I think Clare is saying that the moon flies on a straight path and the earth's glue is causing it to turn. So it's motion is just forward, not spinning.

Menow, Commentator, Returner and others, I am worried for your own cheese! Cheese will be sliding off crackers right and left! How can it not? Clare won't answer your simple questions because she has her own way of describing things! Look what happened when she did answer them - same old warped, goofy descriptions.

What's being argued here is just semantics. Science uses certain definitions to describe the properties of matter, including celestial bodies. The words are defined in any dictionary. Clare, you are arguing facts which are not even open to debate! And you can't see that? We can all see what the moon is doing. And it's motion is described using certain definitions of words - this is not debatable! Just because you want to use uneducated layman's terms to describe something doesn't change what that something is doing. You are basically arguing against the definitions of words that science is using.

axis - an imaginary line about which a body rotates - not arguable!

rotation - the action of rotating around an axis - not arguable!

orbit - the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet or moon, esp. a periodic, elliptical revolution - not arguable!

revolution - motion in orbit - not arguable!

angular momentum - the quantity of rotation of a body, which is the product of its moment of inertia and its angular velocity - not arguable!

angular velocity - the rate of change of angular position of a rotating body - not arguable!



I enjoyed reading Returner's definitions better, though, much more amusing. It makes it all the funnier knowing the person is joshing and not really thinking that way, so you don't find your mind attempting to wrap itself around unintelligible logic.