Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,810 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,273,420
Pageviews Today: 1,986,192Threads Today: 582Posts Today: 13,083
06:14 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 12:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, and does anyone know what might have undone Jupiter's ring entirely?

Same thing that caused it to fade away in 1973 when Pioneer
observed it as well as several times since then. No one knows
for sure but I can guarantee that it wasn't caused by any
other planet.
 Quoting: DrPostman


DrPostman, was that the same ring? Just curious. Not that it has to be for "PX" to be valid. I was just curious.

Jupiter looks so beautiful in photos, too, don't you think?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/24/2010 12:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
AIEE!

Babbling?

Okay, 2 motions:

1. forward, turning, representable as a turn on a path: representable on the axis of the Moon AROUND ANOTHER AXIS (barycentre between E-M system).

2. turning relative to path: like Venus.


This is not a response to any of the questions, discussion points or thought exercises put to you.


I have put thought exercises to you guys. Except 74444 you aren't doing them.

I have answered many questions, about static positions (thought exercises).

Yes, call it that, and I have said that a long time ago, you can talk of that that way. It is not the same as the movement I am identifying it doesn't do: unlike Venus.



The moon can be said to rotate around its axis IF you mean by that forward motion around ANOTHER axis determines it (orbit). This is ORIENTATION over time, but relative to another axis: then yes, the total movement can be called "rotation" using/around its axis.

But if you mean (as I do) rotation even if not moving around the Earth, AS VENUS SHOWS EVEN IF NOT MOVING AROUND THE SUN, i.e., relative to its orbital turn, is there MORE movement (spin), then no, the Moon cannot be said to do that. That is what I am distinguishing and what most people mean by "movement around its axis".

You are picturing total turn, total forward shifts, and yes, from the point of view of its axis, it has rotated. So yes, what you are talking of I agree, but it is not the same as rotation around its axis BARRING forward path motion around another.

NEXT!!!!!
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


1)Clare... You DID finally claim to know what angular momentum is. So, moving on from that... does the Moon, as a massive spherical body, possess any angular momentum?


2) 8th repeat: What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing?
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 12:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, and does anyone know what might have undone Jupiter's ring entirely?



Care to cite a source for anything recently odd about the ring around Jupiter? Apparently your understanding of planets could use a serious tuneup.
 Quoting: The Commentator


Already cited an article showing it was considered anomalous enough (not understood enough) that the article said so.

Here's another:

[link to abcnews.go.com]
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/24/2010 12:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I have put thought exercises to you guys. Except 74444 you aren't doing them.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Yes, you did. I responded to the one about the race car knocked into a spin as it still moves down the track. I asked you if the driver would be correct if he insisted that his car was NOT spinning. Funny, you didn't answer.

I have responded to several other of your thought experiments too. Funny, but they proved you wrong, like this one does. Funny, but you didn't answer back after *I* had the courtesy to address YOUR thought experiment!



1)Clare... You DID finally claim to know what angular momentum is. So, moving on from that... does the Moon, as a massive spherical body, possess any angular momentum?


2) 9th repeat: What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing?
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 12:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, and does anyone know what might have undone Jupiter's ring entirely?

Same thing that caused it to fade away in 1973 when Pioneer
observed it as well as several times since then. No one knows
for sure but I can guarantee that it wasn't caused by any
other planet.
 Quoting: DrPostman



Ring? Sorry. Posty, but the Ring is a quite different structure. I think you are thinking of the band that has faded in and out of visibility several times, as you quite correctly point out.
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!!!!!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 12:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, and does anyone know what might have undone Jupiter's ring entirely?



Care to cite a source for anything recently odd about the ring around Jupiter? Apparently your understanding of planets could use a serious tuneup.


Already cited an article showing it was considered anomalous enough (not understood enough) that the article said so.

Here's another:

[link to abcnews.go.com]
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



The Ring of Jupiter has NOTHING to do with the band which has faded in and out of visibility several times in the past.

A ring is NOT a band. They are TOTALLY different structures.

Words are important, Clunk. Oh wait, words are not important at all, are they Clare?
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!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 12:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I have put thought exercises to you guys. Except 74444 you aren't doing them.


Yes, you did. I responded to the one about the race car knocked into a spin as it still moves down the track. I asked you if the driver would be correct if he insisted that his car was NOT spinning. Funny, you didn't answer.

I have responded to several other of your thought experiments too. Funny, but they proved you wrong, like this one does. Funny, but you didn't answer back after *I* had the courtesy to address YOUR thought experiment!



1)Clare... You DID finally claim to know what angular momentum is. So, moving on from that... does the Moon, as a massive spherical body, possess any angular momentum?


2) 9th repeat: What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I see. I didn't get to go back in pages, the last few days. Lots going on here. Only looked at the most recent ones.

The driver would be right in saying he's not rotating (in two ways) only if he considers the rest of the world spinning around him, as Earth-centric views insist about the heavens.


As to the words ... "Spinning"? "Rotating"? As we've found, these words can refer to two different actions. Yes, he is "spinning" around the racetrack centre. Yes, his axis is turning relative to that point. Yes, the total turn will "spin" him around his axis around the other axis.

But to reduce the problem further, if not also spinning relative to his OWN direction, he is in some sense not spinning around his axis, but rather another axis.

Using the same language without clarifying what's stationary or not, is pointless, as we have found here.

1. The Moon would display different motions: it would "spin" off in wider and wider circles ... "around its axis" around a now-moving straight trajectory point instead of around the Earth's trajectory point.

However, these are still circles amounting to orbit ...
which turn an axis, though the total turn can be also called a "spin" but it's not clear that way what is going on.

2. My point was: the Moon does not have spin relative to its forward motion, point for point.

So, in that sense I am right; in the other, you and I are right that it spins around its axis if we choose to represent forward motion as if in one spot.

Good night, Menow. Hope you're well.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 12:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Rather than further complications about using the same words to talk of different actual motions, on different orders of magnitude (one "turn around its axis" relative to path, the other "turn around its axis" relative to another axis) ...

Let's deal with PX. It's our purpose here.

N'est-ce pas?

:)

Refusing to look into the evidence on PX, no matter who brings it forward, or how unlikely you consider the postulate, is inadequate to actually having done due diligence.

So, is there a PX? Does the Vatican leak show it? Or the round-flare SOHO show it? Or what is going on with the damned magnetosphere -- magnetic fields don't just repel without another source, and NASA says it wasn't the Sun, because that was attracting us and giving more particles than usual, because the breaches from repulsion allowed even more attraction particles in from the Sun.

What is repelling us?
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 12:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, and does anyone know what might have undone Jupiter's ring entirely?



Care to cite a source for anything recently odd about the ring around Jupiter? Apparently your understanding of planets could use a serious tuneup.


Already cited an article showing it was considered anomalous enough (not understood enough) that the article said so.

Here's another:

[link to abcnews.go.com]



The Ring of Jupiter has NOTHING to do with the band which has faded in and out of visibility several times in the past.

A ring is NOT a band. They are TOTALLY different structures.

Words are important, Clunk. Oh wait, words are not important at all, are they Clare?
 Quoting: The Commentator


Ah! So now you know how it feels: spin around an axis relative to its direction (mine) vs. spin around another axis leading to a forward turn which looks like and can be called spin around its axis (yours)! LOL!

Yes, okay, band or visual coloured ring around the body, as distinct from ring out into space.

So, since you now know what I mean -- as distinct from about the Moon, where you insist two motions are one, or the same words are good enough to clarify each, unlike here! lol --

What do you think does this? To remove the cloud-ring, i.e., the band on the body?
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 12:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Rather than further complications about using the same words to talk of different actual motions, on different orders of magnitude (one "turn around its axis" relative to path, the other "turn around its axis" relative to another axis) ...

Let's deal with PX. It's our purpose here.

N'est-ce pas?

:)

Refusing to look into the evidence on PX, no matter who brings it forward, or how unlikely you consider the postulate, is inadequate to actually having done due diligence.

So, is there a PX? Does the Vatican leak show it? Or the round-flare SOHO show it? Or what is going on with the damned magnetosphere -- magnetic fields don't just repel without another source, and NASA says it wasn't the Sun, because that was attracting us and giving more particles than usual, because the breaches from repulsion allowed even more attraction particles in from the Sun.

What is repelling us?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Nope, lets deal with your lack of understanding of lunar rotation before we go on to other subjects.

Serious suggestion: Get a copy of Physics for Dummies and Astronomy for Dummies. Read them until you understand them both. Then we can talk about more advanced topics.
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!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 12:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
DrPostman, was that the same ring? Just curious. Not that it has to be for "PX" to be valid. I was just curious.
Jupiter looks so beautiful in photos, too, don't you think?

The only thing in the news recently is the fade out of Jupiter's
Southern belt, not it's extremely faint ring (so faint that
only the most powerful telescopes can detect it, and it hasn't
disappeared AFAIK). This belt on Jupiter has faded out several
times in the past so there is nothing unusual going on.
 Quoting: DrPostman


Why were they surprized then?
They don't know what causes it and when to expect it, I guess?
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 12:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, and does anyone know what might have undone Jupiter's ring entirely?



Care to cite a source for anything recently odd about the ring around Jupiter? Apparently your understanding of planets could use a serious tuneup.


Already cited an article showing it was considered anomalous enough (not understood enough) that the article said so.

Here's another:

[link to abcnews.go.com]



The Ring of Jupiter has NOTHING to do with the band which has faded in and out of visibility several times in the past.

A ring is NOT a band. They are TOTALLY different structures.

Words are important, Clunk. Oh wait, words are not important at all, are they Clare?


Ah! So now you know how it feels: spin around an axis relative to its direction (mine) vs. spin around another axis leading to a forward turn which looks like and can be called spin around its axis (yours)! LOL!

Yes, okay, band or visual coloured ring around the body, as distinct from ring out into space.

So, since you now know what I mean -- as distinct from about the Moon, where you insist two motions are one, or the same words are good enough to clarify each, unlike here! lol --

What do you think does this? To remove the cloud-ring, i.e., the band on the body?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Are you on drugs? Are you supposed to be?

Does someone have a clunk to human translation module with the new Gibberish 4.0 module installed? I am afraid clunk overwhelmed my old 3.5 version.
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!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 12:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Rather than further complications about using the same words to talk of different actual motions, on different orders of magnitude (one "turn around its axis" relative to path, the other "turn around its axis" relative to another axis) ...

Let's deal with PX. It's our purpose here.

N'est-ce pas?

:)

Refusing to look into the evidence on PX, no matter who brings it forward, or how unlikely you consider the postulate, is inadequate to actually having done due diligence.

So, is there a PX? Does the Vatican leak show it? Or the round-flare SOHO show it? Or what is going on with the damned magnetosphere -- magnetic fields don't just repel without another source, and NASA says it wasn't the Sun, because that was attracting us and giving more particles than usual, because the breaches from repulsion allowed even more attraction particles in from the Sun.

What is repelling us?



Nope, lets deal with your lack of understanding of lunar rotation before we go on to other subjects.

Serious suggestion: Get a copy of Physics for Dummies and Astronomy for Dummies. Read them until you understand them both. Then we can talk about more advanced topics.
 Quoting: The Commentator


Nope; let's deal with your lack of the difference between lunar rotation spin vs lunar spin around its rotation direction!

Or are you just deliberately being difficult?

And refusing to handle PX ... :)
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 12:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
What do you think does this? To remove the cloud-ring, i.e., the band on the body?



Are you on drugs? Are you supposed to be?

Does someone have a clunk to human translation module with the new Gibberish 4.0 module installed? I am afraid clunk overwhelmed my old 3.5 version.
 Quoting: The Commentator


You are on drugs.
You can't distinguish "spin" and "rotation" definitions enough to be consistent. You spin in place, so you "rotate" around ... (Venus, plus the following ...)

You rotate around so you "spin" ... (Moon)

I think your head is spun.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 12:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Rather than further complications about using the same words to talk of different actual motions, on different orders of magnitude (one "turn around its axis" relative to path, the other "turn around its axis" relative to another axis) ...

Let's deal with PX. It's our purpose here.

N'est-ce pas?

:)

Refusing to look into the evidence on PX, no matter who brings it forward, or how unlikely you consider the postulate, is inadequate to actually having done due diligence.

So, is there a PX? Does the Vatican leak show it? Or the round-flare SOHO show it? Or what is going on with the damned magnetosphere -- magnetic fields don't just repel without another source, and NASA says it wasn't the Sun, because that was attracting us and giving more particles than usual, because the breaches from repulsion allowed even more attraction particles in from the Sun.

What is repelling us?



Nope, lets deal with your lack of understanding of lunar rotation before we go on to other subjects.

Serious suggestion: Get a copy of Physics for Dummies and Astronomy for Dummies. Read them until you understand them both. Then we can talk about more advanced topics.


Nope; let's deal with your lack of the difference between lunar rotation spin vs lunar spin around its rotation direction!

Or are you just deliberately being difficult?

And refusing to handle PX ... :)
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Are you any kin to Varnisher? How about Kazoo?

Please show me where I have used the term "lunar rotation spin?"

Oh right, you can't, you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Best get back on your meds, or demand your money back from your third grade education, clearly they failed you badly.
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!!!!!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 12:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
What do you think does this? To remove the cloud-ring, i.e., the band on the body?



Are you on drugs? Are you supposed to be?

Does someone have a clunk to human translation module with the new Gibberish 4.0 module installed? I am afraid clunk overwhelmed my old 3.5 version.


You are on drugs.
You can't distinguish "spin" and "rotation" definitions enough to be consistent. You spin in place, so you "rotate" around ... (Venus, plus the following ...)

You rotate around so you "spin" ... (Moon)

I think your head is spun.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Project much, clunk? I would seek professional help were I in your woeful mental state.

Or are you simply suffering a sever case of anoxia due to cranial rectal inversion?

Last Edited by The Commentator on 05/24/2010 12:51 AM
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!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 12:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Ring? Sorry. Posty, but the Ring is a quite different structure. I think you are thinking of the band that has faded in and out of visibility several times, as you quite correctly point out.

I figured she was referring to the Southern Belt fading. That's
the only thing that's been in the news about Jupiter for a
year.
 Quoting: DrPostman


Thank you DrPostman.
At least I immediately understand the difference when the physical point is made to me ... and you have shown you understand how both names can be used to describe both things:

1. The look (band/"ring")
2. A specific pulled-out feature (ring)
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 12:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Ring? Sorry. Posty, but the Ring is a quite different structure. I think you are thinking of the band that has faded in and out of visibility several times, as you quite correctly point out.

I figured she was referring to the Southern Belt fading. That's
the only thing that's been in the news about Jupiter for a
year.
 Quoting: DrPostman



Point taken, however there is a HUGE difference between the Ring of Jupiter and a band that periodically fades from view, a difference that is obviously wasted on someone with the knowledge base of clare.
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!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 12:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You are on drugs.
You can't distinguish "spin" and "rotation" definitions enough to be consistent. You spin in place, so you "rotate" around ... (Venus, plus the following ...)

You rotate around so you "spin" ... (Moon)

I think your head is spun.


Project much, clunk? I would seek professional help were I in your woeful mental state.

Or are you simply suffering a sever case of anoxia due to cranial rectal inversion?
 Quoting: The Commentator


I immediately saw your point, of technical vs. descriptive terminology. DrPostman figured out the same.

You didn't.

And 74444 got the Moon issue:

1. "rotation around its axis" is used by you and a certain Cartesian mapping, to talk of total rotation around another axis, represented as orientation of the axis over forward path

vs.

2. "rotation around its axis" in an even more reduced thought experiment, where the turn of the mass relative to the turn of the axial forward orbit are distinguished: the Moon always takes only the amount of the turn that its axis did in the path forward, no more.

So, who is needing a bit of help here? You. Now I know you'll just spew out, "No, you!" but this is tiring. If only you, like me could just see the differences (Jupiter/Moon, naming different motions and features the same thing) and eat the mistake and move on.

But that would be to be wrong. Is that so wrong for you? I did it about the Jupiter name thing. Is it so hard for you?

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 01:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Why were they surprized then?
They don't know what causes it and when to expect it, I guess?

Nope, they don't. Lots of mysteries out there. So many
that inventing non-existent and supernatural planets seems
a bit silly in the presence of so much to study.
 Quoting: DrPostman


Yes, of course. It doesn't have to be PX. If PX were here, wonder if it too would do something like that? But can be and has been before.

Just like many things can cause earthquakes, not only one thing.

I am curious about that ring, though. It didn't seem to "swirl" away, with parts being cloudy and parts not, unless we missed getting that on the images, or they aren't showing the progression.

It seems that it was affected in, relatively speaking, micro ways rather evenly ... rather in big swirls visible as splotchiness.

HM!!! Interesting. I do wonder what did it. Looks lovely, though, like a spherical strawberry layer cake -- minus a layer!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 01:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You are on drugs.
You can't distinguish "spin" and "rotation" definitions enough to be consistent. You spin in place, so you "rotate" around ... (Venus, plus the following ...)

You rotate around so you "spin" ... (Moon)

I think your head is spun.


Project much, clunk? I would seek professional help were I in your woeful mental state.

Or are you simply suffering a sever case of anoxia due to cranial rectal inversion?


I immediately saw your point, of technical vs. descriptive terminology. DrPostman figured out the same.

You didn't.

And 74444 got the Moon issue:

1. "rotation around its axis" is used by you and a certain Cartesian mapping, to talk of total rotation around another axis, represented as orientation of the axis over forward path

vs.

2. "rotation around its axis" in an even more reduced thought experiment, where the turn of the mass relative to the turn of the axial forward orbit are distinguished: the Moon always takes only the amount of the turn that its axis did in the path forward, no more.

So, who is needing a bit of help here? You. Now I know you'll just spew out, "No, you!" but this is tiring. If only you, like me could just see the differences (Jupiter/Moon, naming different motions and features the same thing) and eat the mistake and move on.

But that would be to be wrong. Is that so wrong for you? I did it about the Jupiter name thing. Is it so hard for you?

Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Does the Moon rotate about its north South axis? Just a yes or no answer will do.

Why is this so hard you have to resort to making up terms and arm waving to avoid answering?

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!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 01:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Nope, lets deal with your lack of understanding of lunar rotation before we go on to other subjects.

Serious suggestion: Get a copy of Physics for Dummies and Astronomy for Dummies. Read them until you understand them both. Then we can talk about more advanced topics.


Nope; let's deal with your lack of the difference between lunar rotation spin vs lunar spin around its rotation direction!

Or are you just deliberately being difficult?

And refusing to handle PX ... :)



Are you any kin to Varnisher? How about Kazoo?

Please show me where I have used the term "lunar rotation spin?"

Oh right, you can't, you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Best get back on your meds, or demand your money back from your third grade education, clearly they failed you badly.
 Quoting: The Commentator


Who is Varnisher or Kazoo?

Anyway, you seem to just want to bump the thread.

As to "lunar rotation spin" this is what you all are talking about, at least as I was trying to put the same words we've been bandying about, into a more distinguishable form, so that I could speak in English not graphs, and distinguish what you mean in physics when you say rotation/spin on an axis vs what I meant when I said spin on an axis.

hf
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 01:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I am curious about that ring, though.

Please stop calling the Southern Belt of Jupiter a "ring".
Jupiter has rings, much tinier than Saturn but they do exist:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
 Quoting: DrPostman


I know. I already said so. Slipped into thinking visually about the planet only and what it looks like.

Okay, I'll use the technical term only, "belt", not the equally visual analog, "ring".


:)
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 01:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I am curious about that ring, though.

Please stop calling the Southern Belt of Jupiter a "ring".
Jupiter has rings, much tinier than Saturn but they do exist:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
 Quoting: DrPostman



Thank you! Clare seems to have trouble with basic nomenclature.
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!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 01:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You are on drugs.
You can't distinguish "spin" and "rotation" definitions enough to be consistent. You spin in place, so you "rotate" around ... (Venus, plus the following ...)

You rotate around so you "spin" ... (Moon)

I think your head is spun.


Project much, clunk? I would seek professional help were I in your woeful mental state.

Or are you simply suffering a sever case of anoxia due to cranial rectal inversion?


I immediately saw your point, of technical vs. descriptive terminology. DrPostman figured out the same.

You didn't.

And 74444 got the Moon issue:

1. "rotation around its axis" is used by you and a certain Cartesian mapping, to talk of total rotation around another axis, represented as orientation of the axis over forward path

vs.

2. "rotation around its axis" in an even more reduced thought experiment, where the turn of the mass relative to the turn of the axial forward orbit are distinguished: the Moon always takes only the amount of the turn that its axis did in the path forward, no more.

So, who is needing a bit of help here? You. Now I know you'll just spew out, "No, you!" but this is tiring. If only you, like me could just see the differences (Jupiter/Moon, naming different motions and features the same thing) and eat the mistake and move on.

But that would be to be wrong. Is that so wrong for you? I did it about the Jupiter name thing. Is it so hard for you?

Clare



Does the Moon rotate about its north South axis? Just a yes or no answer will do.

Why is this so hard you have to resort to making up terms and arm waving to avoid answering?

 Quoting: The Commentator


Yes it does when you picture the total axial orientation equalling its forward direction.

And no it doesn't relative to that direction, unlike Venus, but loosely describable in the same inexact words, but with different graphical meanings if drawn.

You find your answer in the "Yes". I was distinguishing an equally namable phemomenon in the "No". And the same phrase, "rotate on an axis" can be used fo reach, but in your case, it conflates several different distinguishable movements (forward and to the right) into one, and that's fine.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 01:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Nope, lets deal with your lack of understanding of lunar rotation before we go on to other subjects.

Serious suggestion: Get a copy of Physics for Dummies and Astronomy for Dummies. Read them until you understand them both. Then we can talk about more advanced topics.


Nope; let's deal with your lack of the difference between lunar rotation spin vs lunar spin around its rotation direction!

Or are you just deliberately being difficult?

And refusing to handle PX ... :)



Are you any kin to Varnisher? How about Kazoo?

Please show me where I have used the term "lunar rotation spin?"

Oh right, you can't, you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Best get back on your meds, or demand your money back from your third grade education, clearly they failed you badly.


Who is Varnisher or Kazoo?

Anyway, you seem to just want to bump the thread.

As to "lunar rotation spin" this is what you all are talking about, at least as I was trying to put the same words we've been bandying about, into a more distinguishable form, so that I could speak in English not graphs, and distinguish what you mean in physics when you say rotation/spin on an axis vs what I meant when I said spin on an axis.

hf
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Who are Varnisher and Kazoo? Folks you act quite a lot like you. Doc Posty knows them well.....;-)

What the fuck is "lunar rotation spin?" The term does not appear in ANY of the physics or astrodynamics texts in my library. So define it according to reference to the fixed stars so at least there is a commonality of terms.
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!!!!!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 01:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You are on drugs.
You can't distinguish "spin" and "rotation" definitions enough to be consistent. You spin in place, so you "rotate" around ... (Venus, plus the following ...)

You rotate around so you "spin" ... (Moon)

I think your head is spun.


Project much, clunk? I would seek professional help were I in your woeful mental state.

Or are you simply suffering a sever case of anoxia due to cranial rectal inversion?


I immediately saw your point, of technical vs. descriptive terminology. DrPostman figured out the same.

You didn't.

And 74444 got the Moon issue:

1. "rotation around its axis" is used by you and a certain Cartesian mapping, to talk of total rotation around another axis, represented as orientation of the axis over forward path

vs.

2. "rotation around its axis" in an even more reduced thought experiment, where the turn of the mass relative to the turn of the axial forward orbit are distinguished: the Moon always takes only the amount of the turn that its axis did in the path forward, no more.

So, who is needing a bit of help here? You. Now I know you'll just spew out, "No, you!" but this is tiring. If only you, like me could just see the differences (Jupiter/Moon, naming different motions and features the same thing) and eat the mistake and move on.

But that would be to be wrong. Is that so wrong for you? I did it about the Jupiter name thing. Is it so hard for you?

Clare



Does the Moon rotate about its north South axis? Just a yes or no answer will do.

Why is this so hard you have to resort to making up terms and arm waving to avoid answering?



Yes it does when you picture the total axial orientation equalling its forward direction.

And no it doesn't relative to that direction, unlike Venus, but loosely describable in the same inexact words, but with different graphical meanings if drawn.

You find your answer in the "Yes". I was distinguishing an equally namable phemomenon in the "No". And the same phrase, "rotate on an axis" can be used fo reach, but in your case, it conflates several different distinguishable movements (forward and to the right) into one, and that's fine.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



So your answer would be both yes and no.

Clearly you do not understand the question.

Or you are just another troll.
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!!!!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
05/24/2010 01:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It's pretty obvious that Clare is either Nancy herself or one of the ignored trolls. The truth is that the only place they get attention is on the debunker thread. They say for some, bad attention is better than none at all. The ning experiment is doomed. How long can they lick her feet without question before they all get bored? Maybe they can have another edifying discussion on the merits of flush toilets like they did when the debunker boycott of her threads started.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/24/2010 01:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I am curious about that ring, though.

Please stop calling the Southern Belt of Jupiter a "ring".
Jupiter has rings, much tinier than Saturn but they do exist:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]



Thank you! Clare seems to have trouble with basic nomenclature.
 Quoting: The Commentator


You do. I just think visually quite often and slipped into calling it by a visual analog. I know the difference and have said so immediately. Now for you and your Moon ...

:)

Hey, Commentator, seriously: you are right it rotates around its axis if you conflate (as you are) the forward movement with a turn, into one picture.

And this is what the astronomers are naming. That the Moon does not rotate relative to a tipped, wobbly axis or anything.

But there is a different phenomenon, such as Venus exhibits, which can also be described by the phrase "rotate around its axis" (or spin around its axis) and which refers more directly to whether the body is completing turns even with no forward direction relative to a path.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 01:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It's pretty obvious that Clare is either Nancy herself or one of the ignored trolls. The truth is that the only place they get attention is on the debunker thread. They say for some, bad attention is better than none at all. The ning experiment is doomed. How long can they lick her feet without question before they all get bored? Maybe they can have another edifying discussion on the merits of flush toilets like they did when the debunker boycott of her threads started.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953



I really don't think clunk is ninny LIEDer herself, LIEDer has never been this civil this long, of course she may have listened to the doctor when he mentioned haloperidol.....
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!!!!!