, what else is false about it and NASA?
a hot air balloon traced the course of the Moon around the Earth, it would go from East to West, and that would be a verifiable flight plan, and a scientific fact. If any other object besides a hot air balloon traced the course of the Moon around the Earth,
it would be the same. For all the sameness of facts, a hot air balloon and all other objects that would trace the course of the Moon authentically go from East to West around the Earth, yet the Moon is going the opposite way?
Who should be so crazy?
The basis of their supposed scientific system is
their own philosophical reinterpretation of a visibly demonstrable and continuous worldwide occurrence that directly contradicts their view. There is no reasonable scientific explanation for such a position, yet the mind intent upon what is
false refuses to admit better things. "Acclinis falsis animus meliora recusat."
Rather the Moon goes from East to West, orbiting the Earth clockwise across the sky, when viewed from above the North
Besides tracking it with a river of hot air balloons, the full moon itself is the easiest way to settle the question. With the Earth in between it and the sun, it is easy to verify
that it orbits from East to West. Whenever the moon is full, it is 180 degrees along a line from the sun to the earth in the opposite syzygies, and the moon is always going the same direction around the
Earth, of course. Therefore, to verify once for science which way it goes is enough, and it always is going from East to West.
Before sunrise, the full moon begins its slow descent in the
West, some 12 hours and 25 minutes after it rose in the East, that was sunset of the day before. As the sun also rises in the East and then sets in the West, so does the moon. To observe a full moon the longest and restate the obvious, it may be
better to look for it in the East in the evening, rather than in the West before dawn.
The history of calendars has not been exactly
perfect, but the phases of the moon form the synodic month, averaged at 29 ½ days; and it is close enough for averages to say that the phases of the moon take about four weeks. It is about four weeks from new moon to new moon for one lunar month between
The new moon is aligned in a straight line with the sun and earth too, like the full moon, but then it is in the syzygies with the sun
from the same side of the Earth, rather than from the other side with the Earth in between as in the full moon. Over a week it begins waxing from the new moon into the first quarter moon, where it is 90 degrees from the sun, with its eastern side shining.
Over the second week, it waxes more until it reaches full moon, and the whole side that faces Earth is completely lit. From the full moon it begins waning, and after the third week it is again 90 degrees from the sun, with its western side shining, and from
the opposite side of the ecliptic of the first quarter.
From there it wanes until a faint crescent moon before
dawn. Then when a new moon again, it cannot be seen at all, because it disappears again, aligned with the sun and earth in the syzygies from the same side of the Earth.
All solar eclipses are new moons, and the phases follow because the moon travels more slowly around the Earth than the sun. They are both orbiting from East to West, but the sun is much further away and
going much faster.
Besides the lunar month, there is the solar month and the sidereal month. The solar month is one
twelfth of a solar year, averaging 30 days, 10 hours, 29 minutes, and 3.8 seconds, representing the time it takes thirty degrees of one tropical sign of the ecliptic to have passed the sun. When all twelve have passed the sun in turn, then it will have
been a calendar year.
A solar month is a little longer and different from a sidereal month. The solar month is
in terms of the sun in view of one sign passing it at a time, not all twelve passing the moon. The sidereal month, in contrast, represents the time it takes the tropical signs of the zodiac, from the background of stars of the constellations
of the ecliptic, to have passed the moon once. A sidereal month lasts an average of 27.322 days.
A solar month is measured one
sign at a time, from the sun in view of the fixed stars, as they go around the Earth, passing the sun. A sidereal month is measured from the moon in view of the fixed stars of all twelve signs, as they go around the Earth, passing the moon. A synodic
or lunar month is measured from the moon in view of the sun, rather than the more distant stars, as the Sun and the Moon go around the Earth.
Heliocentrism confuses the basics so much that it would have the moon going the wrong way, from West to East, counter-clockwise when viewed from above the North pole, and also would have it taking about 28 days to orbit the
Earth for one time, in view of the background of fixed stars. Actually, in that much time the moon will have orbited the earth an average of 27 times.
Heliocentrism sets things in reverse, because the moon is so much closer to Earth, where it seems to hang in the sky, in view of the sun and distant background of stars; and it always hangs there with the aspects lasting way too long
for the Earth to be spinning away 1038 mph from underneath ... all along the Equator, and so forth. So the fib was invented that the moon is going from West to East every day, rather than East to West, and it always is falling behind the Earth’s
rapid rotation into the eastern spaces. However, nobody sees the moon go from West to East. Everyone sees it go from East to West, and no one sees the Earth spin.
3. The moon orbits the Earth in an average of about 24 hours and 50 minutes (48-52 minutes, close enough
for government work) every day. An easy way to prove this would be to form a global lunar registry to measure how long it takes the moon to orbit the Earth. A certified lunar alert circuit committee could be organized around the Earth, with chapters and towers
in key locations like Rome, Italy; Orlando, Florida; Phoenix, Arizona; the Marshall and Hawaiian Islands and Sumatra, for example. These would be enough for the test, but there could be added a few more chapters and observation towers in places like Natal,
Brazil; San Diego, California; Tokyo, Japan; and Muscat, Oman, just to be sure, as needed, and corresponding to interest, etc.
All that would be required is to set up shop in these places with
a secure global lunar registration band, and have certified, licensed, and bonded moon observers ready with spyglasses in towers in all the locations, and have them light up a switch, when the moon becomes visible from a given site. An observer would light
a switch when he first sees the moon appearing in the East and then turn it off when he loses sight of it in the West. Drum rolls, bells and whistles, and green and red buttons on the worldwide lunar registry switchboards would clearly show that the moon orbits
the Earth in an average of 24.83333 hours … not the false 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes quoted by heliocentrism … and that it is orbiting the Earth from East to West like the sun.
bless St. Januarius and Santiago de Compostela for common sense and patience, of course, and heliocentrism has confused the sidereal month with the reckoning of hourglass time that it takes the moon to orbit the Earth, and it has the moon going the wrong way
... every day, et cetera.