Users Online Now: 1,767 (Who's On?) Visitors Today: 14,587 Pageviews Today: 19,574 Threads Today: 4 Posts Today: 119 12:08 AM

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing

Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 06:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
No, she doesn't know about the Moon's orbit.

Quoting: mclarek 981736

38th repeat: Nancy claims that Newton doesn't adequately exlain the Lunar orbit, therefor she certainly knew it HAS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 982310
United Kingdom
05/26/2010 06:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Now in real terms, if we stopped forward motion around the Sun, the Earth would continue to rotate AND revolve around the barycentre too. The Moon would only revolve around the Earth. But for different reasons, both the Earth and Moon would continue to exhibit different faces (rotation) relative to the Sun -- remember, for different REASONS:

In such a scenario (and it's also at all times a mind experiment, a mental superposition layer, i.e., order of magnitude, even if it is not in fact true that we are stop or are stopped as she claims) ...

So, in such a scenario,

a) the Earth faces the Sun differently because it a) is rotating on its axis in its own right, b) is revolving around the barycentre of the E-M orbital system. You would need to stop both motions, the former in the Pole Shift pause, and the latter by stopping the barycentric Moon orbit/Earth orbit at the same time.

b) whereas the Moon faces the Sun differently but not the Earth still, because it is rotating around (orbiting) the barycentre and has no proper rotation of its own. All you would have to do to stop it, is stop its revolution around Earth and the relative rotation from the Sun's view would stop.
Quoting: mclarek 981736

The moon DOES have rotation of its own you IDIOT. How many times do people have to explain this to you?

If the rest of the solar system suddenly vanished the moon would continue to rotate around its own axis. Why can't you get this?

And stop mis-using words in an attempt to make yourself look clever, because it doesn't work. The paucity of your mind is evident in the stupidity of your words.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 982310
United Kingdom
05/26/2010 06:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Now in real terms, if we stopped forward motion around the Sun, the Earth would continue to rotate AND revolve around the barycentre too. The Moon would only revolve around the Earth. But for different reasons, both the Earth and Moon would continue to exhibit different faces (rotation) relative to the Sun -- remember, for different REASONS:

Quoting: mclarek 981736

No, for the SAME reason. They are both rotating!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 982310
United Kingdom
05/26/2010 06:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
In fact, ALL astronomical bodies rotate along some internal axis, independent of anything else.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/26/2010 06:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
The absolute bottom line is that Clare is incapable of finding even one single reference that agrees with her claim.

Case closed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 982310
United Kingdom
05/26/2010 06:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
The absolute bottom line is that Clare is incapable of finding even one single reference that agrees with her claim.

Case closed.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135

I don't think she really has a 'claim'. She's more concerned with attempting to re-define the English language so it suits Nancy!
Setheory
User ID: 869850
United States
05/26/2010 06:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Dear, it was THE WHOLE POINT, for when Nancy said you wouldn't have to stop the spin on the axis of the Moon, she was right (rotation).

You would only have to stop its REVOLUTION and the rotation from the Sun's point of view would stop -- if the Earth were also stopped.

Quoting: mclarek 981736

In summary, you are saying the moon does not spin on its own axis because it is tidally locked to the earth. Right?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 982310
United Kingdom
05/26/2010 06:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Dear, it was THE WHOLE POINT, for when Nancy said you wouldn't have to stop the spin on the axis of the Moon, she was right (rotation).

You would only have to stop its REVOLUTION and the rotation from the Sun's point of view would stop -- if the Earth were also stopped.

In summary, you are saying the moon does not spin on its own axis because it is tidally locked to the earth. Right?
Quoting: Setheory 869850

The rotation may have become tidally locked, but that does not CAUSE it. The moon, like all other astronomical bodies, rotates, and has done so from the moment it cam into being.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 06:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
And do YOU guys know now why Nancy could say it doesn't rotate? She was talking on a different order of magnitude. AND she didn't know the Moon orbits us in truth,

37th repeat: Nancy claims that Newton doesn't adequately exlain the Lunar orbit, therefor she certainly knew it HAS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoting: Menow 935048

She also said to you it doesn't orbit -- at one point in the discussion -- but if she does know of it when not irate and blind, she does NOT (like a lot of people) realize that the revolution of the Moon looks like a rotation when over the wole orbit. She pictures, like a lot of people, as id the Earth were not going forward; it thus doesn't show a sine wave (another thing a lot of people don't realize). They can't picture the total properly.

And if the E-M system stopped going forward around the Sun, the Sun would see rotation and retrograde motion in the Moon. Most people don't think of this as rotation, though, because it more obviously is an illusion from the revolution, when you picture it as if stopped in orbiting the Sun. But yes, the Moon still would show different faces along its rotation, and the Sun would see a rotation too from that.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 06:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
In summary, you are saying the moon does not spin on its own axis because it is tidally locked to the earth. Right?

The rotation may have become tidally locked, but that does not CAUSE it. The moon, like all other astronomical bodies, rotates, and has done so from the moment it cam into being.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 982310

Sure. But on orders of magnitude we can use the term "cause".

And from some point in the Universe, everything also rotates, in its view.

But this is obfuscation of the distinctions at each order of superpositional distinction, if we want to talk of the latter. Which we were.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 07:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Oh, I see! So when it was said that the earth was halted in its orbit, that could mean anything! So what stopped? Was it the earth's rotation, revolution or orbit?

Precisely. When you use language as loosely as Nancy's Zetacrap it can be 'spun' to mean whatever she likes. Nancy is good at one thing only, and that is spinning bullshit.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 982310

I used TERMS interchangeably, but my language overall was clear: I always defined what I meant by the term at the time. I have now switched to the technical uses instead of merely using them as laypeople do, and yet I still define what I mean each time.

Are you so "spun" that you can't see that?

Anyway, :)
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 07:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
And do YOU guys know now why Nancy could say it doesn't rotate? She was talking on a different order of magnitude. AND she didn't know the Moon orbits us in truth,

37th repeat: Nancy claims that Newton doesn't adequately exlain the Lunar orbit, therefor she certainly knew it HAS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She also said to you it doesn't orbit -- at one point in the discussion
Quoting: mclarek 981736

Link, quote or stfu. Nancy says LOTS of silly, contradictory things. It really adds up to no coherent belief system, whatsoever, other than "Zetas are always right". That is the ONLY commom denominator. There is NO logical basis for what she says, so why are you trying to conrtive one for this instance?

-- but if she does know of it when not irate and blind, she does NOT (like a lot of people) realize that the revolution of the Moon looks like a rotation when over the wole orbit. She pictures, like a lot of people, as id the Earth were not going forward; it thus doesn't show a sine wave (another thing a lot of people don't realize). They can't picture the total properly.

And if the E-M system stopped going forward around the Sun, the Sun would see rotation and retrograde motion in the Moon. Most people don't think of this as rotation, though, because it more obviously is an illusion from the revolution, when you picture it as if stopped in orbiting the Sun. But yes, the Moon still would show different faces along its rotation, and the Sun would see a rotation too from that.
Quoting: mclarek 981736

Bottome line: Both you and Nancy believe that the Moon is being DRAGGED around in rotation by the Earth.

THAT is why I was asking you about angular momentum. You danced all around the issue, as you do with everything.
Catseye
User ID: 982359
Dominican Republic
05/26/2010 07:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
In summary, you are saying the moon does not spin on its own axis because it is tidally locked to the earth. Right?

The rotation may have become tidally locked, but that does not CAUSE it. The moon, like all other astronomical bodies, rotates, and has done so from the moment it cam into being.

Sure. But on orders of magnitude we can use the term "cause".

And from some point in the Universe, everything also rotates, in its view.

But this is obfuscation of the distinctions at each order of superpositional distinction, if we want to talk of the latter. Which we were.
Quoting: mclarek 981736

This last sentence shows unequivocally that we have all been lead on.

Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 07:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
But this is obfuscation of the distinctions at each order of superpositional distinction, if we want to talk of the latter. Which we were.
Quoting: mclarek 981736

DING DING DING... Returner... NEW Clare-inition!
mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 07:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Link, quote or stfu. Nancy says LOTS of silly, contradictory things. It really adds up to no coherent

Bottome line: Both you and Nancy believe that the Moon is being DRAGGED around in rotation by the Earth.

THAT is why I was asking you about angular momentum. You danced all around the issue, as you do with everything.
Quoting: Menow 935048

You don't need to understand angular momentum to point out relative vectors.

You were wrong and misunderstood the point, just as Nancy misunderstood the larger view.

So you eat crow for once.

In terms of the AXIAL points for the Moon, the Earth "drags" it forward -- talking in layman's terms of DIRECTIONS for the rotation and revolution combinations (superposition).

In FACT it is deflected by the Sun away from a straight line, through angular momentum pull from the Sun AND by the Earth.

For once, GET THE RELEVANT POINT without insisting on other aspects. Geez. The Moon does not rotate on its axis at the order of the Earth as an axis (wel, the barycentre). That is what Nancy was saying would NOT have to be stopped, in a pole shift of the Moon, whereas such rotation would have to be stopped on the Earth, even if no longer revlving around the Sun, forward.

And don't pick up on the word "forward" because you want to make me show I know everything is relative. I mean around on its circle (revolution) around the Sun, which is a forward motion to the body, described simply. You CAN'T BE THIS THICK and mean, can you?
mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 07:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
But this is obfuscation of the distinctions at each order of superpositional distinction, if we want to talk of the latter. Which we were.

DING DING DING... Returner... NEW Clare-inition!
Quoting: Menow 935048

You a**holes.

You give no-one credit for using every possible word which can be used, to show you what is meant:

I meant superpostion AND level of distinction, which are the same thing, expresed in two ways, so you can see I know what superposition means AND have been making this distinction ALL ALONG.

Returner
User ID: 982769
United States
05/26/2010 07:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Clare's Definitions, Part -- Oh Hell, I'm Losing Count:

SUPERPOSITIONAL DISTINCTION - A method of argumentative dialect which conflates duality-based relative observational tactics with superlative logical thematic coherences, in accordance with established guidelines of Hegelian third-magnitude oratory bellicosity.

SINE WAVES - The pretty patterns formed by planets as they revolve around an established axis a which is both parallel and perpendicular to the Solar constant axis f when viewed from a polar coordinate system with foci at galactic centers l, q, and c. Einstein knew about them and you are poopyheads. Usually appear as pretty blue ribbons.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 07:52 PM
Report Abusive Post

This shows no intelligence on your part; rather, it means mere smallness in you.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 07:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
And from some point in the Universe, everything also rotates, in its view.

But this is obfuscation of the distinctions at each order of superpositional distinction, if we want to talk of the latter. Which we were.

This last sentence shows unequivocally that we have all been lead on.

Quoting: Catseye 982359

Do you mean "led" on -- if so, by whom?

Or do you mean "dead" on? If so, what do you mean?

Thanks.
Returner
User ID: 982769
United States
05/26/2010 07:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Interloquitor?

You, Clare?

mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 07:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Clare's Definitions, Part -- Oh Hell, I'm Losing Count:

SUPERPOSITIONAL DISTINCTION - A method of argumentative dialect which conflates duality-based relative observational tactics with superlative logical thematic coherences, in accordance with established guidelines of Hegelian third-magnitude oratory bellicosity.

SINE WAVES - The pretty patterns formed by planets as they revolve around an established axis a which is both parallel and perpendicular to the Solar constant axis f when viewed from a polar coordinate system with foci at galactic centers l, q, and c. Einstein knew about them and you are poopyheads. Usually appear as pretty blue ribbons.
Quoting: Returner 982769

Gobbledygook "understanding" of my points.

You seek to make fun where you do not even know of what you are speaking about me: I know what a sine wave is; I have identified it -- but no-one was impressed that maybe they should look more carefully at what I was saying.

And as to "superpositional distinction" I was linking the two ways of talking about orders of magnitude, which are distinctions and called superpositions.

Your mockery falls back on you.
I was the first one to point out the rotation of the Moon is only from an order of distinction or superposition, as related to the Sun and larger scales. It is not relative to the Earth.

And YOU GUYS misconstrued Nancy's point on this, and got your own orders of magnitude confused! And had no charity to understand me because every time I described it, you insisted on the proper terms but missed the descriptive elements which would have shown you your error in relation to Nancy's comment.

So ... boomerang! Bop on you!

LOL

Returner
User ID: 982769
United States
05/26/2010 07:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Clare's Definitions, Part IX:

INTERLOQUITOR - One who feigns considerable knowledge in a field of study, but who is actually a slightly drunk ferret with access to a keyboard.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 08:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Interloquitor?

You, Clare?

Quoting: Returner 982769

Take a valium, because a) except for my terminology at times (layman's), I made all relevant points about the Moon AND clarified what happened re. Nancy's point about the Earth-Moon relationship whic does NOT contain a rotation of the Moon (at that level) and b) in a technical sense ANYONE with whom one discusses is an interloquitor.

If I don't know OTHER things and/or get no credit for being bang on about the levels of perception of the movements, it is BAD ON YOU, not me.

:)

mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 08:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Clare's Definitions, Part IX:

INTERLOQUITOR - One who feigns considerable knowledge in a field of study, but who is actually a slightly drunk ferret with access to a keyboard.
Quoting: Returner 982769

Meaningless gobbledygook with an overtone of spite.

Someone who cannot recognize excellence of mind and separate it from semantics will also confuse a statement about the Moon not spinning on its axis relative to Earth, when the technical term would clearly be rotation, and the FRAME OF REFERENCE (level of superposition) would be the Earth-Moon actions.

No wonder you think I make no sense. You can't even analyze your own misunderstandings.
Catseye
User ID: 982359
Dominican Republic
05/26/2010 08:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
And from some point in the Universe, everything also rotates, in its view.

But this is obfuscation of the distinctions at each order of superpositional distinction, if we want to talk of the latter. Which we were.

This last sentence shows unequivocally that we have all been lead on.

Do you mean "led" on -- if so, by whom?

Or do you mean "dead" on? If so, what do you mean?

Thanks.
Quoting: mclarek 981736

It's pretty obvious I meant led on. And by you, hence the "beating a dead horse" emoticon.

Is this a petty attempt to convey some sort of intellectual superiority on your part by pointing out my insignificant boo-boo?
Returner
User ID: 982769
United States
05/26/2010 08:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
I really should close this browser and get some actual work done before my editor bursts through the door with a pick-axe, but something about the sheer wrongness of this whole discussion has been mesmerizing. I know, Clare, that you're simply trolling, but damn you are good at it. I've been unable to look away, and for that, I doff my hat to you.

More installments of Clare's Definitions tomorrow, then. Please leave me some good material to work with -- hell, what am I saying, you will.

Night, all!

PS that star I suggested you look up earlier?

It's the Lunar pole star...
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 08:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Link, quote or stfu. Nancy says LOTS of silly, contradictory things. It really adds up to no coherent

Bottome line: Both you and Nancy believe that the Moon is being DRAGGED around in rotation by the Earth.

THAT is why I was asking you about angular momentum. You danced all around the issue, as you do with everything.

You don't need to understand angular momentum to point out relative vectors.

You were wrong and misunderstood the point,
Quoting: mclarek 981736

Nancy's claim is that the Moon DOES NOT ROTATE on its own axis. What do I allegedly not understand about that?

just as Nancy misunderstood the larger view.
Quoting: mclarek 981736

Irony meters just aren't what they used to be. They haven't kept up with the unexpected exponential increase.

So you eat crow for once.
Quoting: mclarek 981736

For allegedly misunderstanding Nancy Lieder?? Surely you jest.

In terms of the AXIAL points for the Moon, the Earth "drags" it forward -- talking in layman's terms of DIRECTIONS for the rotation and revolution combinations (superposition).
Quoting: mclarek 981736

Then DON'T talk in those terms, because you are talking nonsense. There are no "axial points" for the Moon. You just made it up.

Earth provides the gravity which keeps the Moon in orbit. Earth provides no such thing toward the Moon's rotation.

In FACT it is deflected by the Sun away from a straight line, through angular momentum pull from the Sun AND by the Earth.
Quoting: mclarek 981736

There is no such thing as "angular momentum pull". You just made it up.

For once, GET THE RELEVANT POINT without insisting on other aspects. Geez. The Moon does not rotate on its axis at the order of the Earth as an axis (wel, the barycentre).
Quoting: mclarek 981736

There are no "levels" or "orders" involved. You just made that up.

That is what Nancy was saying would NOT have to be stopped, in a pole shift of the Moon, whereas such rotation would have to be stopped on the Earth, even if no longer revlving around the Sun, forward.
Quoting: mclarek 981736

Nancy has spoken of no poleshift of the Moon. No link, no quote. Didn't happen.

And don't pick up on the word "forward" because you want to make me show I know everything is relative. I mean around on its circle (revolution) around the Sun, which is a forward motion to the body, described simply. You CAN'T BE THIS THICK and mean, can you?
Quoting: mclarek 981736

Repeat: Bottom line: Both you and Nancy believe that the Moon is being DRAGGED around in rotation by the Earth.

THAT is why I was asking you about angular momentum. You danced all around the issue, as you do with everything.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
05/26/2010 08:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
This last sentence shows unequivocally that we have all been lead on.

Do you mean "led" on -- if so, by whom?

Or do you mean "dead" on? If so, what do you mean?

Thanks.

It's pretty obvious I meant led on. And by you, hence the "beating a dead horse" emoticon.

Is this a petty attempt to convey some sort of intellectual superiority on your part by pointing out my insignificant boo-boo?
Quoting: Catseye 982359

NO, sorry.

I wasn't sure which "side" you were taking here.

Sorry -- didn't mean to make you think I assumed you thought everyone here was wrong all along in the levels of understanding and applying them to Nancy's statement about "spinning on its axis" (relative to Earth only).

Have you not noticed I am not rough if people aren't rough with me? Or anyway, I try not to be.

So, you feel led on? By me? Or by Menow, etc.?

I only meant originally to clarify that Menow was conflating orders of magnitude, in making his smarmee, cock-sure point to Nancy about the rotation on the axis. It was confusion from the start: his example was different than hers, about the Moon.

Notice, he's said sure, the Moon doesn't rotate on its axis relative to the Earth, but HE STILL THINKS THAT WASN'T THE POINT; it was.

And all these guys can do now is claim *I* wasn't smart.

Anyway, smiles, and by the way, I like your on-line name.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 08:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
But this is obfuscation of the distinctions at each order of superpositional distinction, if we want to talk of the latter. Which we were.

DING DING DING... Returner... NEW Clare-inition!

You a**holes.

You give no-one credit for using every possible word which can be used, to show you what is meant:

I meant superpostion AND level of distinction, which are the same thing, expresed in two ways, so you can see I know what superposition means AND have been making this distinction ALL ALONG.

Quoting: mclarek 981736

There are NO "levels of distinction" in the Moon's rotation. It simply *IS* rotating. The only distinction is that it is tidally locked to Earth, and that it not at all unusual.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 08:15 PM
Report Abusive Post