Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!! | |
walt User ID: 980307 Zambia 05/24/2010 02:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Clare's Definitions, Part V: Quoting: Returner 997REVOLVE - To revolve means to orbit a revolutionary axis, or to sum the incoherent vertical momentum forces as they align along the orbital path perpendicular to the action of the prevailing winds, i.e., as Venus sails widdershins about the Venusian/Sol barycentre twice removed from the ecliptic plane along which magnetrons from Planet X revolvolate parallel to the imaginary Lunar moment of angular exultation, but everyone knows that. REVOLUTION - A distal but arguably pedestrian terminology employed in the description of eliptical reciprocation, or binary scalar oscillations, as evidenced by retrograde holistic field numeration about the Lunar poles as seen from a point within the orbital inscription of the intersecting rotational void lists, you shitheads. LOL! |
mclarek User ID: 980219 Canada 05/24/2010 02:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Clare, you LIED about what the Wiki page contained. Quoting: Menow 935048This is from your OWN link. I guess you ignored it(emphasis mine). [link to en.wikipedia.org] In astronomy, rotation is a commonly observed phenomenon. Stars, planets and similar bodies all spin around on their axes. I see you are also going to ignore the some 20 points I made to you in other posts. No surprise there... "While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis." AN axis, which it describes earlier, for Moons, around another axis (duh, the Earth-Moon barycentre). Not Moons, UNLESS, as you have been, spin is conflated with rotation orientation, as it says. READ IT |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 558013 United States 05/24/2010 02:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | On this point, Nancy was right. The Moon does not spin on its axis, which technically is "revolve". You however confused this with an image in your minds of the total rotation around the other point. Quoting: mclarek 980219Wrong. If you stood on the surface of the moon at its orth pole and looked straight up, what would the distant stars appear to do? I'm outta here. Quoting: mclarek 980219Bye. Run, Clare, Run! |
Menow User ID: 935048 United States 05/24/2010 02:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That was from the Wikipedia page. Quoting: mclarek 980219STUDY WHAT I'M TALKING OF. You quoted from that page, but you then went on as if still quoting, but the next bit was NOT from that page. Provide a quote which supports your contention. You can't. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 980051 Germany 05/24/2010 02:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That was from the Wikipedia page. Quoting: mclarek 980219STUDY WHAT I'M TALKING OF. What you are talking about is completely irrelevant, you just play with words to wiggle around the facts ... FACT is that the moon rotates (or whatever you like to call it) around it's own axis, if not we would see all his sides. Do the experiment with the chair I posted: If you have trouble visualising why this is true: Pretend that you are the moon. Find an object like a chair (you will pretend that the chair is the Earth). Now move around the chair so that your body always faces the chair. As you move around - you will have to turn your body so that it faces the chair. You have to turn your body a full rotation every time you do a full circuit of the chair. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 558013 United States 05/24/2010 02:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | By the way, Quoting: mclarek 980219you have NOT DISPROVEN PX HYPOTHESIS unless you disprove all evidence for it; and you will not understand what evidence is for it unless (it's ironic, yes, but true) you set out to prove it. Then you will have to look for all possible ways facts could relate as evidence (including electromagnetic effects, which HAVE to have charge on bodies, because that's what electromagnetism DOES to metallic cores). Once you have settled all that out -- though it goes against received wisdom from a schizophrenic astronomy, and which Einstein ordered to be tested after talking to Velikovsky and hearing that radio signals are coming from Jupiter, but the TEST WAS NEVER DONE -- then you will know what the evidence WOULD be for PX, hypothetically. Then, you will have to show other reasons for: 1. The electromagnetic holes in the magnetosphere 2. Debunk the Vatican "leaks", to be thorough 3. Same with SOHO "leaks" Not to do those three at least is NOT TO HAVE DISPROVEN PX hypothetically. This is the case whether or not it exists. A proof is an hypothesis, not only a reality. The reality will be known or not known when/if it flies by, which is too late. Good luck. Hope you do your self-appointed job. Bye to 74444 and the German buddy. Do you not understand logic either, Clare? It is ALWAYS the burdon of those with the extraordinary claim to prove that claim...NOT for those who don't believe it to disprove it. YOU have the belief in planet x, so it is completely up to YOU to provide proof for your claims of its existance. Have at it. This ought to be good. |
walt User ID: 980307 Zambia 05/24/2010 02:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Returner User ID: 997 United States 05/24/2010 02:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Menow User ID: 935048 United States 05/24/2010 02:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Clare, you LIED about what the Wiki page contained. Quoting: mclarek 980219This is from your OWN link. I guess you ignored it(emphasis mine). [link to en.wikipedia.org] In astronomy, rotation is a commonly observed phenomenon. Stars, planets and similar bodies all spin around on their axes. I see you are also going to ignore the some 20 points I made to you in other posts. No surprise there... "While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis." AN axis, which it describes earlier, for Moons, around another axis (duh, the Earth-Moon barycentre). You're conflating again, Clare, and not providing that alleged description. That quote relates to the axis of a body. They didn't change subjects in mid-sentence like you do. Not Moons, UNLESS, as you have been, spin is conflated with rotation orientation, as it says. Quoting: mclarek 980219It say no such thing. READ IT Quoting: mclarek 980219I did. It only apples support for your contention in YOUR mind, where you redefine known terms at will. |
mclarek User ID: 980219 Canada 05/24/2010 02:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Clare, you LIED about what the Wiki page contained. Quoting: mclarek 980219This is from your OWN link. I guess you ignored it(emphasis mine). [link to en.wikipedia.org] In astronomy, rotation is a commonly observed phenomenon. Stars, planets and similar bodies all spin around on their axes. By the way, Menow: Spin around ON an axis is different than spinning around their axes, AS WE'VE BEEN SAYING. The Moon spins around the axis of the barycentre, which technically is called orbit or whatever, as the Wikipedia page points out, are all equivocal terms, which must be defined by the actual point of turn relation -- which for the Moon is the barycentre. WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bye, Menow. Hope you can look more carefully at how you got this all so confused: language vs. meaning vs. how to figure the two separately so you can care. The last, you are having trouble with because you're so uncaring. Change that "relative motion" and you'll understand how to see meaning in the language, and even how commonly you are tossing words around. But until you give generously to a person, or an idea, you will not see it. Hope REALLY studying the Wiki points will help. You seem to like authorities, MORE than your own mind's abilities -- not excluding the latter though. Bye, hon. Good luck with the Vatican, the magnetosphere repulsion holes (and understanding why they have to be important, which Einstein finally did -- CHARGE on the system's bodies -- and why Velikovsky is important, whatever mistakes he made, like other thinkers), and the SOHO images. I hope you find all that interesting, and also can put PX hypothesis truly to rest. ALL OF YOU. ;) Now, for lunch. Hope you all don't confuse yourselves further on the issues of real orientation and orientation relative to the turn and optical illusion from different relative points ... It's been a spin! :) Ciao. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 980051 Germany 05/24/2010 02:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Do the experiment with the chair I posted: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 980051I just did that little experiment myself and I cannot believe how someone can doubt that moon rotates around it's own axis after doing it. The experiment with the chair makes it very obvious that this is the only possible explanation for seeing always the same side of the moon from earth. |
Returner User ID: 997 United States 05/24/2010 02:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 980051 Germany 05/24/2010 02:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Menow User ID: 935048 United States 05/24/2010 02:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Clare, you LIED about what the Wiki page contained. Quoting: mclarek 980219This is from your OWN link. I guess you ignored it(emphasis mine). [link to en.wikipedia.org] In astronomy, rotation is a commonly observed phenomenon. Stars, planets and similar bodies all spin around on their axes. By the way, Menow: So you didn't READ the above, from your OWN link? Spin around ON an axis is different than spinning around their axes, AS WE'VE BEEN SAYING. Quoting: mclarek 980219Excuse me? "WE"? Whom is "WE"? No one but you has the slightes idea what your insertion of the word "ON" means in your above. The Moon spins around the axis of the barycentre, Quoting: mclarek 980219Wrong again. The Moon REVOLVES around the Earth-Moon barycenter. How many times do you need to be corrected on this? which technically is called orbit or whatever, Quoting: mclarek 980219No, it's called an 'orbit', not a whatever. as the Wikipedia page points out, are all equivocal terms, which must be defined by the actual point of turn relation -- which for the Moon is the barycentre. Quoting: mclarek 980219It says no such thing. You are simply lying. WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quoting: mclarek 980219Whoa is right. Your desperation to be right is showing. Bye, Menow. Hope you can look more carefully at how you got this all so confused: language vs. meaning vs. how to figure the two separately so you can care. Quoting: mclarek 980219The last, you are having trouble with because you're so uncaring. Change that "relative motion" and you'll understand how to see meaning in the language, and even how commonly you are tossing words around. "Spin" is rotation. "Orbit" is revolution. How is that being uncaring? But until you give generously to a person, or an idea, you will not see it. Quoting: mclarek 980219I see... it's because I'm not STO, then.... right? Hope REALLY studying the Wiki points will help. You seem to like authorities, MORE than your own mind's abilities -- not excluding the latter though. Quoting: mclarek 980219The page provides nothing in support of your contention, Clare. It only seemed to when you synopsized, falsely. Bye, hon. Quoting: mclarek 980219Good luck with the Vatican, the magnetosphere repulsion holes (and understanding why they have to be important, which Einstein finally did -- CHARGE on the system's bodies -- and why Velikovsky is important, whatever mistakes he made, like other thinkers), and the SOHO images. I hope you find all that interesting, and also can put PX hypothesis truly to rest. ALL OF YOU. ;) Now, for lunch. Hope you all don't confuse yourselves further on the issues of real orientation and orientation relative to the turn and optical illusion from different relative points ... It's been a spin! :) Ciao. Right... we are all confused, while only you see the light. The perfect Zetard attitude! Of course, it helps you to maintain that illusion of superiority if you ignore 90% of the discussion points posted to you and make up things you wish were on a Wiki page. Don't let the door... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 558013 United States 05/24/2010 02:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | CLARE MUST BE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING SHE IS TYPING IN ALL CAPS MY GOD HOW COULD WE HAVE BEEN SO WRONG???? Quoting: mclarek 980219LOL. Bye Clare! See you soon as Volar...or ZetaMax...or Nancy... You were wrong, simply stupid not to parse the difference from the different descriptions (which I had to do with all of your back-and-forth and equivocation of terms back). And you guys tend to use bolds and even colours as well plus italics too and sometimes also underlining! and mocking language and disgusting unscientific attitudes and ridicule when in fact YOU NEED TO BE RIDICULED for your inability to parse what someone is referring to, calmly, and see the difference, and maybe even not confuse things like the view of the Sun "going around" from the Earth, with why the Moon shows one face. The latter is not the same issue. The Moon's one-facedness to us is directly related to orbiting us on its path, and is visible as one-face from any point of understanding of what orbits are; the Sun seeming to "go around us" is mere optical illusion. Clare, what would you call it if the moon rotated in 30 days instead of 29? How about 28 instead of 29? In both of those cases, we would see all sides of the moon over time. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 969583 United States 05/24/2010 02:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 558013 United States 05/24/2010 02:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And as Wikipedia said, it does not spin or revolve on its axis, but revolve and rotate are commonly used for the same thing. Quoting: mclarek 980219Wrong. [link to en.wikipedia.org] "Tidal locking occurs when the gravitational gradient makes one side of an astronomical body always face another; for example, one side of the Earth's Moon always faces the Earth. A tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. This synchronous rotation causes one hemisphere constantly to face the partner body." [link to en.wikipedia.org] "In astronomy, synchronous rotation is a planetological term describing a body orbiting another, where the orbiting body takes as long to rotate on its axis as it does to make one orbit; and therefore always keeps the same hemisphere pointed at the body it is orbiting." |
Menow User ID: 935048 United States 05/24/2010 02:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It's hard to pick the best Clare comedy moment out of all this, but this bit gets my vote. It's Clare apparently responding to this question: 2) 9th repeat: What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing? And Clare said: "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." That has to be the quintessential "Clare" postlet, IMHO. I knew it was worth the effort to get her to answer that Q! Thanks for the yuks, Clare-bear! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 558013 United States 05/24/2010 02:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It's hard to pick the best Clare comedy moment out of all this, but this bit gets my vote. It's Clare apparently responding to this question: Quoting: Menow 9350482) 9th repeat: What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing? And Clare said: "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." That has to be the quintessential "Clare" postlet, IMHO. I knew it was worth the effort to get her to answer that Q! Thanks for the yuks, Clare-bear! Classic! My six-year old understands more about orbital mechanics than she does! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 882391 United States 05/24/2010 04:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 558013 United States 05/24/2010 04:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 980051 Germany 05/24/2010 04:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So Clare is saying if Earth went missing the Moon would stop spinning? Is she serious? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 882391From what I could read out of her babbldyboo she doesn't think the moon is rotating around it's own axis in the first place. But actually her babbling is 95% meaningless goo ... or my english skills are real bad. She (?) obviously is not able to channel her thoughts (if there are any) into a clean sentence. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 969583 United States 05/24/2010 04:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If it were not for the excellent answers countering your blogs, your blogs would be deleted. This ning is not for putting all manner of stuff out for people to 'gnaw on'. It has a focus. It's for people who are focusing on the big bugger who is going to cause devastation on Earth, and what to do about it. NOT for discussing every wrong headed theory than someone finds amusing. Quoting: Nancy LiederIt's just mind boggling that anyone would go along with this attitude. "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with anything I say can't be part of our little circle jerk." The irony is how these people bash mainstream religion for being close minded. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 980051 Germany 05/24/2010 04:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If it were not for the excellent answers countering your blogs, your blogs would be deleted. This ning is not for putting all manner of stuff out for people to 'gnaw on'. It has a focus. It's for people who are focusing on the big bugger who is going to cause devastation on Earth, and what to do about it. NOT for discussing every wrong headed theory than someone finds amusing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583It's just mind boggling that anyone would go along with this attitude. "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with anything I say can't be part of our little circle jerk." The irony is how these people bash mainstream religion for being close minded. You have a link to that ? |
Menow User ID: 935048 United States 05/24/2010 04:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So Clare is saying if Earth went missing the Moon would stop spinning? Is she serious? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 882391It's hard to tell what she was saying, as usual. She seemed to be saying that the Moon would continue orbiting something, but it's not clear what. One thing *is* clear, though. Clare ended up fitting the basic Zetadrone profile to a "T" in one particular way. She was willing to lie in order to be "right". |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 980051 Germany 05/24/2010 04:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And what does have to do with the premise of this ning. It might help to deal with the stress, but will it help when the real bad times arrive. People will have other things in their minds then thinking about breathing techniques Quoting: GerTard@ning[link to poleshift.ning.com] My prediction is that this ning will be a mess in less than a year from now ... which is a bad thing, because LIEDer might be forced to come back to GLP then. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 969583 United States 05/24/2010 04:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So Clare is saying if Earth went missing the Moon would stop spinning? Is she serious? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 980051From what I could read out of her babbldyboo she doesn't think the moon is rotating around it's own axis in the first place. But actually her babbling is 95% meaningless goo ... or my english skills are real bad. She (?) obviously is not able to channel her thoughts (if there are any) into a clean sentence. In a nutshell, isn't she arguing that the rotation of the Moon is caused by its movement around the Earth? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 969583 United States 05/24/2010 04:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If it were not for the excellent answers countering your blogs, your blogs would be deleted. This ning is not for putting all manner of stuff out for people to 'gnaw on'. It has a focus. It's for people who are focusing on the big bugger who is going to cause devastation on Earth, and what to do about it. NOT for discussing every wrong headed theory than someone finds amusing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 980051It's just mind boggling that anyone would go along with this attitude. "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with anything I say can't be part of our little circle jerk." The irony is how these people bash mainstream religion for being close minded. You have a link to that ? This is the link to Nancy's statement above: [link to poleshift.ning.com] As to bashing mainstream religion, that's just from memory. I'm sure I've seen that many times over the years. I guess I could start digging through ZetaTalk. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 969583 United States 05/24/2010 04:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Our religion is not like the major religions of the Earth, which deify entities human in appearance. These religions, where the message given to humans was to draw them to the light, have been corrupted over time by the forces of darkness. These religions preach against knowledge, against self initiative, against free thought. Quoting: Nancy Lieder[link to www.zetatalk.com] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 980051 Germany 05/24/2010 04:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | In a nutshell, isn't she arguing that the rotation of the Moon is caused by its movement around the Earth? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583To be honest, I have no idea what exactly she was talking about. She mixed something about Venus into it and all rind of stuff. I have to admitt that I stopped following her posts shortly after she began to post in our thread ... I have no time to wade through that kind of pseudowhateveritis crap. I want precise and short answers. I posted some links and an easy experiment she (?) could do herself at home (walking around a chair and pretend to be the moon ... see 2 pages back), I also posted several links to explanations of the moon rotation ... she refused to answer those ... she obviously still thinks the moon is not rotating around its own axis and keep distracting with word-plays. Then she keeps on pointing to some dubious Vatican images, without any prove what these show or if they even are from the Vatican Telescope (I highly doubt they are) and she points on SOHO images that have been debunked really long ago. |