DeletedUser
Not at all. But there was nothing there that disagrees with my position, which is not "my" position, as such, but reality.
It's clear, however, that you ignored my link.
It's clear, however, that you ignored my link.
Not at all. But there was nothing there that disagrees with my position, which is not "my" position, as such, but reality.
Unfortunately, rather than accept the original correction of your mistake in claiming that the moon was moving faster (rather than 'accelerating') you chose, against my best advice, to persist in and amplify your claim.
It's clear, however, that you ignored my link.
The NASA site uses the word "acceleration" correctly - it is you who who misuses it.So, you ignore my quotation of NASA and their use of the word?
Did you read the quote I provided? Here it is again:..... there is nothing I can do for someone who mistakes "moving faster" and "accelerating" as two different concepts.
Perhaps I should say "there is nothing I can do for someone who mistakes "moving faster" and "accelerating" as identical concepts.""Acceleration occurs anytime an object's speed increases, decreases, or changes direction."
I'm inclined to agree with that.And, honestly, I don't understand what the argument is all about....
Here's the nub: if you accelerate an orbiting object in the direction of its motion it will move to a higher orbit and slow down. If you accelerate it in the opposite direction ('decelerate' if you like) it will move to a lower orbit and speed up. If you find that hard to believe, go and look at the orbiting speeds of a satellite and the moon, or the planets about the sun and you will see that their speed ALWAYS decreases as their orbital radius increases.
So, as the moon becomes more distant it slows down. That was the only correction I had to make to your original post and it should not have been such hard work.