Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,911 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,547,726
Pageviews Today: 1,797,737Threads Today: 204Posts Today: 4,085
11:23 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Catseye
User ID: 982359
Dominican Republic
05/26/2010 04:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
There is no confusion, you are just ignoring the currently accepted definitions of "revolve" and "rotate" and using them interchangeably. You won't find an article of any substance that states "the moon rotates around the earth" - it's just not the correct definition of the word "rotate". And you certainly aren't going to convince anyone here that "rotate" has a newer, broader definition than it always has.


You said:



Catseye and 74444.

"The fact is, the Moon's primary orbit is around Earth. It does not revolve ("spin" on its axis), it merely rotates around Earth. The Earth revolves, while it goes around the Sun, as does Venus (backwards)."

But you have already admitted that the moon does, in fact, rotate on its axis. And if the earth revolves around the sun, as does Venus, how is this different than the moon around the earth? I mean, how is the moon "rotating" around the earth, but the earth's is "revolving" around the sun? These words are not interchangeable. It's like black vs white.


and you also said:

"From the Sun, it does show different faces, giving it phases, because it spins on its axis ("revolves") RELATIVE TO THE SUN (giving phases, not true diurnal motion, which would be relative to the Earth, not the Sun, if the Earth were a sun)."


For Christ's sake, Clare! Spins on its axis IS NOT "revolve"! Let's just say for the sake of argument that rotate means revolve here. Okay. You said spins on its axis relative to the sun. But that is what we compare everything to! The sun! That's what years and days are all about, a body's movement in relation to the sun! So you just said the moon spins on its axis! Whether you want to call it rotation or revolution is a matter of stubbornness, but you just admitted to what we've been saying all along! You just don't like the currently established and accepted definitions of these astronomical terms!

If you go back about a million and a half pages, to 525, you'll see how you've been giving in ever so slightly here and there to save face:







see final paragraph:




It clarifies, even further, that you think you are intellectually superior to the rest of us. We know where the alleged 'confusion' lies with this Moon thing. We have been around and around with it. But here YOU come, thinking that you need to 'explain' it to us... Truth is, YOU have a lot of deficits in understanding in these matters and stubborn refusal to learn, as you have already demonstrated by your dodging many of the specific points addressed to you.

By the way... what in the world is "self-axis spinning" in the above context, since you are here to inform and clarify?


I may or may not be intellectually superior in nature. I have no idea if I am. I do know I stick to well worked out stadnards of hypothesis and logic-standards, so that if I fail to be logical, I correct myself.

I did about Polaris.

And I was elucidating the need to fill out the whole hypothesis, as well as its parts, in order to do justice to even a crazy idea. Some ideas have seemed crazy and were not.

As to the final point, it was my own way to express spinning on its own axis in a north-south self-referential way, as the Earth does. This, the moon does not do. It has a ROTATION but not a spin on its own axis.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 04:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Now you see I UNDERSTAND THE MOTIONS from the DESCRIPTIONS I give.


 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Virtually NOTHING is understandable from the descriptions you give.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/26/2010 04:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Amish, anyone?
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


My point was that most PXers aren't going to be as prepared as the Amish.

It's a lot of fantasy which I'm sure in many cases does not extend much beyond putting together the "bug out" kit.

For that matter, many of the Amish aren't as prepared for major disaster as people think. Just because they aren't personally driving automobiles doesn't mean they aren't involved in the petroleum based economy.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 04:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
the ROTATION around its axis that the Moon exhibits is MERELY from a 2nd-order perspective (the Sun).
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Clare invents/inserts yet ANOTHER term, the meaning of which is only known to her, but it somehow makes her right.

Right.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 04:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Well, since "revolve" and "orbit" mean the same thing, your statement is meaningless.


Not exactly:

"They have specific meanings in astronomy. Revolve usually means to orbit around. The earth revolves around the sun, and completes one revolution in one year. So an orbit describes how a planet revolves around its sun. The turning of a planet on its axis is called rotation. The earth's rotation causes night and day. Orbit means the path or trajectory of a revolving body around another - a moon about a planet or that planet about the sun. To rotate means to spin around on an axis, like a top. "
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 982310


Technically, yes, but in terms of Clare's dilemma of terminology that is beyond the needs of the situation.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Oh... and what I said was due to the fact that "orbit" is being used as a verb. In that case it would truly be synonymous with revolve.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/26/2010 04:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare's Definitions, Part VIII:

2nd ORDER - If your argument has been revealed as ludicrous and ultimately dim-witted, append it with a '2nd order' tag. This elevates your position from the pedestrian to the sublime, and also implies that you once took calculus. Use only as a measure of last resort.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/26/2010 05:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
The general PX thing has been coming through "channelled" sources for almost 25 years in my personal experience via knowing people who "channel". Don't even start with the 'all channelling is fake' argument. I'm tired of that discussion. If you haven't personally known people who "channel"(whatever that is) for 20+ years, then you are arguing without direct personal experience. The people I have known who were "channelling" stuff about that were definately not intentionally faking the phenomenon. It is something more than simply fake.

That's all I care to say about it.
 Quoting: Menow 935048



Menow, you and I had a lengthy discussion about this a long time ago. (My number has recently changed for some reason.)

In a nutshell, I have had personal experience and I don't think real channeling is "fake." However, I do think there is a lot of unreliable information obtained through channeling, whatever the mechanism involved.

And I don't think Nancy is really "channeling." I think she is to a large extent making this up consciously.

I guess it wasn't right of me to use the term "batshit crazy" to describe commentators on the Hysteria Channel documentaries.

However, I do think that (for starters) there is a major question about journalistic ethics when they are citing people like Patrick Geryl and Daniel Pinchbeck as experts without the slightest comment about their biographies. Those shows regularly have talking heads making "scientific" statements that are completely untrue and are very rarely called on it.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/26/2010 05:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Come back, Clare!

Don't go camping with Elle and Volar!

Not at....Camp Crystal Lake!!!!!!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/26/2010 05:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Come back, Clare!

Don't go camping with Elle and Volar!

Not at....Camp Crystal Lake!!!!!!
 Quoting: Returner 997



I think it is about time to give clunk a time out. Seems to have worked for the other zetashill problem children.
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: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 05:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"...at the end here..."

The argument isn't over, Clare dear -- you're still wrong, and no amount of word-mangling will change that.
 Quoting: Returner 997


B.S.

Every time I used the wrong technical term I also described the motion I meant.

I had it right all along.

And it is you people who confused rotation around its axis AS THE SUN SEES IT, versus non-rotation as the EARTH sees it.

The latter is critical, because if it were rotation independent of forward revolution around an orbit, it would show differnt faces to the Earth.

The same level of relative magnitude for the Earth and Venus toward THEIR revolution centre axis, i.e., the Sun, will show you the difference.

There is a Dark Side of the Moon and the reason is it does not rotate towards us ... it only revolves us.

Now that I am using the terms in their correct placements, you can see I am right, and was all along.

Bye, Returner.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/26/2010 05:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, you were never right. You're still not right.

And I'm not going anywhere...
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/26/2010 05:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Wait...wait.

Clare, did you just say this?

"There is a Dark Side of the Moon ..."

Please tell me you didn't.

Because there IS NO DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.

LOL.

You are a troll.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 05:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Having gotten the terms interchanged does not change how much I know and I have been saying the following all along, again and again (but if I'd used the term "independent" people here would have said I was claiming it doesn't all happen in the same body! they are so full of themselves so want to make trouble, but since you said it I'll quote you):

"The two motions are INDEPENDENT and can be analyzed seperately even when OCCURING AT THE SAME TIME as is the case with the moon."


Quite correct. This is known as the Principle of Superposition.



So,

Good. Are we done here.


As soon as you acknowledge that the moon rotates on its own axis, as will be proven by someone standing on its north pole looking up at the stars.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 558013


Yes, relative to the Sun and further bodies, yes. I have said so all along. You can view THAT from the Mon or from the other bodies. But relative simply to its most immediate orbit (the Earth) it does not, OF COURSE.

Relative to the Earth, no.

It was this motion which Nancy was describing (initially, before others confused the issue with the larger Superposition, and she didn't understand that.
George B
Extinct But Not Forgotten!

User ID: 976283
United States
05/26/2010 05:35 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
The general PX thing has been coming through "channelled" sources for almost 25 years in my personal experience via knowing people who "channel". Don't even start with the 'all channelling is fake' argument. I'm tired of that discussion. If you haven't personally known people who "channel"(whatever that is) for 20+ years, then you are arguing without direct personal experience. The people I have known who were "channelling" stuff about that were definately not intentionally faking the phenomenon. It is something more than simply fake.

That's all I care to say about it.



Menow, you and I had a lengthy discussion about this a long time ago. (My number has recently changed for some reason.)

In a nutshell, I have had personal experience and I don't think real channeling is "fake." However, I do think there is a lot of unreliable information obtained through channeling, whatever the mechanism involved.

And I don't think Nancy is really "channeling." I think she is to a large extent making this up consciously.

I guess it wasn't right of me to use the term "batshit crazy" to describe commentators on the Hysteria Channel documentaries.

However, I do think that (for starters) there is a major question about journalistic ethics when they are citing people like Patrick Geryl and Daniel Pinchbeck as experts without the slightest comment about their biographies. Those shows regularly have talking heads making "scientific" statements that are completely untrue and are very rarely called on it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

Wow, how is one to tell the difference between valid channeled info and invalid info? Seems they are the same . . . the only difference is the person giving the information. Do you believe them or not? Me thinks it is a matter of the heart and intuition and not science.
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

coffee4

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional, except for death and taxes . . . George B
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 634208
United States
05/26/2010 05:36 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, direct question for you; you have a spaceship sitting on the equator of the moon and you're launching it into lunar orbit. If you launch your spaceship from the moon's surface into lunar orbit, does it require more delta-V (and therefore, fuel) to launch due west than to launch due east? Yes or no?

bump for clare.
 Quoting: Astronut

bump again, for clare.
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 05:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Wait...wait.

Clare, did you just say this?

"There is a Dark Side of the Moon ..."

Please tell me you didn't.

Because there IS NO DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.

LOL.

You are a troll.
 Quoting: Returner 997


There is to OUR view, not a physical darkness -- have ALWAYS pointed that out -- but, like the Dark Ages, we had no information about it, hence "dark" as a metaphor -- until modern probes went to the other side.

It is sometimes IN LIGHT from the Sun because its phase orientation is a rotation on its axis relative TO THE SUN.

As the bullish Commentator said to me: take a Valium.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/26/2010 05:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"...at the end here..."

The argument isn't over, Clare dear -- you're still wrong, and no amount of word-mangling will change that.


B.S.

Every time I used the wrong technical term I also described the motion I meant.

I had it right all along.

And it is you people who confused rotation around its axis AS THE SUN SEES IT, versus non-rotation as the EARTH sees it.

The latter is critical, because if it were rotation independent of forward revolution around an orbit, it would show differnt faces to the Earth.

The same level of relative magnitude for the Earth and Venus toward THEIR revolution centre axis, i.e., the Sun, will show you the difference.

There is a Dark Side of the Moon and the reason is it does not rotate towards us ... it only revolves us.

Now that I am using the terms in their correct placements, you can see I am right, and was all along.

Bye, Returner.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736



Yes, you described the motion with the same bullshit terms you refused to define and used incorrectly.

In short, clunk, you have utterly failed to support any of your arguments with anything but armwaving, bullshit, and abject ignorance.

Best you take a time out and go camping like the rest of the zeta shills.
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
05/26/2010 05:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Wait...wait.

Clare, did you just say this?

"There is a Dark Side of the Moon ..."

Please tell me you didn't.

Because there IS NO DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.

LOL.

You are a troll.


There is to OUR view, not a physical darkness -- have ALWAYS pointed that out -- but, like the Dark Ages, we had no information about it, hence "dark" as a metaphor -- until modern probes went to the other side.

It is sometimes IN LIGHT from the Sun because its phase orientation is a rotation on its axis relative TO THE SUN.

As the bullish Commentator said to me: take a Valium.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736



Get is right, clunk.

I suggested you would be wise to either take your haloperidol or investigate whether you should use haloperidol.

\Can't you get ANYTHING right, clunk?

Guess not.
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!!!!!
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/26/2010 05:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, you CANNOT run around people who have an interest in and knowledge of astronomy using terms such as 'the Dark Side' of the Moon.

Unless of course the reaction you wish to elicit is laughter and mild scorn.

Which is what I think you're after anyway.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 05:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
The general PX thing has been coming through "channelled" sources for almost 25 years in my personal experience via knowing people who "channel". Don't even start with the 'all channelling is fake' argument. I'm tired of that discussion. If you haven't personally known people who "channel"(whatever that is) for 20+ years, then you are arguing without direct personal experience. The people I have known who were "channelling" stuff about that were definately not intentionally faking the phenomenon. It is something more than simply fake.

That's all I care to say about it.



Menow, you and I had a lengthy discussion about this a long time ago. (My number has recently changed for some reason.)

In a nutshell, I have had personal experience and I don't think real channeling is "fake." However, I do think there is a lot of unreliable information obtained through channeling, whatever the mechanism involved.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583


I didn't even BEGIN to say otherwise.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 05:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, direct question for you; you have a spaceship sitting on the equator of the moon and you're launching it into lunar orbit. If you launch your spaceship from the moon's surface into lunar orbit, does it require more delta-V (and therefore, fuel) to launch due west than to launch due east? Yes or no?

bump for clare.

bump again, for clare.
 Quoting: Astronut


Irrelevant to the issue of which side faces Earth, and whether relative to us it rotates.

However, the Earth rotates East, relative to the Sun (i.e. as seen from the North Pole of the Earth. The Moon actually also revolves East but much more slowly. OOOOOH! I know that! OH! How does the dummy know?!

I don't know what that would do for fuel, though. Its rotation (seen from the Sun or stars) would be also counterclockwise. So I suppose more V-force westbound.

Anyway, as I've always said, it does rotate (which I used the term turn, spin, revolve) relative to the Sun view, but its tidal lock means it is actually not rotating from our view.

Thus, we can represent the Moon at the Earth-orbit level of "superposition" as not rotating on its axis, but over the forward motion relative to the other bodies, it does.

Unlike Earth around the Sun, or Venus likewise, which have both rotation around their orbital first-level (superpostion) axis of rotation, i.e., the Sun, AND have it from the stars or galactic centre.

I knew this all along, but you guys conflate the two levels.

Anyway ... is anyone preparing for even the CME possibility of total societal breakdown if they don't protect the grid?
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/26/2010 05:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Damn me. I wish I had thought of this 25 pages ago.

Clare. I challenge you to look up the star Delta Doradus. A simple Google search should suffice.

When you learn the significance of that star, I think you'll see your entire argument is moot.

Or you could simply answer Astronut's question. I suspect you'll do neither.

But if you do, you might learn something.
Catseye
User ID: 982359
Dominican Republic
05/26/2010 05:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"...at the end here..."

The argument isn't over, Clare dear -- you're still wrong, and no amount of word-mangling will change that.


B.S.

Every time I used the wrong technical term I also described the motion I meant.

I had it right all along.

And it is you people who confused rotation around its axis AS THE SUN SEES IT, versus non-rotation as the EARTH sees it.

The latter is critical, because if it were rotation independent of forward revolution around an orbit, it would show differnt faces to the Earth.

The same level of relative magnitude for the Earth and Venus toward THEIR revolution centre axis, i.e., the Sun, will show you the difference.

There is a Dark Side of the Moon and the reason is it does not rotate towards us ... it only revolves us.

Now that I am using the terms in their correct placements, you can see I am right, and was all along.

Bye, Returner.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Still wrong.

We didn't confuse rotation around the axis "as the sun sees it", that is the accepted frame of reference which we all ascribe to. You are just now grasping that fact.


And as for this:

"There is a Dark Side of the Moon and the reason is it does not rotate towards us ... it only revolves us."


It "revolves around us", not "revolves us." This hardly looks like a mistaken omission, it's a crucial part of the phrase. How can you argue astronomical terms you don't understand?
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/26/2010 05:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, direct question for you; you have a spaceship sitting on the equator of the moon and you're launching it into lunar orbit. If you launch your spaceship from the moon's surface into lunar orbit, does it require more delta-V (and therefore, fuel) to launch due west than to launch due east? Yes or no?

bump for clare.

bump again, for clare.


Irrelevant to the issue of which side faces Earth, and whether relative to us it rotates.

However, the Earth rotates East, relative to the Sun (i.e. as seen from the North Pole of the Earth. The Moon actually also revolves East but much more slowly. OOOOOH! I know that! OH! How does the dummy know?!

I don't know what that would do for fuel, though. Its rotation (seen from the Sun or stars) would be also counterclockwise. So I suppose more V-force westbound.

Anyway, as I've always said, it does rotate (which I used the term turn, spin, revolve) relative to the Sun view, but its tidal lock means it is actually not rotating from our view.

Thus, we can represent the Moon at the Earth-orbit level of "superposition" as not rotating on its axis, but over the forward motion relative to the other bodies, it does.

Unlike Earth around the Sun, or Venus likewise, which have both rotation around their orbital first-level (superpostion) axis of rotation, i.e., the Sun, AND have it from the stars or galactic centre.

I knew this all along, but you guys conflate the two levels.

Anyway ... is anyone preparing for even the CME possibility of total societal breakdown if they don't protect the grid?
 Quoting: mclarek 981736



clunk, have you ever suffered a serious head injury? Stroke? Dementia?
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: 795135
United States
05/26/2010 05:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes, relative to the Sun and further bodies, yes. I have said so all along. You can view THAT from the Mon or from the other bodies. But relative simply to its most immediate orbit (the Earth) it does not, OF COURSE.

Relative to the Earth, no.

It was this motion which Nancy was describing (initially, before others confused the issue with the larger Superposition, and she didn't understand that.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Clare, if the moon were rotating just a bit slower, or just a bit faster, so that we saw diferent sides of it over time, would you then say that the moon was rotating relative to the earth? Yes or no?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 05:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"...at the end hereAnd it is you people who confused rotation around its axis AS THE SUN SEES IT, versus non-rotation as the EARTH sees it.

The latter is critical, because if it were rotation independent of forward revolution around an orbit, it would show differnt faces to the Earth.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Well, since those two motions ARE independant, your point is meaningless.

I'll give you a chance to explain, though. It what way is the Moon's rotation DEPENDANT on its orbit?
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 05:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, you CANNOT run around people who have an interest in and knowledge of astronomy using terms such as 'the Dark Side' of the Moon.

Unless of course the reaction you wish to elicit is laughter and mild scorn.

Which is what I think you're after anyway.
 Quoting: Returner 997


It is called that ordinarily. Get real.

Anyway, I showed I know what the term means, AND what phases are, which Menow confused, or thought I had, for he didn't understand I knew both.

The "Dark Ages" aren't called that, either, by those in Mediaeval Studies, very often: they are calle the Early Middle Ages.

So what? CONCEPT is different than picayune wordsmithing.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 982525
Ireland
05/26/2010 05:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And it is you people who confused rotation around its axis AS THE SUN SEES IT, versus non-rotation as the EARTH sees it.

 Quoting: mclarek 981736

But from earths perspective the Sun rotates around the earth, is that true too?
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/26/2010 05:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Man, I think I'm actually going to take Clare's advice and have that Valium!

Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are...
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 05:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It was this motion which Nancy was describing (initially, before others confused the issue with the larger Superposition, and she didn't understand that.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Nancy's claim is exactly this: The Moon DOES NOT ROTATE.

No one is confused about it, but her... and, of course.. you.

News