I have a question about the rotation of the moon. Does the moon acually spin like the earth or does it just stand still, forever illuminating the sky with the same side that we see every night?

Without rotation there would be zero gravity.
As the Moon has 1/6th of the Earth gravity, therefore it is spinning.
Here's a whole load of information about the Moon
Also for a shed load more check THIS

Gravity does not prove that there is rotation.

If you look up at the moon every night (with a telescope), you will always see the same side of the moon.

As the moon orbits us, if it were not spinning, you would expect to see every side of it at one point, but you only ever see one face. This is because the moon always spins at the same rate as it orbits us, thus showing us the same face all the way around.

When scientists refer to the "dark side" of the moon, they mean the face that we never see from Earth. The dark side of the moon does in fact get illuminated by the sun when there is a new moon.

In this way, the same side of the moon always faces the Earth, and this is proof that it is spinning.

Spinning causes gravity indeed... if anything it lessens the affect of gravity!!!

I should probably give a reason why it spins at the same speed as its orbit, this is due to tidal effects on the moon. The Earth pulls the dirt at the front of the moon stronger than it pulls the back, this forms a tide on the moon, if the moon was rotating faster than it orbits, this would create huge friction as the dirt all rubbed against itself and would slow down the moon as the tide went across the surface of the moon.
It has settled with it facing us with one face because there is no friction then, the bulge stays in the same place.

Listen to the monkey he really knows what he's talking about.
Hey it's been nearly 20 years since I studied Physics.

Ps The links are good for further information tho' ;)

It spins but not as fast as the Earth. Actually, nothing in the universe stands still. Neither is the moon's present condition considered by scientists as forever or permanent. Its slow movement away from Earth, among other things, in their view will gradually change that. The moon is presently locked in its rotational Earth moon orbital relationship by Earth's gravity.


BTW

No physics required to remember or understand this.

Starman is right although he stated it in a very obfuscated way.

The way that things are created in our universe means that it's very rare indeed for something to have no rotation.

There will always be some rotation no matter how small due to the multitude of forces given to it over time.

However, I don't regard statistical reasoning to be as intuitive as direct evidence.

Although no physics knowledge may be needed for the statistical reasoning, you do need physics to understand why something behaves the way it does at this moment in time, rather than a wishy washy statement about forever.

I would say that you need physics to understand this, which is half of your statement :p

Of course you need physics to understand things at the level you are referring to. That should be more than obvious. But not at the conceptual level required by this questioner.


Also, if my forever statement is wishy washy because no phyiscs was provided to back it up then I guess all your statements qualify as well since they also lack physics support--No? : )





BTW

Since no one here has as yet attempted a physics explanation I don't really see what relevance not remembering physics could possibly have with the inability to answer accurately. Sorry about that.

So you are suggesting that I should have answered "yes it spins."?

.

I referred to your statement as wishy washy because it can't be used to explain anythign except in the timescale of forever.

I agree that accepting doesn't equate with understanding.

Understanding is not limited to one level.
You have total understanding.
Partial understanding.
Fundamental understanding.
Advanced understanding.
Mathem,atical understanding
Conceptual understanding.

Take chess for instance. You have the different levels of understanding of the game along a continuum all the way up to grandmaster. And even at that level understanding isn't equally distributed. Some understand the end game better, others the opening, and others the middle game. Some such as Mikhail Tal were better tacticians and others such as Tigran Petrosian were better in strategy. Yet, the basics such as how the pieces move and their relative values as well as the game's purpose can be understood by a child. Capablanca for instance played chess at the age of four and Rechervesky also started as a child as did the Polgar sisters. In the same way, we don't need physics to know the fundamental fact that the moon presents the same face to us a you accurately pointed out.

About rotation, well, I understood you to mean that it seemed as if it didn't rotate. I just pointed out that it did to further clarify. But you are right. For us humans, for all practical purposes it might as well not rotate at all since it keeps just one face toward us all the time. : )

BTW
I am aware that the moon is necessary for earth's rotational stability.

I think the OP stated that it seemed as if it didn't rotate (just stuck up there in the sky), whereas I said that because it is orbiting us, it must be rotating to show us only one side of it.

I tried to promote understanding through the physical reasons for the effect, I disagree with your statement that I haven't used physics. I used quite a lot of qualitative physics in my explanation :)

I was referring to physics as expressed via equations and other such mathematical means.



I disagree that anyone stating that the moon's present relation to the Earth isn't forever is being wishy washy. It is a statement in full harmony with modern understanding of astronomy. Why you should choose to classify it as wishy washy is beyond me. You say it doesn't explain anything? I disagree. It clearly points out that the relationship between Earth and the moon isn't considered static. So it seems that you are more concerned with why I didn't go into a lenghty explanation about why it isn't forever.

There are many resons why someone might nort want to go into further explanations besides the one you seem to imagine.Some think it best not to deviate the thread into another subject and simply try to keep things simple. Some might be pressed for time and have other more important matters to be attended. Or perhaps the person might feel indisposed at that moment and is forced to truncate his response.


Actually, and strangely, I see many members who give wishy washy answers all the time without anyone taking any note. Some even answer with a joke, snide remark or just provide a link. Is that wishy washy too?


BTW

Since quite obviously you did answer the question correctly then my reference to the moon spinning shouldn't be perceived as a criticism of YOUR explanation--right?

Ahhh I didn't really mean wishy washy, I'm not sure what the word that I meant was.

I don't think that physics has to be mathematical at all. A lot of physical understanding is all in the words.

I didn't take it as criticism. I said you were right :p

The rotation of the moon and the revolving of the moon are in synk so we only see one side of the moon. But why that side of the moon? Why is the side that has most all the lunar seas (flat lands, Marias) the side that is facing the Earth?

The answer to this question was unknown until man (mostly the US) sent satilites to map the moon's surface. The orbit of these satilites were known exactly and could be predicted very accurately. When they passed over the larger Maria's of the moon, they would have a slight dip towards the moon, and then after a time, the orbit would resume normally. The theory that has explained this is that under the Maria's of the moon are very dense areas of rock or iron that once were asteriods, or maybe planetesmals, that crashed into the moon melting it and creating these vast Maria planes. The high density rock is still there under the Lunar seas.

So, the gravity pull of the Maria side of the moon is greater then the dark side (or all cratered side), making one side always face the Earth.

I don't quite follow your reasoning here, How can you say that the satellites "dip" when the go over the maria? I would say that you don't understand orbits.

I had always thought that the maria were remnant from lava flow, not high density rock. I don't see any merit in your reasoning here.

How did man know that the far side had no marias until they sent satellites there?? You imply that people had wondered about it, and then sent satellites there.

There are a lot of inconsistencies here...

Don't you think it might be more plausible that the maria are caused by the stronger pull of Earth's gravity on that side of the moon, forming more lava flows and changing the atmospheric distribution? Not the other way around as you suggest.

If you are on the Sun, and look at the Earth, You will notice the Moon moving back and forth across the Earth. From the Sun you will always see a Full Moon which does rotate,
About once a Earth Day. You will always see a Full Earth, except for the occational Eclipse.
Wear appropriate clothing and remember your protection.