Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,267 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,221,855
Pageviews Today: 2,966,440Threads Today: 561Posts Today: 11,993
08:48 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 07:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Isn't Ning a GLP-Hater site?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 763977

One could interpret some comments there that way.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/22/2010 07:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Well now there is no need for her to be a mod anymore.

Just saying.

She won't close that backdoor to GLP, IMO.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 978101



Of course she won't, she, like her handful of hate filled, idiotic followers, are too cowardly for that.
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
Coolhandluke74

User ID: 905625
United States
05/22/2010 07:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 974609
Netherlands
5/22/2010 7:33 PM
Report abusive post
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 22 – Switched to Ning Site Quote

This is a very special moment indeed. Debunkers win bigtime. Nancy LIEDer the fraudulent leader of the zetaculties is declared the biggest LOSER yet again!!

Fantastic. Nancy proves yet again to be nothing more than a big bag of noise with a bunch of imbeciles in tow. Even the debunkers here on GLP have a greater prediction track record than you Nancy, you fool.

Run Nancy Run!! Afterall it is what you do best.


1rof1
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 07:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
AC:
TLR ... if you read this ... you might want to email the Dr.. Sorry for posting it here , but we have no other way of contacting you.

Dr.
If anyone has his email please let him know he was only banned
for a very short time.
 Quoting: DrPostman


bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 07:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Even the debunkers here on GLP have a greater prediction track record than you Nancy, you fool.
 Quoting: AC (tlr?)

In fact we predicted her retreat to the ning a few weeks ago.
Setheory
User ID: 978353
United States
05/22/2010 07:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Nancy just started the thread announcing her move to ning. I just had 6 posts removed from that thread...none of them offensive or rude. Hey Dr. Postman, has she been given some uber moderating powers? Does she do this at the start of her weekly chats as a rule?
Coolhandluke74

User ID: 905625
United States
05/22/2010 07:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Nancy just started the thread announcing her move to ning. I just had 6 posts removed from that thread...none of them offensive or rude. Hey Dr. Postman, has she been given some uber moderating powers? Does she do this at the start of her weekly chats as a rule?
 Quoting: Setheory 978353


She is never this bad but yes she does delete posts.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763977
United States
05/22/2010 07:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Setheory repost your posts here where they won't get deleted
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/22/2010 07:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
(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.)

I cyber corrected.





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

I was specifically talking about the Earth eventually doing
with the Sun what the Moon does with the Earth now. It will
slow down to match and become tidally locked in the future. I
wrote nothing about stopping it's movement, only the slowing
of rotation which is inevitable. You didn't actually answer
my question unless you can somehow explain how the Earth's
behavior with the Sun is different from the Moon's behavior
with the Earth.
 Quoting: DrPostman


The latter IS different, because the Earth actually spins on its way forward, as well as rotates around the Sun. It also has a movement of rotation with the Moon forward with the Sun.

Yes?

Now, if the Earth's spin is only due to its relationship with the Moon, and not true spin either -- something I am not sure of because of the barycentre dual system -- then yes, if the Moon were not there the Earth would not rotate, only move forward (as the Moon does).

I suspect, however, that since it is its spin which determines the Moon's direction, the Earth would still spin if forward momentum alone stopped. In other words, that the Moon pulls it a bit off its direct spin, into a dual rotation instead of direct true spin.

Clare
RunNancyRun
User ID: 974609
Netherlands
05/22/2010 07:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Nancy cannot handle real debate with those that expose her foolishness. Today is a huge victory for the debunkers of zetatalk on GLP. Nancy's denial of this fact is to be expected as her delusional powers do indeed run deep.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 974609
Netherlands
05/22/2010 07:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
In fact we predicted her retreat to the ning a few weeks ago.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 978101


Maybe we could offer Nancy free prediction lessons. You know then at least the woman could get off her current 0% accuracy track record for prediction making.
Reality420
User ID: 970551
United States
05/22/2010 08:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
From the posted link to the ning announcement:
[link to poleshift.ning.com]
Reply by Cheryl Nelson on May 18, 2010 at 4:56pm
"I wouldn't worry about d-bunkers here Co S. Lots of cops patrol these streets. This will not be like GLP."

"Lots of cops"
Why does that conjure up the term "posse"?

Same as it ever was.


Then we have N*ancy in this week's thread stating:
"but I will still be posting pertinent ZetaTalk here,..."
Seems to be an admission that she will be spamming GLP with LoonyTalk and links to her LoonyTalk.com and poleshift.ning sites.

Repeat the refrain:
Same as it ever was.

Have fun.


R.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763977
United States
05/22/2010 08:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
DEBUNKERS WIN, NANCY GONE!
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/22/2010 08:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Your geometry course "for me" does the following:

It is from a conflation graph, one whose purpose is to show axis location in the body, and total movement *of whatever kind*, relative to that axis. Drawn and thought of as a stationary body but accounting for non-stationary axial direction movements, yes, the Moon spins on its axis.


But if drawn to indicate not what the axis does over space, but what the body does relative to its axial forward momentum ... no, the Moon does not spin on its axis, properly speaking.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You are saying it doesn't rotate at a static point in space. What object does?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 08:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You have allowed some debunking in the past Nancy, you even deleted one of my threads that wished you well.

People are watching you do this, does not look good.


It was always the rule for these chats, nothing new. However, my clock is clicking to 7:00 CST so the japping dogs can come out and claim victory. However, the deflunkers are a dying breed!

:zetasquawk:
 Quoting: Nancy Lieder


Can't wait for Zetasquawk coming back online soon ... the Zetards are in for a shock.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978101
Germany
05/22/2010 08:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
On another note ning has so many security flaws its untrue you can expect numerous DDOS attacks once the 4chan kiddies get wind of it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 978599

Now that is a good idea !
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/22/2010 08:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Angular momentum, pinned (drawn in place) of a consistent axis (not flipping, etc.), will be drawn as a spin on the axis.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Is that a technical term... "flipping"? What, pray tell, does it mean?

But the axis if really pinned (no angular momentum) would show no spin, if drawn.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


"Pinned"? Huh? So you are stating that an object having no angular momentum has no 'spin'? And?

If 'drawn'? Huh??? Wtf are you talking about?

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).
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You keep repeating that, as if it were meaningfull. What does that have to do with angular momentum?

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.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744

Meaningless gobbldygook.

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.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Meaningless gobbldygook.

Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/22/2010 08:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Your geometry course "for me" does the following:

It is from a conflation graph, one whose purpose is to show axis location in the body, and total movement *of whatever kind*, relative to that axis. Drawn and thought of as a stationary body but accounting for non-stationary axial direction movements, yes, the Moon spins on its axis.


But if drawn to indicate not what the axis does over space, but what the body does relative to its axial forward momentum ... no, the Moon does not spin on its axis, properly speaking.


You are saying it doesn't rotate at a static point in space. What object does?
 Quoting: Menow 935048



No object rotates at a static point in space; it is relations which define the distinction.

You may wish do obfuscate further, but in order to understand movements we always have to use geometrical distinctions.

Just as the Cartesian graph depicting, as if at one point, what the Moon's forward rotation (axis moving forward on a path) does to its overall orientation relative to the Earth-Moon barycentre ...

And a Cartesian graph showing if the Moon changes (spins) relative to its forward momentum (which it does not, and it would be shown static in such a graph ...

So too, does the issue of "static points" need definition.

In relation TO EACH OTHER (which was the big insight which drove Einstein), points can be defined as static, but there is no absolute set point (that we know of).

So, in relation to the Sun, Venus has spin AND angular momentum. Its Cartesian graphs would show orientation rotation (like the Moon) but would also show orientation relative to its momentum (unlike the Moon). How does this work?

The Sun is fixed relative to the orbit of Venus.
Now imagine Venus were not moving forward, as if it were a fixed point (which is how we make distinctions about proper motions, even if the real body is also in real life moving relative to something).
Would it still have spin on its proper axis? Yes.

The Moon, however, always faces its angular momentum, or path. Imagine the path gone (and do a Cartesian graph of that, not the momentum angles as all of you have presented) and you would see no spin on the Moon's proper motion.

Or you could just look at it going forward, always facing the place it goes next.

Hence the distinction.
As you know, I assume ...
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/22/2010 08:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
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


Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?


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

[link to www.mathpages.com]

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.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?

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.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


The 'optical illusion' is that the Moon doesn't rotate.

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).
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?

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).
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing, Clare?

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).
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Again, you claim that a body which exibits any other motion can't be rotating on its own axis. What bodies fit that definition, Clare?

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.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Again, you claim that a body which exibits any other motion can't be rotating on its own axis. What bodies fit that definition, Clare?


The Moon would have to rotate IN RELATION TO ITS ANGULAR MOMENTUM
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Excuse me? So you say the Moon DOES have 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


"Orbital difference"?? Is that another of your made-up terms?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/22/2010 08:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
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.


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
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/22/2010 08:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
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.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Once again, you insist that no object can be 'rotating on it's axis' if it displays any other motions. So how does that mean EARTH is rotating on its axis, Clare?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/22/2010 08:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Your geometry course "for me" does the following:

It is from a conflation graph, one whose purpose is to show axis location in the body, and total movement *of whatever kind*, relative to that axis. Drawn and thought of as a stationary body but accounting for non-stationary axial direction movements, yes, the Moon spins on its axis.


But if drawn to indicate not what the axis does over space, but what the body does relative to its axial forward momentum ... no, the Moon does not spin on its axis, properly speaking.


You are saying it doesn't rotate at a static point in space. What object does?



No object rotates at a static point in space; it is relations which define the distinction.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Then why do you keep referring to the Moon's OTHER motions as affecting its rotation?

You may wish do obfuscate further, but in order to understand movements we always have to use geometrical distinctions.

 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Meaningless gobbldygook.

Just as the Cartesian graph depicting, as if at one point, what the Moon's forward rotation (axis moving forward on a path) does to its overall orientation relative to the Earth-Moon barycentre ...
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?

And a Cartesian graph showing if the Moon changes (spins) relative to its forward momentum (which it does not, and it would be shown static in such a graph ...

So too, does the issue of "static points" need definition.

In relation TO EACH OTHER (which was the big insight which drove Einstein), points can be defined as static, but there is no absolute set point (that we know of).
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Einstein's relativity has NO bearing on this discussion.

So, in relation to the Sun, Venus has spin AND angular momentum. Its Cartesian graphs would show orientation rotation (like the Moon) but would also show orientation relative to its momentum (unlike the Moon). How does this work?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You keep defining things as if a tidally locked body has no angular momentum. Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?

The Sun is fixed relative to the orbit of Venus.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Utterly irelevant.

Now imagine Venus were not moving forward, as if it were a fixed point (which is how we make distinctions about proper motions, even if the real body is also in real life moving relative to something).
Would it still have spin on its proper axis? Yes.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


And so would the Moon. Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?

The Moon, however, always faces its angular momentum, or path.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


BZZT! Meaningless gobbldygook.

Imagine the path gone (and do a Cartesian graph of that, not the momentum angles as all of you have presented) and you would see no spin on the Moon's proper motion.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?

Or you could just look at it going forward, always facing the place it goes next.

Hence the distinction.
As you know, I assume ...
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You assume only what supports your false premise.

Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/22/2010 08:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Angular momentum, pinned (drawn in place) of a consistent axis (not flipping, etc.), will be drawn as a spin on the axis.


Is that a technical term... "flipping"?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


On an axis.

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


"Pinned"? Huh? So you are stating that an object having no angular momentum has no 'spin'? And?

If 'drawn'? Huh??? Wtf are you talking about?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Imaged. Drawn. Graphed. Reduced to the picture you make, where it is not going forward but is showing its angle of path deviation from a set point. This is what the spinning Moon at the top of the original .gif showed, with the red dot going around and around the Moon.

It was indicating where, in relation to a chosen fixed point (the Sun, in this case), the Moon would be angled toward.

As to "pinned" it means show in the dagram only the Moon and indicate by angle-change of the Moon, where the angular momentum has taken its face next, the Moon seems to "spin" on its axis. It is in fact rotating around the Earth, and spinning its face relative to the Sun, but relative to its own rotation about the Earth, it is not spinning on its axis.

This is the basic movement.

It is not in fact rotating without its path forward. Hence, with the picture of the Moon, pinned in place, the graphic will indicate/ show where it will face to the Sun.

This is not the same thing as spin in space relative to itself, if all other motions are not considered. Venus does, the Moon doesn't.

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).


You keep repeating that, as if it were meaningfull. What does that have to do with angular momentum?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


It is the point in space around which the true movement occurs; the idea of a spin on axis is a mere representation of the total angular shift as it rotates around ANOTHER point.

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.

Meaningless gobbldygook.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


You must be paid. This is the example explanation.

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.


Meaningless gobbldygook.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Same.

Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Yes. And it's why you got confused: graph the angles of shift on the path (angular momentum), relative to an imagined fixed Moon, and you have a spinning Moon.

Graph not the angle-path change (anular momentum) but just the Moon as relative to the path itself, and it is fixed, not spinning.

It never turns more than the angular momentum forward around the Earth plus Sun allow. Nancy may get a lot wrong, including claiming the lack of a lunar true orbit at all, but on this part she is not wrong.

Finito.
Punkt.
Point.

See different faces as it moves forward? No. Reason, we are the centre of its orbit and it's not spinning relative to us. We are the key "centre" to understanding this "point", literally! Ha ha.

Relative to the Sun it seems to but this is a feature of relativity illusion, which can be graphed as angular momentum degree change, but it has not reduced all the variables enough to understand the proper motion of the Moon.

You have to reduce further, to its motion relative to Earth, and then even further, its motion relative to its motion. This means we consider all points fixed around it everywhere, no motion around any of them. Then we see if the body still turns. It doesn't.

****************************
If no motion relative to its motion forward, it is not spinning on its axis, properly speaking. **********************
End.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/22/2010 08:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, what motions would the moon exibit if Earth suddenly went missing?
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/22/2010 09:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
** The Moon, however, always faces its angular momentum, or path. **

Look at your Earth-Moon pictures.

If the path turns, it does. NO MORE NO LESS.


So ...
1. Diagram the momentum shift's angles and the Moon spins on its axis (but that's really a confusion of what the graph was representing, which was the angle-shift the axis is on on the path, not the axial relation TO that path).

2. Add the Sun in and the Moon will turn different faces to it, but it's really pulling around the Earth, not just spinning in front of the Sun.



If you're still having trouble why you picture it turning:

Graph the total turns and yes, relative to its axis you can say it has "spun" but really it has rotated around another axis, and you are merely graphing the results in your mind, picturing the Moon's total movement around the circle. Your understanding is graphing something different than true axial rotation in proper motion.

The LATTER would be spin relative to its path, or conversely, by eliminating all forward and backward actions it makes, just see if it still takes a turn. It doesn't.

Your picture of "spin on its axis" is describing the total forward rotation relative to the axis and calling it spin, because it's graphed as a fixed body on the page, so to speak and spun to face its new path direction, which happens to be circular.

You are graphing TRACKING. I am talking of lack of spin relative to that track.

In your graph, which you seem not to understand what it's actually meant to show, yes, the Moon "spins on its axis".

Every time the path turns it turns ** with its face to the path is always the same.**

Its face to the Sun, however, over a different-point movement (the movement of the Earth-Moon system relative to the Sun) does change. But still, this is not proper-motion spin.



I am sure some of you see the distinctions involved.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/22/2010 09:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, what motions would the moon exibit if Earth suddenly went missing?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Menow, what thoughts would people be able to learn if you suddenly went missing?

.........................

Physically, the issues could be different depending wat knocked the Earth away.

But if the Earth were missing and the Moon still rotated around the centre it left, then no difference.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 960518
United States
05/22/2010 09:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
mclarek there is a stunning pattern to your threads.

There are variations, of course, but at it's core, your pattern is pretty much:

quote someone's post

admit they could be right

maintain they could be wrong

maintain you don't know yourself

vaguely claim it's possible no one knows anything

suggest the user you've quoted hasn't put enough thought into something

Bullshit. :)

When I say "it's possible" or something "could be" right or wrong, I am saying I have an open mind, but we must prove our claims. And a PROOF is a PROCESS, not an individual fact (unless in certain specific instances where the two conflate, fortunately).

And it is not "vague" to claim that it's possible I don't know, or that someone else doesn't: it is reasonable. I know I might be wrong; I know another might be; and I know we both could be and something else could be right.

It actually means I'm NOT a Zetatard, or any kind of fanatic.

And it also means that I want NOT to be vague, but rigorous in all questions of the PX hypothesis in its varying foms, and all questions of the non-PX hypothesis in its varying forms.

Then we might come to a truly best-case presentation on both sides, "defense and prosecution", to put it in legal terms. And only then, can we really jury each.


vaguely endorse a Nancy/Planet X-claim, while leaving just enough wiggle-room through to which to facilitate your own plausible deniability.

[...]
Vague, vague, vague. No one knows anything for certain in clareville, but the fact that someone maintains "any potential anomaly" potentially means something relevant (no matter how ludicrous or easily disproven) is enough for clare to think they're on to something...

I am not following Nancy to the letter, or even in parts of the main claims. And still am presenting PX suggestions.

In doing so, the only "wiggle room" is that we don't FINALLY KNOW yet. I am marshalling a few pieces of a larger hypothesis-proof which might in fact turn out to predict that we WILL see PX soon, by the naked eye.

I do this because it is imperative to know if there IS any hypothesis proof which would support a PX arrival, with or without Nancy's claims.

And if you can't follow the fact that one takes a claim and see what fits about it and what does not, you cannot build a logic train. This is not "vague".

As to "easily diproven", nothing I have said is "easily disproven". Except a previous discussion on Polaris, which was a side light to my usual thinking anyway -- and which Menow and I have not been able to determine absolutely, but tentatively we do agree the photo "anomaly" is likely not to be.

If you cannot maintain careful reading, weighing just enough to see each direction and logic train in the way, then you do not actually understand vaguery versus neutrality. And note, neutrality does not mean not taking sides to find out where they lead; it means following all aspects to see what they connect to. I am sure you know that, but it bears saying, since your comments betray that you were not applying it here.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Forgot I posted this.

....kind of don't give a shit about anything you had to say.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/22/2010 09:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Forgot I posted this.

....kind of don't give a shit about anything you had to say.
 Quoting: "...Sing, I'll sway.


That much is obvious.

Fyi, I read yours and already replied to it before.

As to there being no listen -- then there's no point in replying? For if not, no argument is happening: it takes two to tango -- or should I say, to be an Earth and Moon. :)

So I will ignore your posts?

Or perhaps in case you say something good, I'll still read them and reply for others' edification ... since you might not read the reply ...

and maybe, others will have more to say and we can go on, if you won't.

If you ever change your mind, fine. Which I am sure right now you wouldn't extend to me if the roles were reversed. But if you do, then fine.

Clare
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/22/2010 09:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Angular momentum, pinned (drawn in place) of a consistent axis (not flipping, etc.), will be drawn as a spin on the axis.


Is that a technical term... "flipping"?

On an axis.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Sorry? "Flipping" means "on an axis"?? Why don't you stop making thing up?

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


"Pinned"? Huh? So you are stating that an object having no angular momentum has no 'spin'? And?

If 'drawn'? Huh??? Wtf are you talking about?

Imaged. Drawn. Graphed. Reduced to the picture you make, where it is not going forward but is showing its angle of path deviation from a set point. This is what the spinning Moon at the top of the original .gif showed, with the red dot going around and around the Moon.

 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Why do you insist on over-complicating everything?

It was indicating where, in relation to a chosen fixed point (the Sun, in this case), the Moon would be angled toward.

As to "pinned" it means show in the dagram only the Moon and indicate by angle-change of the Moon, where the angular momentum has taken its face next, the Moon seems to "spin" on its axis.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


"Seems to"?


It is in fact rotating around the Earth,
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Of course it is. That has nothing to do with its angular momentum. Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?

and spinning its face relative to the Sun, but relative to its own rotation about the Earth, it is not spinning on its axis.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Yes, relative to a frame of reference where the Moon is not rotating, the Moon is not rotating. To use your expression: Duh!

This is the basic movement.

It is not in fact rotating without its path forward.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


The Moon's path foreward has nothing to do with its angular momentum. Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?

Hence, with the picture of the Moon, pinned in place, the graphic will indicate/ show where it will face to the Sun.

This is not the same thing as spin in space relative to itself, if all other motions are not considered. Venus does, the Moon doesn't.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


How does something spin relative to itself, Clare? That is total nonsense!

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).
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Meaningless gobbldygook.

You keep repeating that, as if it were meaningfull. What does that have to do with angular momentum?

It is the point in space around which the true movement occurs;
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


There *IS* no 'point in space' around which ANY movement occurs, Clare. We already covered this.

the idea of a spin on axis is a mere representation of the total angular shift as it rotates around ANOTHER point.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


We generally define angular momentum as defined by the background stars. Or do you think the backgound stars are orbiting the Moon?

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 ...
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Irrelevent example. You are not operating in free space.

I turn more than my angular momentum would take my axis forward and to the right.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You have no angular momentum. You are simply turning on your feet.

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.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744

Meaningless gobbldygook.

Meaningless gobbldygook.

You must be paid. This is the example explanation.


The Earth does the latter.
The Moon does not: always faces its path.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


The Moon's 'path' is not a straight line. Therefor, the Moon must ROTATE to follow it. Where does the energy come from to *turn* the Moon to do that, Clare?

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.


Meaningless gobbldygook.

Same.



Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?


Yes.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Does the Moon possess any angulat momentum, Clare?

And it's why you got confused: graph the angles of shift on the path (angular momentum), relative to an imagined fixed Moon, and you have a spinning Moon.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


The Moon is rotating relative to a 'fixed' moon.

Graph not the angle-path change (anular momentum) but just the Moon as relative to the path itself, and it is fixed, not spinning.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No one is saying the Moon rotates relative to its path, Clare.

It never turns more than the angular momentum forward around the Earth plus Sun allow.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


BZZT! Sorry? What is "angular momentum forward", Clare?

Nancy may get a lot wrong, including claiming the lack of a lunar true orbit at all, but on this part she is not wrong.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Nancy didn't claim the lack of a Lunar orbit, Clare. She claimed that the Moon DOES NOT ROTATE.

Finito.
Punkt.
Point.

See different faces as it moves forward? No. Reason, we are the centre of its orbit and it's not spinning relative to us. We are the key "centre" to understanding this "point", literally! Ha ha.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No one said the Moon rotates relative the Earth, Clare.

Relative to the Sun it seems to but this is a feature of relativity illusion,
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Relativity has NOTHING to do with the Moon's motions we are discussing, Clare.

which can be graphed as angular momentum degree change, but it has not reduced all the variables enough to understand the proper motion of the Moon.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Meaningless gobbldygook.

You have to reduce further,
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No, YOU have to "reduce further" in a vain attempt to 'word-salad'( I created a verb, here) your way clear of the truth.

to its motion relative to Earth, and then even further, its motion relative to its motion. This means we consider all points fixed around it everywhere, no motion around any of them. Then we see if the body still turns. It doesn't.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Simply false. You continue to claim that the Moon doesn't rotate relative to a frame of reference where the Moon doesn't rotate.

****************************
If no motion relative to its motion forward, it is not spinning on its axis, properly speaking. **********************
End.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


The Moon it's in 'forward motion', Clare. It's in AN ORBIT!
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/22/2010 09:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, what motions would the moon exibit if Earth suddenly went missing?

Quoting: Menow 935048

Menow, what thoughts would people be able to learn if you suddenly went missing?


.........................

Physically, the issues could be different depending wat knocked the Earth away.

But if the Earth were missing and the Moon still rotated around the centre it left, then no difference.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Clare, what motions would the moon exibit if Earth suddenly went missing?

News