Users Online Now: 3,093 (Who's On?) Visitors Today: 2,057,141 Pageviews Today: 2,856,062 Threads Today: 710 Posts Today: 12,866 07:50 PM

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/21/2010 03:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
looked pretty big and lasted almost a year.
And scientists commented, too.
<shrug>

Quoting: mclarek 971744

What specifically "looked pretty big" and how are you measuring "pretty big"?

The other guys here know a lot more about this than me, so jump in and correct me, but what are we talking about here?

Amplitude variations measured in milliarcseconds?

Nancy talks about the Moon and Sun being visibly in the wrong place and the Earth being stopped in orbit and being bobbed up and down by aliens.

How is even a major variation in the extremely insignificant Chandler Wobble even remotely relevant?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/21/2010 03:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Clare.

So, if the Earth DID vanish, what would you call the movement of the Moon?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/21/2010 03:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Oh, and do you have any links supporting your choice of definitions regarding lunar motions?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
05/21/2010 03:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Final for anyone on Moon spin:

1. spin relating to its static OR own movement forward (real proper spin)
2. rotation around another point (your confusion) which completes a complete re-orientation through the axis
3. the final relativity/perceptual complexity of forward motion around the Earth while also rotating around another point -- e.g. the Sun -- thus seeming like real spin (the astronomers' misnomer):

Spin relative to rotation is "spin on an axis" in the strict sense. This means without trajectory or with trajectory. The Earth has this. The Moon does not.

Rotation around its axis, which can be collapsed and drawn as "spin" is a different and conflated concept.

To its own trajectory, it always faces forward.
And over the movement of the whole system forward (the Earth-Moon) around the Sun indeed it looks like a spin, not a turn, which is what the astronomers were technically misnaming as spin when it's rotation looking like spin then -- but you aren't even there, since you're quibbling over when the Earth is depicted stationary (except barycentre). And in THAT model, you can clearly see its face is always forward on its path, just turning on the path 180 degrees through the axis orientation. But if you stop the movement forward on the circle, there's self-referenced spin.

Get it?
Quoting: mclarek 971744

I haven't seen such sheer muleheadedness since the early nancy Sciastro days...
Totally ignore the facts, reassign new meanings to words and definitions to suit yourself and ignore any other (or even original) definitions to boot
(it's nearly up to the `magnetron' gaff in sheer ignorance- in fact it reminds me heavily of the `trimester' debate....)

And to boot it even shows signs of that `fenceshitter' who's name may not be mentioned in `I am on the fence, but YOU debunkers are all not' attempts to appear neutral and evenhanded while doing the opposite.

And the throwing in of `relativity' and several posts of `Einstein would understand me'- anyone else thinking of `I am Mother Teresa and Joan of Arc' type delusions of grandeur???
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 976928
United Kingdom
05/21/2010 03:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
I have now been 1.5 hours on here, looking and posting and looking, and sifting.

Clare
Quoting: mclarek 971744

And still nobody thinks you have made a single good point. You are still hopelessly mired in bullshit.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 976928
United Kingdom
05/21/2010 03:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Anyway, just testing all hypotheses, of course.
'Night!
Quoting: mclarek 971744

No, you're just trolling bullshit as usual. You have no interest in truth or reality.

You just want to find ways to say "Nancy might be right". Unfortunately there are none, and you just seem like a pathetic idiot.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
05/21/2010 03:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
I would be interested in just how `large' this electromagnetic' force would be, Clare

ie what strength electromagnetic field would be required to move a certain mass by a certain amount, and if you think that electromagnetic force would be `felt' or even measurable by anything on earth...

nice firm numbers would be appreciated...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 976928
United Kingdom
05/21/2010 03:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
I haven't seen such sheer muleheadedness since the early nancy Sciastro days...
Totally ignore the facts, reassign new meanings to words and definitions to suit yourself and ignore any other (or even original) definitions to boot
(it's nearly up to the `magnetron' gaff in sheer ignorance- in fact it reminds me heavily of the `trimester' debate....)

And to boot it even shows signs of that `fenceshitter' who's name may not be mentioned in `I am on the fence, but YOU debunkers are all not' attempts to appear neutral and evenhanded while doing the opposite.

And the throwing in of `relativity' and several posts of `Einstein would understand me'- anyone else thinking of `I am Mother Teresa and Joan of Arc' type delusions of grandeur???
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 763624

Yeah, another typical Zetard Troll rears its head. It's always the same.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/21/2010 08:16 AM
Report Abusive Post

Quoting: mclarek 971744

Click on the PDF link on that page and you get the whole article.

BTW, do you know what a 180 degree turn is? BACKWARDS.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/21/2010 08:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Looked pretty big and lasted almost a year.
And scientists commented, too.
<shrug>

Quoting: mclarek 971744

Clare, the CW is measured in milli-arcseconds, which is miniscule. DO you know what a milli-arcsecond is?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/21/2010 08:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Just so there's no confusion about my use of the word "days" and the fact that we're discussing the rotation rate of the earth, I'll change it thusly:

At some point in the future, the earth will become tidally locked to the sun, as Mercury is now. That means that the earth, spinning at a rate of once every 24 hours now, will gradually slow to a rate of once every 8760 hours, so that one side will always be in sunlight and one side in darkness.

When it slows to one rotation every 240 hours, is it still spinning? Yes or no?

When it slows to one rotation every 2400 hours, is it still spinning? Yes or no?

When it slows to one rotation every 8760 hours, is it still spinning? Yes or no?

Jerk.
It's spinning relative to orbiting the Sun if it circles the Earth AT ALL.

It is never spinning relative to the Earth, a perceptually fixed system upon which its spin relies but which only becomes an axial spin when one ADDS forward motion.

You could extrapolate that -- oh wait! I already said it. SPIN ALWAYS (relative to Sun) when FORWARD MOVEMENT (relative to Sun) in a circular (Moon) or fixed (Earth) axis relative to FORWARD MOVEMENT relative to Sun.

But take out forward movement, no spin. Thus, no spin relative to Earth, because its orbit and its axial orientation are consistent. As its Earth-orbit moves forward and to the right or left or straight, the Moon's axial orientation stays perpendicular to that new direction.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 558013

I note that Clare once again evaded answering these very simple questions.
GreenTabasco

User ID: 977033
Taiwan
05/21/2010 08:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
ZetaMax...come back!
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/21/2010 09:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
I haven't seen common scientific words and definitions mangled so badly in years. Clare, if abuse of terminology were a crime, you'd be in a SuperMax facility right now doing 11 consecutive life sentences with no possibility of parole.

But that's Standard Operating Procedure for a Zetard troll.

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 558013
United States
05/21/2010 09:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
That is the ONLY way that they can make any sense of Nancy's rantings...re-define terms and make up your own science. Funny how Clare cannot provide ANY references for her claims.

But this is how "zetatalk" works, isn't it?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 558013
United States
05/21/2010 09:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
My question is...what is it about Nancy's story that is so compelling to some people that they completely give up all logic and reasoning in an attempt to "believe" it?
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/21/2010 09:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
My question is...what is it about Nancy's story that is so compelling to some people that they completely give up all logic and reasoning in an attempt to "believe" it?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 558013

Well, in a few cases, and possibly this one as well, Nancy herself posed as the 'believer.'
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
05/21/2010 10:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
and the others- well- they might possibly be capable of walking AND talking at the same time- but I doubt it..

(personally I think the zetatards if they arent trolling- would need an oxygen mask if they did actually think- because a single brain cell cant say `breathe' and think at the same time....)

if the zetas various `mustooks' over the years (as told by nancy) were added up- it's apparent that far from being 300+ IQ aliens- they would be more like 3-IQ aliens

(Hey they still apparently haven't got the concept that if you have 1 (one) apple and I take it off you you will have how many apples????)

um 7, 99 22 billion, 4, 1,77, um...ZETA's RIGHT AGAIN .....

SO THERE!!!
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/21/2010 11:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
YIKES!

How are we going to get to the issues around electromagnetism and PX and NASA and discovery if we can't get this part straight? I know we are ALL learning here, but really, this is not a "factoid" fact which someone could know or not have heard of. This is a clear item about the Moon which EVERYONE knows. Does it show multiple faces? NO. It shows a slight different viewpoint in Libration, but it does not SPIN/rotate (its own axis), it ORBITS/rotates on an axis centred in the Earth. Yes, it is at a different rate than the Earth so it truly is an ORBIT, not just a fixed orbital position. But it doesn't SPIN itself.

Your true colors are really shining through now.

"Radical Doubt" for centuries of confirmed scientific observation of the universe but ZetaCult bullshit dogma is "a clear item about the Moon which EVERYONE knows."

Yours are.

If the Moon ROTATES completing a spin around ANOTHER axis (which is what it does), it is not considered to spin around its own.
Quoting: mclarek 971744

Still stubbornly repeating the same nonsense and refusing to acknowledge anybody else's points or thought experiments... exactly as Nancy would do. Some of your OWN exmples have proven you wrong and I and others pointed that out. Of course, you ignored that, and each and every other point I made to you, including about 3 repeats of my question:

What motions would the moon display if Earth suddenly went missing?

I have no further desire to have a 'discussion' with someone who doesn't have the courtesy to acknowledge the existence of posts/points directed to her.

I'm out.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/21/2010 12:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
You have confused this total rotation with its axis always pointing in direction of motion, and happening to complete a circle instead of some other figure or straight line, with actual SPIN relative to its rotation, which would remain even if it were not moving forward.
Quoting: mclarek 971744

One more note, to demonstrate that although "Clare" has been patiently corrected on her terminology, she persists in randomly mixing and matching terms in a confusing way. How can a body's 'spin' be relative to its 'rotation'? Since "Clare" will ignore this attempt at 'clar'-ification as she has done with all the others, it is a waste of time to attempt any discussion with her.

Clare is Nancy.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/21/2010 12:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
You have confused this total rotation with its axis always pointing in direction of motion, and happening to complete a circle instead of some other figure or straight line, with actual SPIN relative to its rotation, which would remain even if it were not moving forward.

One more note, to demonstrate that although "Clare" has been patiently corrected on her terminology, she persists in randomly mixing and matching terms in a confusing way. How can a body's 'spin' be relative to its 'rotation'? Since "Clare" will ignore this attempt at 'clar'-ification as she has done with all the others, it is a waste of time to attempt any discussion with her.

Clare is Nancy.
Quoting: Menow 935048

Yep. I'd bet money on that.

Hey Nancy! How's the failed doomsday biz?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/21/2010 12:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
THUS:
If the forward-curve motion around the Earth's barycentre, also combined with the forward movement OF that barycentre along the orbit around the Sun WERE STOPPED, the Moon would exibit no self-referential ("proper") spin on its axis.
In this sense it does not spin on its axis as does the Earth.
Quoting: mclarek 971744

It is truly exasperating to watch "Clare" expound like this and claim to have proven something, when her examples actually prove her wrong. If Earth and Moon were suddenly stopped in their common solar orbit, and the Moon also suddenly stopped orbiting Earth, the Moon would be sitting still in space(ignoring motions of the entire solar system, etc) and would BE ROTATING ONCE IN ABOUT 29 DAYS, AS IT IS NOW.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/21/2010 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
SO it doesn't get lost:

Clare.

So, if the Earth DID vanish, what would you call the movement of the Moon?

Oh, and do you have any links supporting your choice of definitions regarding lunar motions?

And third: What moons in the Solar System DO spin, using your definitions?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/21/2010 12:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Oh, and fourth: Is this your 'scratch paper' for posts? You picked an interesting thread to bump, from way back when. Why that one?

Thread: Zeta's Wrong Yet Again!! Blackbox signals found to keep Zetatalk Predictions at 100% Epic Failure
Reality420
User ID: 970551
United States
05/21/2010 01:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
So N*ncy's abandoning GLP?

Don't get your hopes up. Remember that after she and her minions took full control of her tt-watch and things got dull, she and her minions would make forays onto sci.astro to gin up interest. Zetatalk spam was the norm on many different venues.

It seems Nan can't stand not being the centre of attention on a larger scale than a cloistered echo chamber provides.
She doesn't like dissention but when she arranges a zeta concentration camp she finds it too dull.

She'll be back, along with her drones, spamming GLP with her latest words of wisdom and zetatalk.com and .ning links.

Seen it all before.

Have fun.

R.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 558013
United States
05/21/2010 01:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
OK, Clare, here is one more thought experiment for you.

Let's say we have a stationary body in free space...a relatively small planetoid 100 miles in diameter. It rotates on its axis at a rate of once per hour as witnessed by any external viewpoint being able to see all of it's surface features over the course of one hour. By your definition, is that body spinning? Yes/No?

Now, due to a gravtational tug from a distant body, it begins to move forward in space in a straight line at the rate of 1000 miles per hour. By your definition, is that body still spinning? Yes/No?

As that body is travelling, it passes by a massive planet and its path is curved until it is caught in orbit around that planet with an orbital period of 1000 hours. By your definition, is that body still spinning? Yes/No?

Over time, the tidal forces in the smaller body from the larger body cause its rotation to gradually slow until its rotational period comes into synchronization with its orbital period and from that point on it shows only one face to the large planet. By your definition, is that body still spinning? Yes/No?

If you claim no, exactly when did it stop spinning?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/21/2010 01:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
I find it ironic that Nancy's full retreat to Ning happens to be on the seventh anniversary of PX's failure to show in 2003, to the day...

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 558013
United States
05/21/2010 01:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
I wonder where she'll go when px doesn't show up in seven more years?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
05/21/2010 02:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Reply by MegaMontana 21 hours ago
Hey Billy, maybe I can help with your question. First off, Barack Obama is highly Service to Other, also a starchild here to help, and also the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.

from

whoohoo- now he's not just a STO

not even just a starchild.....

BUT!!!!

wait for it

also the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.

can the ning get any loopier?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
05/21/2010 02:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
we got old Abe,

Mother Teresa

and Joan of Arc

how long until we got every historical figure doing the `zeta puppet dance'???

(sad part is that the zetatards dont seem to realise that their own and their liars (sorry lieders) actions are the exact opposite of how those people acted?)

not surprising I suppose

when the supposedly STO LIEder acts so consistantly in a STS manner

by your actions are you judged- yes indeed nancy- we saw and we judged...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/21/2010 02:30 PM
Report Abusive Post