Users Online Now:
2,035
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,709,417
Pageviews Today:
2,508,498
Threads Today:
685
Posts Today:
14,170
08:28 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:mclarek 980219:MV84MTQ3MzlfMTcxMDM2MzFfNjYyQUIxRg==] [quote:Catseye 980502] 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 [i]did[/i] 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. :tounge: [/quote] Thank you. Just popping in. I said many times the semantics were screwing things up, the the egos here refused to work with me as I worked with them in their lack of understanding of which items we were talking of. (The "We" by the way, referred to the conversation in total, back-and forth between us all, that is.) And as Wikipedia said, the "laymen" include astronomers, who use "rotation, spin, orientation, orbit and revolution" interchangeably for different real motions, which require specifications in addition to these words, just like me. Nancy was saying too, that there is no motion of spin on the Moon other than the forward motion, which is locked onto the Earth by gravity pulling it in. Relatedly: And no, Menow, I was wrong re. your "Earth disappearance" idea: and should have said re. if the Earth disappeared, it would fly off in a straight line. Sorry, Menow (I think it was) who posed that question and I was miffed and so, like you, got confused what the issue was. Yes, you do, dear! -- too. So anyway, if Venus similarly flew off, it would be in a straight line away, at some angle relative to the Sun, but Venus would continue to have spin/"revolution", or as Wikipedia pointed out "rotation" will be also used to talk of this sometimes. So, what I am talking of is not open to debate, and it was this I was talking of: motion relative to its forward path, which is right now around the Earth instead of straight (as Newton pointed out). And RELATIVE TO ITS FORWARD PATH IT DOES NOT TURN, but rather the path turns it. But at that level, you can say it turns on its axis, too. :) And it would be the extra turn which would have to be stopped on the Earth, not merely its forward orbital movement, if PX came near: stop forward (supposedly) and stop daily rotation (pole stop and reorientation) shift. The Moon would only be stopped on a forward movement of its orbit, THAT turn. Thanks. [/quote]
Original Message
Debunker Talk Live Chat May 15
Feel free to quote
ANY
poster from those silly SOZT...EOZT threads etc etc.
Or just post your thoughts/opinions.
Open Discussion on Zetatalk; Bunkers; and it/their inability, over the last
Six
years to provide
ANY
truthful Facts and Knowledge to support the absurd
Failed
predictions of the "Candy Wrapper Aliens".
Let's see how long the Three "bunker" Amigos can bounce off each other in their little padded room over there on
Zetatalk Jive Turkey Chat!!
PS: If any of you debunkers want to meet in the GLP text/voice chat for some LIVE audio conversation we should set a day/time to meet up in one of the rooms to have a discussion etc.
Would find it a pleasure to converse with some of you guys. I mean there's a wealth of different subjects to talk about besides this silly zetatalk stuff.
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>