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
As plain as it is that the Moon is not an oblate spheroid, neither is the Earth, and gravity is not any lateral force. Both are perfect spheres in dimension, and as it is so, Newtonian theories of gravitation,
therefore, cannot be the reason that the Moon circles the Earth.
According to theories of heliocentrism, however, the Earth is said to have six times the gravitational force of the Moon, tête-à-tête;
yet where six are pulling against one, from one side of a dividing line, they should pull the one that is alone over; but in thousands of years of history the Moon has not been pulled down to Earth.
some point between Earth and Moon then, therefore, as whereto tends all this, the force of Earth's "gravitational attraction" on an object must be cancelled by the Moon's. 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.
For instance, if six Clydesdales are on one side of a dividing line, where one is 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, all else equal, the one will get tractor pulled over the line by the team of six.
And so it goes vis-à-vis the Moon. Viz., 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 estimated to be 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," which is far away from boats in the harbor, where the tides come and go.
Some 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 almost 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, with borders
about 34,286 miles from Earth and Moon on either side.
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 them; and, as it turns out, 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 or in the midst of the entire distance from A to B. Between 1 and 7, whatever is between them is in the betweens or the midst 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 6 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, in the midst, once in between, and whatever is between them is somewhere along the whole length of the line.
are all commutative terms logically between 1 and 7, as (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 are resolved 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 in the midst and 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 milieu. Like a breach in a wall, a breach
that is as enormous as it is small, any narrow rift 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 or small waves, or 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 and atmospheric 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, and 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, mudslides, 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 little 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.
The Moon may go spooky over water, and people hear of mind over matter, and have 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; and they say Daniel Hume could play an accordion without touching it. Nina Kulagina became famous
for being able to move matches on a coffee table without touching them, and 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 air, but not the Moon.
In the way of scales then, 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, where he hinted at an "attractive force" between them in his early theory of universal gravitation and the ellipse. 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 confessed in a private letter that, even 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, constituting
the remains of an accidental superstition, 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 teach 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. Also ruling over the deep abyss of the 4th House, of the astral plane called "Genitor", in the sign of Cancer at the imum coeli, it is supposed to symbolize
hidden things, transitional phases, and the subtlety of the deep. Yet if people have imagined that the Moon is a symbol of the element of water, 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 one of the oldest
fallacies 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 too? If they do, why not Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn in Aquarius?
Well, the Moon is bigger, of course, and closer, and looks more mysterious and tidal, the way it goes through phases and hovers in the sky, almost right overhead
sometimes. 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 the charm of coincidental appearances perhaps 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. They are coincidental, and there may be endless variations of coincidence between them, since there
is such a wide simultaneity of relationship in them around the world; but tides and phases of the Moon can all be put togther 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 heliocentrics 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.
Carroll 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)
The 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 with common sense 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)
As more illustration 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 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)
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", and 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, 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 balatrone, 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, weaker
than all the most diminshed forces that can be experienced directly -- and it is not even lateral in a true sphere, or vertical either, since up or down in a true sphere are arbitrary distinctions, etc. The gravity of the Earth itself is weaker
even than a little 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 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.
Besides this 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 also it 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 of the Federal government as well as NASA?
Besides 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 drives and governs the planets in their orbits, by some sort of similar power of attraction, yet from so far away and without any form of direct contact
among the stars.
He cultivated and elaborated 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 as well 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 own magnetic field and relating only to it.
The magnetosphere and "gravity" (unique weight, mass, density, collection, and substance) of the Earth are not exactly the same, and not much
for an exterior force of attraction on the Moon. 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 published work "De Magnete" exercised a great influence over Kepler and the development of his astronomical theories of 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.
The 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 would be an effluvia, or a cloud, or a stream of atomic particles seeping through pores
of the materials; and 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.
mysterious metaphysics of natural philosophy, it was thought that sympathy existing between similar objects and instances of magnetism were mediated by a purposeful life force that strove toward perfection. This theory can be found in the writings of Pliny
the Elder and Aristotle, 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 hidden 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, substance, and compression) and magnetism
and natural condition of the Earth tend to bring things around it to collective rest 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 a point of stillness and rest on
the beach not set it forward in motion.
Like Telluride, Colorado, the Earth, as 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, or anvils, so then how does it move the Moon?
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.
And rivers around the Earth flow North or South, East or West, or whatever way of 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 unique compression in those places in quale quid.
2. "It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover", yet NASA says the circle of the Moon has a fundamentally false appearance, and 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 against the proof, against
discovery and intuition, and pretend that that is scientific, and if the way of the Moon is false, what else is false about it or NASA?
Yet the senses would create similar ideas
in many people, and if a hot air balloon traced the course of the Moon around the Earth, it would go from East to West, like the fixed stars too, 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 the supposed scientific system of relativity is its own philosophical
reinterpretation of a visibly demonstrable and continuous worldwide occurrence that directly contradicts the view that all is the same. And the essential relation of one thing to another, and that is innately so, and an example in so many other things, as
any instance of one side or another, comes to naught in the phases, aspects, and sides of the Moon. The Moon would conspire on the whole against the necessary nature of the formula, “either is or is not”. There is no reasonable scientific explanation
for such a position against sides, that all is the same, or just the opposite in so many details. Yet if one odd stupidity would reign through all for the emptiest conclusion, still, however, east is not west, even as 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 Pole.
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 reexamine the
obvious, it may be better to look for it in the East in the evening, rather than in the West before dawn.
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 full moons.
The new moon is hidden by the sun, aligned in a straight line with
the sun and earth too. 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 little more than 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 little more than 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
little more than 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 it becomes a faint crescent moon before dawn. Then when a new moon arrives again, it cannot be seen at all, since it disappears from view, 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
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 even basic 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 directly 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 gradually 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 ever 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 commission to measure how long it takes the moon to orbit the Earth. A certified lunar alert circuit committee could be organized around the world, 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, bonded, and insured 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 the 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 or so 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.