| Users Online Now: 2,114 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,710,115 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,509,617 | Threads Today: 685 | Posts Today: 14,177 |
| 08:29 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,114 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,710,115 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,509,617 | Threads Today: 685 | Posts Today: 14,177 |
| 08:29 PM | ||
The moon's crookedness is caused by our going toward the center of the galactic plane | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060  South Korea01/06/2013 10:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Usually I'm just giggling when I read your stuff, but that made me laugh out loud. Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD Thank you.  You've been worn-ed (warned). It's so evident. But I won't be satisfied until I can gloat over your spiritually-defunct carcass til its last dying breath. ARE YOU STILL HERE?!?! I thought this thread died a death already! Albeit a slow, painful and completely undignified death but come on seriously!!  Wow,thanks for taking all that effort to whip up such a reply I can't know how to withstand the sheer intelligence and substance of it! You know as well as I do both the sun and moon by just simply looking at them are obvious ominous important portents of things soon to come. [link to www.youtube.com] |
Da fuq  User ID: 16258666  United States01/06/2013 10:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/06/2013 10:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/06/2013 10:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 31516487 United States01/06/2013 10:32 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Dr. Astro Nope, I'm still waiting on a substantive reply. Thread: The moon's crookedness is caused by our going toward the center of the galactic plane (Page 26) I see I've effectively shut you up since all you can do now is hurl insults. really? then do tell us how field rotation applies to a body in orbit? I already showed you: It applies. Just because it's in orbit does not mean it does not experience field rotation to an observer on earth. After all this time since I first turned you into a blubbering idiot by hammering the final nail into your FR failed theory argument, this is the best you can still come up with...just to say "Well I'm still right"? Lame-O I proved I was right, the video shows field rotation of an orbiting object, you have yet to offer a substantive rebuttal for why this would not be true of the moon as well.  |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/06/2013 10:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31354656 really? then do tell us how field rotation applies to a body in orbit? I already showed you: It applies. Just because it's in orbit does not mean it does not experience field rotation to an observer on earth. After all this time since I first turned you into a blubbering idiot by hammering the final nail into your FR failed theory argument, this is the best you can still come up with...just to say "Well I'm still right"? Lame-O I proved I was right, the video shows field rotation of an orbiting object, you have yet to offer a substantive rebuttal for why this would not be true of the moon as well. [link to www.youtube.com] |
| Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 31516487 United States01/06/2013 10:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Dr. Astro I already showed you: It applies. Just because it's in orbit does not mean it does not experience field rotation to an observer on earth. After all this time since I first turned you into a blubbering idiot by hammering the final nail into your FR failed theory argument, this is the best you can still come up with...just to say "Well I'm still right"? Lame-O I proved I was right, the video shows field rotation of an orbiting object, you have yet to offer a substantive rebuttal for why this would not be true of the moon as well. [link to www.youtube.com] Still no substantive rebuttal. I have turned you into nothing more than a "blubbering idiot" since you cannot offer anything substantive. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/06/2013 10:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31610685 After all this time since I first turned you into a blubbering idiot by hammering the final nail into your FR failed theory argument, this is the best you can still come up with...just to say "Well I'm still right"? Lame-O I proved I was right, the video shows field rotation of an orbiting object, you have yet to offer a substantive rebuttal for why this would not be true of the moon as well. [link to www.youtube.com] Still no substantive rebuttal. I have turned you into nothing more than a "blubbering idiot" since you cannot offer anything substantive. You toy with me, why can't I have some fun and toy with you also? You offer nothing substantive, why can't I do the same? It's only fair, you know, Dr. Foe (Faux). (The space station doesn't have the same orbittal pattern as the moon. I've already stated this. Don't make me lose my whimsical facetious spirit with you, it'll just make you lose again, you know.) |
| Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 31516487 United States01/06/2013 11:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Dr. Astro I proved I was right, the video shows field rotation of an orbiting object, you have yet to offer a substantive rebuttal for why this would not be true of the moon as well. [link to www.youtube.com] Still no substantive rebuttal. I have turned you into nothing more than a "blubbering idiot" since you cannot offer anything substantive. You toy with me, why can't I have some fun and toy with you also? You offer nothing substantive, why can't I do the same? Yes, I did. [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] You have chosen to offer nothing substantive in reply. It's only fair, you know, Dr. Foe (Faux). Quoting: IDWI actually do have my PhD. Of course all you have to offer are cheap insults, which is why you fail. (The space station doesn't have the same orbittal pattern as the moon. Quoting: IDWIrrelevant. ISS's orbital pattern is even more non-sidereal than the moon, thus it is generous to your claim that the moon should not show field rotation like the stars do because it is orbiting. I showed that your excuse doesn't work, orbiting objects DO show field rotation, even in extreme examples where the object orbits at a highly non-sidereal rate. That was generous to your claim since ISS doesn't move "like the stars" at all (whereas the moon very nearly does). I've already stated this. Quoting: IDWYou could state it till you were blue in the face and it still wouldn't matter, it's a meaningless reply. Not only does it not matter that ISS has a low earth orbit as opposed to the moon's high earth orbit, but ISS is far less close sidereal in its motion than the moon thus it is generous to your claim to use it as an example of how orbiting objects DO show field rotation. There is only one specific type of orbit which does not, geostationary, for the simple reason that the altitude and azimuth of such an object never changes. The moon's orbit is far from a geostationary orbit. Don't make me lose my whimsical facetious spirit with you, it'll just make you lose again, you know.) Quoting: IDWYou have failed to offer a substantive reply, thus I was not the one who lost. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Last Edited by Astromut on 01/06/2013 11:13 PM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/06/2013 11:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Still no substantive rebuttal. I have turned you into nothing more than a "blubbering idiot" since you cannot offer anything substantive. You toy with me, why can't I have some fun and toy with you also? You offer nothing substantive, why can't I do the same? Yes, I did. [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] You have chosen to offer nothing substantive in reply. It's only fair, you know, Dr. Foe (Faux). Quoting: IDWI actually do have my PhD. Of course all you have to offer are cheap insults, which is why you fail. (The space station doesn't have the same orbittal pattern as the moon. Quoting: IDWIrrelevant. ISS's orbital pattern is even more non-sidereal than the moon, thus it is generous to your claim that the moon should not show field rotation like the stars do because it is orbiting. I showed that your excuse doesn't work, orbiting objects DO show field rotation, even in extreme examples where the object orbits at a highly non-sidereal rate. That was generous to your claim since ISS doesn't move "like the stars" at all (whereas the moon very nearly does). I've already stated this. Quoting: IDWYou could state it till you were blue in the face and it still wouldn't matter, it's a meaningless reply. Not only does it not matter that ISS has a low earth orbit as opposed to the moon's high earth orbit, but ISS is far less close sidereal in its motion than the moon thus it is generous to your claim to use it as an example of how orbiting objects DO show field rotation. There is only one specific type of orbit which does not, geostationary, for the simple reason that the altitude and azimuth of such an object never changes. The moon's orbit is far from a geostationary orbit. Don't make me lose my whimsical facetious spirit with you, it'll just make you lose again, you know.) Quoting: IDWYou have failed to offer a substantive reply, thus I was not the one who lost. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Ah, so you've checked with your handlers in the time that has elapsed since I first checkmated you? Well, why didn't you post this from the very get-go?! It sure sounds very intelligent, and worthy of the time that has gone by since then for your formulated reply since I turned you into a blubbering idiot, which I remind you is on record. Should I go through the trouble and show it post for post here on this thread, or should I spare you the public humiliation again? You still don't have a fundamental grasp of the orbital pattern of the moon, as obvious from your post here, but you can't understand it, because you're just getting fed reply data from your superiors. So I don't know that I'll even bother with you, who certainly has no PHD, except a Preliminary adHoc Dilemma. |
| Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 31516487 United States01/06/2013 11:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Dr. Astro Still no substantive rebuttal. I have turned you into nothing more than a "blubbering idiot" since you cannot offer anything substantive. You toy with me, why can't I have some fun and toy with you also? You offer nothing substantive, why can't I do the same? Yes, I did. [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] You have chosen to offer nothing substantive in reply. It's only fair, you know, Dr. Foe (Faux). Quoting: IDWI actually do have my PhD. Of course all you have to offer are cheap insults, which is why you fail. (The space station doesn't have the same orbittal pattern as the moon. Quoting: IDWIrrelevant. ISS's orbital pattern is even more non-sidereal than the moon, thus it is generous to your claim that the moon should not show field rotation like the stars do because it is orbiting. I showed that your excuse doesn't work, orbiting objects DO show field rotation, even in extreme examples where the object orbits at a highly non-sidereal rate. That was generous to your claim since ISS doesn't move "like the stars" at all (whereas the moon very nearly does). I've already stated this. Quoting: IDWYou could state it till you were blue in the face and it still wouldn't matter, it's a meaningless reply. Not only does it not matter that ISS has a low earth orbit as opposed to the moon's high earth orbit, but ISS is far less close sidereal in its motion than the moon thus it is generous to your claim to use it as an example of how orbiting objects DO show field rotation. There is only one specific type of orbit which does not, geostationary, for the simple reason that the altitude and azimuth of such an object never changes. The moon's orbit is far from a geostationary orbit. Don't make me lose my whimsical facetious spirit with you, it'll just make you lose again, you know.) Quoting: IDWYou have failed to offer a substantive reply, thus I was not the one who lost. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Ah, so you've checked with your handlers in the time that has elapsed since I first checkmated you? You were the one that stopped offering substantive replies last time as well; you never checkmated me, you're projecting, I checkmated you. Well, why didn't you post this from the very get-go?! It sure sounds very intelligent, and worthy of the time that has gone by since then for your formulated reply since I turned you into a blubbering idiot, which I remind you is on record. Quoting: IDWYes, let's look at that record shall we? You never substantively responded to this post: Thread: U - moon ("laid back" crescent) shows that position of Sun Earth and Moon has changed- update 2012: PROOF!!!! on page 6, new info on page11 (Page 9) I won. You still don't have a fundamental grasp of the orbital pattern of the moon, as obvious from your post here, but you can't understand it, because you're just getting fed reply data from your superiors. So I don't know that I'll even bother with you, who certainly has no PHD, except a Preliminary adHoc Dilemma. Quoting: IDWMore insults, nothing of substance. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/06/2013 11:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25480060 You toy with me, why can't I have some fun and toy with you also? You offer nothing substantive, why can't I do the same? Yes, I did. [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] You have chosen to offer nothing substantive in reply. It's only fair, you know, Dr. Foe (Faux). Quoting: IDWI actually do have my PhD. Of course all you have to offer are cheap insults, which is why you fail. (The space station doesn't have the same orbittal pattern as the moon. Quoting: IDWIrrelevant. ISS's orbital pattern is even more non-sidereal than the moon, thus it is generous to your claim that the moon should not show field rotation like the stars do because it is orbiting. I showed that your excuse doesn't work, orbiting objects DO show field rotation, even in extreme examples where the object orbits at a highly non-sidereal rate. That was generous to your claim since ISS doesn't move "like the stars" at all (whereas the moon very nearly does). I've already stated this. Quoting: IDWYou could state it till you were blue in the face and it still wouldn't matter, it's a meaningless reply. Not only does it not matter that ISS has a low earth orbit as opposed to the moon's high earth orbit, but ISS is far less close sidereal in its motion than the moon thus it is generous to your claim to use it as an example of how orbiting objects DO show field rotation. There is only one specific type of orbit which does not, geostationary, for the simple reason that the altitude and azimuth of such an object never changes. The moon's orbit is far from a geostationary orbit. Don't make me lose my whimsical facetious spirit with you, it'll just make you lose again, you know.) Quoting: IDWYou have failed to offer a substantive reply, thus I was not the one who lost. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Ah, so you've checked with your handlers in the time that has elapsed since I first checkmated you? You were the one that stopped offering substantive replies last time as well; you never checkmated me, you're projecting, I checkmated you. Well, why didn't you post this from the very get-go?! It sure sounds very intelligent, and worthy of the time that has gone by since then for your formulated reply since I turned you into a blubbering idiot, which I remind you is on record. Quoting: IDWYes, let's look at that record shall we? You never substantively responded to this post: Thread: U - moon ("laid back" crescent) shows that position of Sun Earth and Moon has changed- update 2012: PROOF!!!! on page 6, new info on page11 (Page 9) I won. You still don't have a fundamental grasp of the orbital pattern of the moon, as obvious from your post here, but you can't understand it, because you're just getting fed reply data from your superiors. So I don't know that I'll even bother with you, who certainly has no PHD, except a Preliminary adHoc Dilemma. Quoting: IDWMore insults, nothing of substance. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Yes, let the reader keep reading onto the next page, and your utterly pathetic attempt to again pin the thread in a last-ditch effort to save yourself, which backfired on you since it just showed everyone how abysmally you lost. Glad you still remember. But then the psyche remembers moments of extreme pain, no? |
| Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 31516487 United States01/06/2013 11:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Dr. Astro Yes, I did. [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] You have chosen to offer nothing substantive in reply. ... I actually do have my PhD. Of course all you have to offer are cheap insults, which is why you fail. ... Irrelevant. ISS's orbital pattern is even more non-sidereal than the moon, thus it is generous to your claim that the moon should not show field rotation like the stars do because it is orbiting. I showed that your excuse doesn't work, orbiting objects DO show field rotation, even in extreme examples where the object orbits at a highly non-sidereal rate. That was generous to your claim since ISS doesn't move "like the stars" at all (whereas the moon very nearly does). ... You could state it till you were blue in the face and it still wouldn't matter, it's a meaningless reply. Not only does it not matter that ISS has a low earth orbit as opposed to the moon's high earth orbit, but ISS is far less close sidereal in its motion than the moon thus it is generous to your claim to use it as an example of how orbiting objects DO show field rotation. There is only one specific type of orbit which does not, geostationary, for the simple reason that the altitude and azimuth of such an object never changes. The moon's orbit is far from a geostationary orbit. ... You have failed to offer a substantive reply, thus I was not the one who lost. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Ah, so you've checked with your handlers in the time that has elapsed since I first checkmated you? You were the one that stopped offering substantive replies last time as well; you never checkmated me, you're projecting, I checkmated you. Well, why didn't you post this from the very get-go?! It sure sounds very intelligent, and worthy of the time that has gone by since then for your formulated reply since I turned you into a blubbering idiot, which I remind you is on record. Quoting: IDWYes, let's look at that record shall we? You never substantively responded to this post: Thread: U - moon ("laid back" crescent) shows that position of Sun Earth and Moon has changed- update 2012: PROOF!!!! on page 6, new info on page11 (Page 9) I won. You still don't have a fundamental grasp of the orbital pattern of the moon, as obvious from your post here, but you can't understand it, because you're just getting fed reply data from your superiors. So I don't know that I'll even bother with you, who certainly has no PHD, except a Preliminary adHoc Dilemma. Quoting: IDWMore insults, nothing of substance. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Yes, let the reader keep reading onto the next page, and your utterly pathetic attempt to again pin the thread in a last-ditch effort to save yourself, which backfired on you since it just showed everyone how abysmally you lost. Glad you still remember. But then the psyche remembers moments of extreme pain, no? You just keep doing what you did then, lob insults and offer nothing of substance. That's why I won then, that's why I won now. Your behavior never changes. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/06/2013 11:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25480060 Ah, so you've checked with your handlers in the time that has elapsed since I first checkmated you? You were the one that stopped offering substantive replies last time as well; you never checkmated me, you're projecting, I checkmated you. Well, why didn't you post this from the very get-go?! It sure sounds very intelligent, and worthy of the time that has gone by since then for your formulated reply since I turned you into a blubbering idiot, which I remind you is on record. Quoting: IDWYes, let's look at that record shall we? You never substantively responded to this post: Thread: U - moon ("laid back" crescent) shows that position of Sun Earth and Moon has changed- update 2012: PROOF!!!! on page 6, new info on page11 (Page 9) I won. You still don't have a fundamental grasp of the orbital pattern of the moon, as obvious from your post here, but you can't understand it, because you're just getting fed reply data from your superiors. So I don't know that I'll even bother with you, who certainly has no PHD, except a Preliminary adHoc Dilemma. Quoting: IDWMore insults, nothing of substance. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Yes, let the reader keep reading onto the next page, and your utterly pathetic attempt to again pin the thread in a last-ditch effort to save yourself, which backfired on you since it just showed everyone how abysmally you lost. Glad you still remember. But then the psyche remembers moments of extreme pain, no? You just keep doing what you did then, lob insults and offer nothing of substance. That's why I won then, that's why I won now. Your behavior never changes. Why can't you get it through your thick skull Astro that I like you, even though you're my avowed enemy, so I do all that I might to save you from public humiliation again? you're just a peon low on the totem pole certainly, lower of course than HD, but that makes your like-ability factor all the higher in my book. I'm the owner who looks upon his ant farm as a thing to be amused by, not to condemn because they don't know things. |
| Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 31516487 United States01/06/2013 11:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Why can't you get it through your thick skull Astro that I like you, even though you're my avowed enemy, so I do all that I might to save you from public humiliation again? you're just a peon low on the totem pole certainly, lower of course than HD, but that makes your like-ability factor all the higher in my book. I'm the owner who looks upon his ant farm as a thing to be amused by, not to condemn because they don't know things. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25480060 More insults, nothing of substance. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Last Edited by Astromut on 01/06/2013 11:41 PM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/06/2013 11:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25480060 Yes, let the reader keep reading onto the next page, and your utterly pathetic attempt to again pin the thread in a last-ditch effort to save yourself, which backfired on you since it just showed everyone how abysmally you lost. Glad you still remember. But then the psyche remembers moments of extreme pain, no? You just keep doing what you did then, lob insults and offer nothing of substance. That's why I won then, that's why I won now. Your behavior never changes. Why can't you get it through your thick skull Astro that I like you, even though you're my avowed enemy, so I do all that I might to save you from public humiliation again? you're just a peon low on the totem pole certainly, lower of course than HD, but that makes your like-ability factor all the higher in my book. I'm the owner who looks upon his ant farm as a thing to be amused by, not to condemn because they don't know things. More insults, nothing of substance. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Yes, you've won Astro. There you have it in writing! Now, off you go. Good boy. |
| Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 31516487 United States01/06/2013 11:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Dr. Astro You just keep doing what you did then, lob insults and offer nothing of substance. That's why I won then, that's why I won now. Your behavior never changes. Why can't you get it through your thick skull Astro that I like you, even though you're my avowed enemy, so I do all that I might to save you from public humiliation again? you're just a peon low on the totem pole certainly, lower of course than HD, but that makes your like-ability factor all the higher in my book. I'm the owner who looks upon his ant farm as a thing to be amused by, not to condemn because they don't know things. More insults, nothing of substance. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Yes, you've won Astro. There you have it in writing! Now, off you go. Good boy. Quoted for truth. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/06/2013 11:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25480060 Why can't you get it through your thick skull Astro that I like you, even though you're my avowed enemy, so I do all that I might to save you from public humiliation again? you're just a peon low on the totem pole certainly, lower of course than HD, but that makes your like-ability factor all the higher in my book. I'm the owner who looks upon his ant farm as a thing to be amused by, not to condemn because they don't know things. More insults, nothing of substance. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Yes, you've won Astro. There you have it in writing! Now, off you go. Good boy. Quoted for truth. LOL your quickness even, that's just ah crap what's the word? Oh yeaH! Priceless! |
| SmellslikeDrama User ID: 1267719 United States01/06/2013 11:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The new prediction/command : The moon is now spinning out of control. as of 10:51 cst Last Edited by <x> on 01/06/2013 11:52 PM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/06/2013 11:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/07/2013 12:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/07/2013 02:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 30617504 United States01/07/2013 05:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I hope I don't tick anyone who understands the moon better then I do... Here goes!!! It's 4am here in Louisiana and the moon hasn't reached mid point of sky, in fact it's mid way to the middle???? The sun should peek out in about 2-21/2 hours. It's crescent shape and yellow like I used to remember :) I'd also like to mention that last night the 2nd to brightest star (9pm central time) ....((I hope nobody thinks I'm crazy)) right below the Big Dipper, that star was flashing (twinkle, blink, call it what you wish) RED & BLUE!!!! I have 20/20 vision unless something changed in the past 3 months with my eyes. I went check back every 1/2 hour till 11pm and it was still acting like a patriotic star (honestly! Red & blue twinkles on a bright white star) I looked across the sky and the sky was dotted with quite a few twinkle stars, however to far for me to notice any colors. I had a strange dream but I never could remember my dreams (no I don't think UFO in real life or dream) I do think possible man made (plane <-- I've seen planes look similar in size, if that plane could remain afloat in the sky <--crossed my mind.... Also chemtrails reflecting, however could charm trail follow star across sky? And with the moon being 1/4 RISING, I have more questions then answers! Just wanted to document here in case others noticed as well. My camera doesn't record the sky at all... Ugh!! Good morning and have a good day everyone :) |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/07/2013 08:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I hope I don't tick anyone who understands the moon better then I do... Here goes!!! It's 4am here in Louisiana and the moon hasn't reached mid point of sky, in fact it's mid way to the middle???? The sun should peek out in about 2-21/2 hours. It's crescent shape and yellow like I used to remember :) I'd also like to mention that last night the 2nd to brightest star (9pm central time) ....((I hope nobody thinks I'm crazy)) right below the Big Dipper, that star was flashing (twinkle, blink, call it what you wish) RED & BLUE!!!! I have 20/20 vision unless something changed in the past 3 months with my eyes. I went check back every 1/2 hour till 11pm and it was still acting like a patriotic star (honestly! Red & blue twinkles on a bright white star) I looked across the sky and the sky was dotted with quite a few twinkle stars, however to far for me to notice any colors. I had a strange dream but I never could remember my dreams (no I don't think UFO in real life or dream) I do think possible man made (plane <-- I've seen planes look similar in size, if that plane could remain afloat in the sky <--crossed my mind.... Also chemtrails reflecting, however could charm trail follow star across sky? And with the moon being 1/4 RISING, I have more questions then answers! Just wanted to document here in case others noticed as well. My camera doesn't record the sky at all... Ugh!! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30617504 Good morning and have a good day everyone :) Hi and good morning...Thanks for your account, I wouldn't say I have a better understanding of the moon than you do, in fact if you're watching it and noticing all the rest, you've got a better understanding than many! Funny that you mention it's yellowishness, if that's a word. I've noticed how the moon also one night is extremely bright, and then another night is back to normal brightness, if there is such a thing nowadays. Don't know how to explain it, and it's not because of changing conditions in the ambient light where I'm at, because I've observed it in the same place here at night. Could be chemtrailing effects, but I really don't see them anymore, at least in the daytime. Perhaps they're only doing it at night now, I really don't know. But then, how CAN we know? They're certainly not going to advertise their doings to us are they??? I really think the stars that twinkle colors are the planets in our solar system that are responding to a more energetic sun. The stars out beyond our solar system remain mostly just white twinklers. I hope you can get better to remembering your dreams soon, things are opening up to me more consistently and frequently now! |
| Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 31516487 United States01/07/2013 09:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | c'mon Astro, pin it again! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25480060 You were called off last time you pinned this thread, because you knew I was banned on another thread. Until that happens here again, I'm at your disposal. Don't wimp out. I didn't know you were banned when I "called off last time." I had nothing to do with your being banned and you don't have a paid account so I had no way of knowing. |
| Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 31516487 United States01/07/2013 09:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 31516487 United States01/07/2013 09:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Dr. Astro You just keep doing what you did then, lob insults and offer nothing of substance. That's why I won then, that's why I won now. Your behavior never changes. Why can't you get it through your thick skull Astro that I like you, even though you're my avowed enemy, so I do all that I might to save you from public humiliation again? you're just a peon low on the totem pole certainly, lower of course than HD, but that makes your like-ability factor all the higher in my book. I'm the owner who looks upon his ant farm as a thing to be amused by, not to condemn because they don't know things. More insults, nothing of substance. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Yes, you've won Astro. There you have it in writing! Now, off you go. Good boy. Silly me, I forgot, no rebuttal will be forthcoming, you already admitted defeat... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/07/2013 10:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | c'mon Astro, pin it again! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25480060 You were called off last time you pinned this thread, because you knew I was banned on another thread. Until that happens here again, I'm at your disposal. Don't wimp out. I didn't know you were banned when I "called off last time." I had nothing to do with your being banned and you don't have a paid account so I had no way of knowing. Shit, that's what i get for being too good, scaring off my Dr friend... :( Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25480060 Even I have to sleep from time to time, but I notice that while sleeping you still have not posted a substantive rebuttal. ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25480060 Why can't you get it through your thick skull Astro that I like you, even though you're my avowed enemy, so I do all that I might to save you from public humiliation again? you're just a peon low on the totem pole certainly, lower of course than HD, but that makes your like-ability factor all the higher in my book. I'm the owner who looks upon his ant farm as a thing to be amused by, not to condemn because they don't know things. More insults, nothing of substance. You claimed the moon shouldn't show field rotation because it orbits earth. I showed that orbiting objects do show field rotation. You failed to give a substantive reason why the moon would not show field rotation when other orbiting objects do, thus you lose. I win. Yes, you've won Astro. There you have it in writing! Now, off you go. Good boy. Silly me, I forgot, no rebuttal will be forthcoming, you already admitted defeat... I hope you smile because... [link to www.youtube.com] (Weird when I try to embed the video, it comes up as your pointless ISS video..you've bewitched youtube!) |
| Hydra User ID: 31658749  Germany01/07/2013 10:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just to remind the posters her - Korea Coward is just a troll: It doesn't matter that I reveal my secrets, because I'm that good. Quoting: Korea Coward 31009041 First, you have to give yourself an aura of eminence. Doesn't mean you have to know everything. You just have to appear that you do. You do have to give a command of the language, so if English isn't your forte, then perhaps none of this is for you anyway. On this site, you don't have to be technically proficient in everything you espouse, because this is a forum intended for the masses, and so it's not so much winning on each technical point as it is winning on the emotional front. It's all a Game. You just have to bolster yourself as better than everybody else playing the game. Even when you don't know the answer to something. Just respond emotionally and full of confidence, and it really doesn't matter. There's no fair or right or wrong, just if you want to win, you have to be good at playing the game. Even when someone plays a card that I didn't foresee or that's beyond me (it's no shame, because we all have our strengths and weaknesses, so who cares if somebody is better at math than you, for instance?). the important thing is that you carry on, and project that image of win. Then you win. Too oftentimes it takes so little for others to bully someone into submission. when in all actuality, remember, they're just as human as you and so just as subject to all the frailties of human existence, including self-doubt. Play upon their fears, and you'll win. Easy peasy! Thread: How to dominate a thread . :ase26122019: Annular Solar Eclipse - December 26, 2019 - Kannur, Kerala, India |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25480060 South Korea01/07/2013 10:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just to remind the posters her - Korea Coward is just a troll: Quoting: Hydra It doesn't matter that I reveal my secrets, because I'm that good. Quoting: Korea Coward 31009041 First, you have to give yourself an aura of eminence. Doesn't mean you have to know everything. You just have to appear that you do. You do have to give a command of the language, so if English isn't your forte, then perhaps none of this is for you anyway. On this site, you don't have to be technically proficient in everything you espouse, because this is a forum intended for the masses, and so it's not so much winning on each technical point as it is winning on the emotional front. It's all a Game. You just have to bolster yourself as better than everybody else playing the game. Even when you don't know the answer to something. Just respond emotionally and full of confidence, and it really doesn't matter. There's no fair or right or wrong, just if you want to win, you have to be good at playing the game. Even when someone plays a card that I didn't foresee or that's beyond me (it's no shame, because we all have our strengths and weaknesses, so who cares if somebody is better at math than you, for instance?). the important thing is that you carry on, and project that image of win. Then you win. Too oftentimes it takes so little for others to bully someone into submission. when in all actuality, remember, they're just as human as you and so just as subject to all the frailties of human existence, including self-doubt. Play upon their fears, and you'll win. Easy peasy! Thread: How to dominate a thread . Thanks for remembering me! I get in your head and stay there... [link to www.youtube.com] Don't forget also this important point I made: OP is a jealous little fag. How's that for debate technique? Succinct AND Biting: Perfect! Another winning point is to always keep the upper hand. You won't keep the upper hand if you do this, so absolutely under ANY circumstances use these: Emoticons! esp a smiley face. Also, the first time someone comes in to your Thread, if they disagree, Pound the shit out of them as much as you can right off the bat first thing. It's just like being a Teacher, you Must start hard. You can always get a tad soft later, but you if you start soft, they'll haven't the respect for you at the get-go, which is what you NEED. And never concede on a point, ever. PLUS: When they start respecting you (even if they'll never admit it), occasionally--only VERY infrequently--point out something a bit small that they sort of did well. Don't offer absolute praise, but just enough so that that Father-approval dynamic kicks in with them, and they'll continue to strive for your approval, even if it's just subconsciously. Their Drive to continue to Tackle you will ever so certainly Wane, and yeah... YOU WIN. |
