Users Online Now: 2,706 (Who's On?) Visitors Today: 1,374,539 Pageviews Today: 1,789,764 Threads Today: 414 Posts Today: 6,959 12:30 PM

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/22/2010 04:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
By the way, do YOU understand the difference between a pinned-axis graph showing rotation even when representing forward momentum around another axis ... versus a graph showing what the axis relative to the body is doing, when the pinned axis is representing NO forward movement of the axis?

The Earth would continue to show spin; the Moon would not.

That is because in real space, the Earth takes more of a turn than its path (orbit) requires, whereas the Moon follows its orbit face forward. These people are graphing the axial movement, directing the body at each point, but not the body's movement relative to its axis on the path -- with or without a path.

Quoting: mclarek 971744

So you are defining lunar rotation relative to the Earth, despite the fact that the Moon primary orbit is always falling toward the Sun.

The Moon takes more of a turn than its path (orbit) requires in its motion around the Sun, after all. Is it spinning now?
mclarek
User ID: 971744
05/22/2010 05:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Angular momentum, pinned (drawn in place) of a consistent axis (not flipping, etc.), will be drawn as a spin on the axis.

But the axis if really pinned (no angular momentum) would show no spin, if drawn.

Spin/rotation around the barymetric Earth-Moon centre, is not the same as spin of proper motion relative to the motion of angular momentum (path).

If I step forward to the right and keep doing that, I can complete a circle. I can draw this as total turn relative to a fixed point outside the circle, and yes, I will seem to be spinning on my axis if someone doesn't realize what the graph represents. It can be called "spin on its axis" but refers to something different than if ...

I turn more than my angular momentum would take my axis forward and to the right.

If I do, then I am spinning on my own axis truly, specific & "proper" (self-same). Because even if I stopped going forward and to the right, my body would be turning.

The Earth does the latter.
The Moon does not: always faces its path. If its path were straight, you would see the difference and not confuse the ordinary language/graph meanings.

An apple in blue light is representable on a graph as "blue apple" and in ordinary language; but there is a distinction between the "proper" colour of the apple in natural full light, and the effect from the blue light, drawn or spoken of as "blue apple" result.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 946069
United States
05/22/2010 05:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Stop confusing the issue with facts and logic.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
05/22/2010 05:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
By the way, do YOU understand the difference between a pinned-axis graph showing rotation even when representing forward momentum around another axis ... versus a graph showing what the axis relative to the body is doing, when the pinned axis is representing NO forward movement of the axis?

The Earth would continue to show spin; the Moon would not.

That is because in real space, the Earth takes more of a turn than its path (orbit) requires, whereas the Moon follows its orbit face forward. These people are graphing the axial movement, directing the body at each point, but not the body's movement relative to its axis on the path -- with or without a path.

So you are defining lunar rotation relative to the Earth, despite the fact that the Moon primary orbit is always falling toward the Sun.

The Moon takes more of a turn than its path (orbit) requires in its motion around the Sun, after all. Is it spinning now?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444

And I covered that too: it's still optical illusion and sloppy definitions, but yes, it does seem to spin over space as it also seems just to "wobble" ... around the Earth's barycentre.

It is why the astronomers can call THAT feature "spin on its axis" -- which is not the thing anyone here so far understood, in the sense that it was not the point they were making and in the sense that though I made it, everyone called that gobbledigook.

But even so, the way to tell that even around the Sun it's an illusion of "spin on its axis" in proper motion, is that for every forward movement on its wobble, it turns relative to the point outside it, not more.

It's a tricky optical illusion, but the Earth, if it also orbited another body nearer to it as they passed around the Sun, would turn MORE than that body's forward momentum would indicate.

So it's of course a tricky illusion that the Moon goes around its axis, but it's observationally accurate enough, and there's the confusion from graphs of its total axial momentum turn (which people here got hung up on).

True axial spin in proper motion is when all axial momentum (path) is removed from the thought experiment AND where the graphic representation is not graphing that momentum AT ALL (unlike the graphic representation which is OF the momentum).

By the way, over space, the problem is more what Kepler was getting at when he pointed out that orbits maintain constant velocity over the AREA of the distance, not the linear total distance.

In this case, the analogy is this: the illusion of turn of the Moon on its axis proper, over the rotation around the Sun, is less about total area vs. velocity, than turn (of Moon) vs. velocity (of barycentre with Earth).

So, the distance the Earth (its barycentre) travels forward around the Sun vs. TURN of the Moon is the Keplerian likeness. How so:

The Moon will be seen to turn more at some points in its progression around the Sun as the Earth-Moon barycentre moves forward the same distance, because it does not have an exact same rotation momentum as the Earth's spin. It creates a long "sine-wave" of turning, in space, instead of a shorter one.

Hence, not a true rotation spin around its axis in its own right. But we know this without the 2ndary movement around the Sun. That is again, an illusion impression, or if you will, a mapping through space impression.

The Moon would have to rotate IN RELATION TO ITS ANGULAR MOMENTUM (or if it were physicaly not moving at all, still rotate), in order to be actually rotating on its own axis as the Earth does: "proper" (self-same) spin/rotation motion.

It was THIS which Nancy was referring to; and it is THIS why she said if you stopped the Earth's rotation around the Sun AND its spin ...

But that the Moon would only have to be stopped (in relation to the Earth), not stopped from spinning.

HOWEVER, as I acknowledged all along,
Nancy was wrong that the Moon does not have ANY ORBITAL DIFFERENCE than the Earth. It does: its own angular momentum.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 05:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Here's another one:

There are many more. Can Clair come up with references to
support her claim?
Quoting: DrPostman

Now that should end the discussion about if the moon is rotating or not.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
05/22/2010 05:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Quoting: mclarek 74444

By the way, when I said "it does seem to spin over space as it also seems just to "wobble" ... around the Earth's barycentre" I meant if you picture the view of it from the Sun or from above over the solar system, where the lunar rotations around planets show as long sine waves.

But of course I don't mean there's a significant wobble in the Moon in its rotation ;) around the barycentre of the Earth-Moon system.

Nancy says there is.

P.S. I hope you see I know EXACTLY what I'm talking of (on this at least) and have reverse-engineered the definitional mistakes (or at leas conflation of terms) and conflation of what the graphical representations are mapping or not mapping.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
05/22/2010 05:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Here's another one:

There are many more. Can Clair come up with references to
support her claim?

Now that should end the discussion about if the moon is rotating or not.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 978101

Yep, it rotates. About the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system (which this doesn't show exactly, which Astronut or Dr Postman's .gif did show).

But some people were claiming that its total rotation -- which can be shown in situ on a Cartesian graphic, as a total "rotation" around the axis -- but this does not equal a graphic which shows the Moon's proper motion.

Its proper motion does not turn more than its axial forward motion. Hence its proper motion is not spinning on its axis.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
05/22/2010 05:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Has anyone fond any pixel flares which would account for the SOHO pic anomaly of something where nothing should be?

And has anyone -- or is anyone in the process -- of figuring what our magnetic repulsion gaps were coming from, when the Sun was attracting?

And has anyone found any evidence one way or another, for further testing, about the Vatican supposed leaks?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763977
United States
05/22/2010 06:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
By the way, do YOU understand the difference between a pinned-axis graph showing rotation even when representing forward momentum around another axis ... versus a graph showing what the axis relative to the body is doing, when the pinned axis is representing NO forward movement of the axis?

The Earth would continue to show spin; the Moon would not.

That is because in real space, the Earth takes more of a turn than its path (orbit) requires, whereas the Moon follows its orbit face forward. These people are graphing the axial movement, directing the body at each point, but not the body's movement relative to its axis on the path -- with or without a path.

So you are defining lunar rotation relative to the Earth, despite the fact that the Moon primary orbit is always falling toward the Sun.

The Moon takes more of a turn than its path (orbit) requires in its motion around the Sun, after all. Is it spinning now?

And I covered that too: it's still optical illusion and sloppy definitions, but yes, it does seem to spin over space as it also seems just to "wobble" ... around the Earth's barycentre.

It is why the astronomers can call THAT feature "spin on its axis" -- which is not the thing anyone here so far understood, in the sense that it was not the point they were making and in the sense that though I made it, everyone called that gobbledigook.

But even so, the way to tell that even around the Sun it's an illusion of "spin on its axis" in proper motion, is that for every forward movement on its wobble, it turns relative to the point outside it, not more.

It's a tricky optical illusion, but the Earth, if it also orbited another body nearer to it as they passed around the Sun, would turn MORE than that body's forward momentum would indicate.

So it's of course a tricky illusion that the Moon goes around its axis, but it's observationally accurate enough, and there's the confusion from graphs of its total axial momentum turn (which people here got hung up on).

True axial spin in proper motion is when all axial momentum (path) is removed from the thought experiment AND where the graphic representation is not graphing that momentum AT ALL (unlike the graphic representation which is OF the momentum).

By the way, over space, the problem is more what Kepler was getting at when he pointed out that orbits maintain constant velocity over the AREA of the distance, not the linear total distance.

In this case, the analogy is this: the illusion of turn of the Moon on its axis proper, over the rotation around the Sun, is less about total area vs. velocity, than turn (of Moon) vs. velocity (of barycentre with Earth).

So, the distance the Earth (its barycentre) travels forward around the Sun vs. TURN of the Moon is the Keplerian likeness. How so:

The Moon will be seen to turn more at some points in its progression around the Sun as the Earth-Moon barycentre moves forward the same distance, because it does not have an exact same rotation momentum as the Earth's spin. It creates a long "sine-wave" of turning, in space, instead of a shorter one.

Hence, not a true rotation spin around its axis in its own right. But we know this without the 2ndary movement around the Sun. That is again, an illusion impression, or if you will, a mapping through space impression.

The Moon would have to rotate IN RELATION TO ITS ANGULAR MOMENTUM (or if it were physicaly not moving at all, still rotate), in order to be actually rotating on its own axis as the Earth does: "proper" (self-same) spin/rotation motion.

It was THIS which Nancy was referring to; and it is THIS why she said if you stopped the Earth's rotation around the Sun AND its spin ...

But that the Moon would only have to be stopped (in relation to the Earth), not stopped from spinning.

HOWEVER, as I acknowledged all along,
Nancy was wrong that the Moon does not have ANY ORBITAL DIFFERENCE than the Earth. It does: its own angular momentum.
Quoting: mclarek 971744

Didn't even look at the mathpages link did you
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763977
United States
05/22/2010 06:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Clare is a poor substitute for the fleeing LIEDer
mclarek
User ID: 971744
05/22/2010 06:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
So when the Earth's rotation rate finally slows down many
many years from now to match it's revolution rate around
the Sun would you claim that the Earth was no longer spinning
on it's axis?
Quoting: DrPostman

(First, since this is a common problem which many people notice in people's writing and is not a typo but a misunderstanding of our grammar: "its" is possessive and "it is" is contracted to "it's", though other possessives have an apostrophe, because they used to have an "e" in them which is now dropped.)

Second, the Earth will still rotate around its axis if its forward momentum is stopped somehow. That is the answer.

Unless, for "fun", we go out on a limb and wonder:
If the spin and forward momentum are somehow *causally* related, however, such that some physical force is both pulling the Earth and pushing a spin (which no-one, as far as I know, suggests), then if the Earth stopped moving forward it would be required physically to stop rotating. But this is a mere notion, not presented here as a fact or hypothesis.

Just interesting to wonder what total mechanisms there really are, connecting things. :)
mclarek
User ID: 971744
05/22/2010 06:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Clare is a poor substitute for the fleeing LIEDer
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 763977

For the vultures, yes.
Because I do know the stuff and ask good questions or argue fairly when I don't, and learn from you as well! Thanks for the telescope images, by the way. COOOOOL!
:)

And I'm friendly.

However, go on -- Nancy has new replies to people.

You can always pick them apart for fun as usual.

Clare
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 06:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Clare is a poor substitute for the fleeing LIEDer
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 763977

Can't wait for this evenings announcement by her ... I still am not 100% sure she will switch the chat over to the ning ... I have to see it to believe it.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
05/22/2010 06:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Lets review Nancy's post that started all this found here:

======================begin copy post=======================
Nancy Lieder
Forum Moderator
User ID: 87478
United States
4/30/2006 8:26 AM
Re: ZetaTalk : on BLOG Radio Schedule May 3

> A quote from elle's link:

> "The 27.3 days it takes the Moon to complete one orbit around the Earth is about the same as the time taken for it to complete one rotation. This synchronous rotation means that it always shows the same face to the Earth."

> i.e. The moon ROTATES on its axis in 27.3 days.

No dork, YOU are attempting to put words in Elle's link. That link does NOT say the Moon rotates, it says it orbits.

The Moon is not turning, which is rotation, is it glued to the Earth, one side of it glued to the Earth and the other side perpetually facing outward from the Earth. This is different than 'rotation'

Definition: rotation: The turning or spinning of a body about an axis running through it.

Thus for the Moon to be rotating, it must be spinning about its OWN axis, not glued to something else and thus changing its position when that something else moves. If you hold a book in front of you, pages to your nose, and turn in a complete circle, the BOOK did not turn in a circle, YOU did.

Duh!

======================end copy post=======================

did indeed mention the Moon's rotation at least twice. She
has never backed down from here claim here that the Moon
does rotate AT ALL!
Quoting: DrPostman

Sure I looked.

They're saying it rotates on a Cartesian graph representing the forward momentum.

As I said, you can call this "rotating on its axis" and it is quite commonly done.

But it conflates the two issues of ACTUAL rotation on its axis, if it were stopped in forward momentum, with a graphical representation of the total momentum angular change, over space on a path, relative to the axis.

The axis does not however, turn in relation to the path, i.e., more than the forward angular momentum. As you know.

If a graph showed this, the Moon would be still. The Earth would continue to look like the graphic of the Moon's angular momentum rotation. The difference between the two MEANINGS of the graphs would spot the difference. The litmus test is WHAT ARE THE CARTESIAN PLOTS REPRESENTING IN EACH CASE: angular momentum and axial position, in your example; body-rotation relative to its OWN axis with no angular momentum path in mine (and in graphing the Earth).

Duh.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
05/22/2010 06:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Can't wait for this evenings announcement by her ... I still am not 100% sure she will switch the chat over to the ning ... I have to see it to believe it.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 978101

I think she already posted the questions-answers. It's not a chat. I couldn't paste it directly, so use this, minus the spaces.

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/22/2010 06:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Second, the Earth will still rotate around its axis if its forward momentum is stopped somehow.
Quoting: mclarek 971744

And the Moon wouldn't?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 896329
United States
05/22/2010 06:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Has anyone fond any pixel flares which would account for the SOHO pic anomaly of something where nothing should be?

And has anyone -- or is anyone in the process -- of figuring what our magnetic repulsion gaps were coming from, when the Sun was attracting?

And has anyone found any evidence one way or another, for further testing, about the Vatican supposed leaks?
Quoting: mclarek 971744

All supposed "pixel flares", as you call them, on the SOHO images are cosmic ray hits. Considering an exposure time of 19 seconds per image, they tend to bloom. Looking at the unprocessed FITs images, you will see that this is a correct analysis.

Magnetic repulsion? The earth does not have a magnetic repulsion, it has a magnetic field that is constantly buffeted by the solar wind.

Supposed Vatican leaks...yeah right.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
05/22/2010 06:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
======================end copy post=======================

did indeed mention the Moon's rotation at least twice. She
has never backed down from here claim here that the Moon
does rotate AT ALL!

Sure I looked.

They're saying it rotates on a Cartesian graph representing the forward momentum.

As I said, you can call this "rotating on its axis" and it is quite commonly done.

But it conflates the two issues of ACTUAL rotation on its axis, if it were stopped in forward momentum, with a graphical representation of the total momentum angular change, over space on a path, relative to the axis.

The axis does not however, turn in relation to the path, i.e., more than the forward angular momentum. As you know.

If a graph showed this, the Moon would be still. The Earth would continue to look like the graphic of the Moon's angular momentum rotation. The difference between the two MEANINGS of the graphs would spot the difference. The litmus test is WHAT ARE THE CARTESIAN PLOTS REPRESENTING IN EACH CASE: angular momentum and axial position, in your example; body-rotation relative to its OWN axis with no angular momentum path in mine (and in graphing the Earth).

Duh.
Quoting: mclarek 971744

Oops. I was referring to the Math pages, not Elle's own thoughts/Zetatalk links etc.

FYI.

No, of course we know that Nancy and Elle don't think it rotates on its own speed; they think that it's just a pure satellite, and in that sense can be said to be "rotating" but not in its own right with momentum more or less than the Earth's, relative to Earthspin.

However, most of the confusion in them comes from the fact so many people say it spins on its own axis while it rotates (though again, to them it rotates like a pure satellite, and in reality it has its own orbital momentum speed).
CharlieFrost

User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 06:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
So it's official now ... the switch to the ning I mean ... she still is babbling about it being an "experiment" .. so my guess is if it doesn't work over at the ning the way she wants then she will be back here in no time.
CharlieFrost

User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 06:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
AC:
Could you please explain what could accelerate the disclosure of the existence of Planet X.

Sethory:
Ummmm, its existence maybe?

AC:
that doesn`t answer the question. what COULD ACCELERATE the disclosure
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 976490

Coolhandluke74

User ID: 905625
United States
05/22/2010 06:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
No more Zeta talk

Now Nancy can have something she has always wanted.

A one sided chat.

She deleted 2 of my comments i just put on her thread lol
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 06:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
No more Zeta talk

Now Nancy can have something she has always wanted.

A one sided chat.

She deleted 2 of my comments i just put on her thread lol
Quoting: Coolhandluke74

Yeah ... I just saw your posts are gone ... hopefully this is the end of Zetatalk on GLP. I still fear she might come back someday.
Coolhandluke74

User ID: 905625
United States
05/22/2010 06:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
No more Zeta talk

Now Nancy can have something she has always wanted.

A one sided chat.

She deleted 2 of my comments i just put on her thread lol

Yeah ... I just saw your posts are gone ... hopefully this is the end of Zetatalk on GLP. I still fear she might come back someday.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 978101

It is sad that she is afraid to debate her claims and has to resort to deleting posts.

Just shows how she is full of shit.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 07:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
many thanks to you and the Zetans for the patience you have demonstrated with the rude and arrogant
Quoting: gsbltd

^ from her pinned thread ....

So her patience includes:

- bans for asking the wrong questions
- deleting posts that don't agree with her
- insult people that go on her nerves

Now that's patient.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763977
United States
05/22/2010 07:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Hadn't you heard? She's as patient as Mother Theresa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763977
United States
05/22/2010 07:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
You should crosspost deleted comments here
Coolhandluke74

User ID: 905625
United States
05/22/2010 07:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
It is sad that she is afraid to debate her claims and has to resort to deleting posts.

Just shows how she is full of shit.

I don't see how or why they would be deleted. One of them was
just you wishing her well! The other one only said that
debunkers can help her explain her side of her claims!

What a hateful person she's become!
Quoting: DrPostman

Well now there is no need for her to be a mod anymore.

Just saying.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 07:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Well now there is no need for her to be a mod anymore.

Just saying.
Quoting: Coolhandluke74

She won't close that backdoor to GLP, IMO.
Coolhandluke74

User ID: 905625
United States
05/22/2010 07:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
It is sad that she is afraid to debate her claims and has to resort to deleting posts.

Just shows how she is full of shit.

I don't see how or why they would be deleted. One of them was
just you wishing her well! The other one only said that
debunkers can help her explain her side of her claims!

What a hateful person she's become!

Well now there is no need for her to be a mod anymore.

Just saying.
Quoting: Coolhandluke74

I am just pissed that my comments were deleted and they were not bad, hell i even wished her well.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763977
United States
05/22/2010 07:21 PM
Report Abusive Post