Did Tesla know the Moon’s Secret?
What was Tesla trying to Tell us about the Moon ? ? ?
And our universe… This is the very deepest level of the rabbit hole… for initiates only…
Here is the article in it’s entirety.
————————————————
And our universe… This is the very deepest level of the rabbit hole… for initiates only…
“The greatest triumphs of man were those in which his mind had to free itself from the influence of delusive appearances.”
“An unalterable rotational velocity thru all phases of planetary evolution is manifestly impossible. The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
-Nikola Tesla
Here is the article in it’s entirety.
————————————————
It is well known since the discovery of
Galileo that the moon, in travelling thru space, always turns the same
face towards the earth. This is explained by stating that while passing
once around its mother-planet the lunar globe performs just one
revolution on its axis. The spinning motion of a heavenly body must
necessarily undergo modifications in the course of time, being either
retarded by resistances internal or external, or accelerated owing to
shrinkage and other causes. An unalterable rotational velocity thru all
phases of planetary evolution is manifestly impossible. What wonder,
then, that at this very instant of its long existence our satellite
should revolve exactly so, and not faster or slower. But many
astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes
place. It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most
surprising one, too.
I will endeavor to make this clear by reference to Fig. 1, in which E represents the earth and M the
moon. The movement thru space is such that the arrow, firmly attached
to the latter, always occupies the position indicated with reference to
the earth. If one imagines himself as looking down on the orbital plane
and follows the motion he will become convinced that the moon does turn
on its axis as it travels around. But in this very act the observer
will have deceived himself. To make the delusion complete let him take a
washer similarly marked and supporting it rotatably in the center,
carry it around a stationary object, constantly keeping the arrow
pointing towards the latter. Tho to his bodily vision the disk will
revolve on its axis, such movement does not exist. He can dispel the
illusion at once by holding the washer fixedly while going around. He
will now readily see that the supposed axial rotation is only apparent,
the impression being produced by successive changes of position in
space.
But more convincing proofs can be given that
the moon does not, and cannot revolve on its axis. With this object in
view attention is called to Fig. 2, in which both the satellite, M, and earth, E, are shown embedded in a solid mass, M1,
(indicated by stippling) and supposed to rotate so as to impact to the
moon its normal translatory velocity. Evidently, if the lunar globe
could rotate as commonly believed, this would be equally true of any
other portion of mass M1, as the sphere M2, shown in dotted lines, and then the part common to both bodies would have to turn simultaneously in opposite directions. This
can be experimentally illustrated in the manner suggested by using
instead of one, two overlapping rotatable washers, as may be
conveniently represented by circles M and M2, and carrying them around a center as E,
so that the plain and dotted arrows are always pointing towards the
same center. No further argument is needed to demonstrate that the two
gyrations cannot co-exist or even be pictured in the imagination and
reconciled in a purely abstract sense.
The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation”
of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and
devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass
revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable. Volumes
have been written on the subject and many erroneous arguments advanced
in support of the notion. Thus, it is reasoned, that if the planet did not turn on its axis it would expose the whole surface to terrestrial view; as only one-half is visible, it must revolve.
The first statement is true but the logic of the second is defective,
for it admits of only one alternative. The conclusion is not justified
as the same appearance can also be produced in another way. The moon
does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.
The unfailing test of the spinning of a mass is, however, the existence of energy of motion. The moon is not possest of such vis viva. If it were the case then a revolving body as M1 would
contain mechanical energy other than that of which we have experimental
evidence. Irrespective of this so exact a coincidence between the axial
and orbital periods is, in itself, immensely improbable for this is not
the permanent condition towards which the system is tending. Any axial
rotation of a mass left to itself, retarded by forces external or
internal, must cease. Even admitting its perfect control by tides the
coincidence would still be miraculous. But when we remember that most of
the satellites exhibit this peculiarity, the probability becomes
infinitestimal.
Three theories have been advanced for the
origin of the moon. According to the oldest suggested by the great
German philosopher Kant, and developed by Laplace in his monumental
treatise “Mécanique Céleste,” the planets have been thrown off from
larger central masses by centrifugal force. Nearly forty years ago Prof.
George H. Darwin in a masterful essay on tidal friction furnished
mathematical proofs, deemed unrefutable, that the moon had separated
from the earth. Recently this established theory has been attacked by
Prof. T. J. J. See in a remarkable work on the “Evolution of the Stellar
Systems,” in which he propounds the view that centrifugal force was
altogether inadequate to bring about the separation and that all
planets, including the moon, have come from the depths of space and have
been captured. Still a third hypothesis of unknown origin exists which
has been examined and commented upon by Prof. W. H. Pickering in
“Popular Astronomy of 1907,” and according to which the moon was torn
from the earth when the later was partially solidified, this accounting
for the continents which might not have been formed otherwise.
Undoubtedly planets and satellites have
originated in both ways and, in my opinion, it is not difficult to
ascertain the character of their birth. The following conclusions can be
safely drawn:
1. A heavenly body thrown off from a larger
one cannot rotate on its axis. The mass, rendered fluid by the combined
action of heat and pressure, upon the reduction of the latter
immediately stiffens, being at the same time deformed by gravitational
pull. The shape becomes permanent upon cooling and solidification and
the smaller mass continues to move about the larger one as tho it were
rigidly connected to it except for pendular swings or librations due to
varying orbital velocity. Such motion precludes the possibility of axial
rotation in the strictly physical sense. The moon has never spun around
as is well demonstrated by the fact that the most precise measurements
have failed to show any measurable flattening in form.
2. If a planetary body in its orbital
movement turns the same side towards the central mass this is a positive
proof that it has been separated from the latter and is a true
satellite.
3. A planet revolving on its axis in its
passage around another cannot have been thrown off from the same but
must have been captured.
No comments:
Post a Comment