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

Why is it a secret, who was doing this? I'm sure that person is permanently banned, so why the secrecy? I must be missing something...

A word of advice to 'newer' debunkers who've never crossed swords with mods -

Don't badger them about administrative stuff. That is teh way of teh kOOk. They see a whole hell of a lot more than we. In fact it must be pretty funny sometimes, in an head-shaking way. SHR had an hilarious post a while back with an example of the kOOk emails they have to put up with. It was ROFL stuff. Wish I could find it and post the link.

When the mods are pronouncing their own opinions on threads they are just like anyone else and arguing or agreeing with them is safe.

And, don't jump to conclusions about whom they do or do not support intellectually. They will support all members whether they agree with them or not against abuse. They will hammer those they agree with if that person kOOks out and abuses the system. They may be a little quicker to hammer those they dislike, but no one gets immunity. It's the adult way. (It was not so quite a few years ago, but it seems that the current mod crew have their heads on straight.) Hell, I've argued with Trinity and not been touched.

But on administrative matters... duck.

Whomever was bumping the views kOOked out and that's all there is to it.

Have fun.


R.

I have never disputed that!!! ;-)

Hi there. Yes, I know. Where she says the moon does not rotate I have noticed two types of understandings getting confused between her and her questioners.

1. She does seem to be a bit off-the-cuff in her responses at times, and yes, does not seem to subtly understand the rotation picture in her mind. It does actually move forward around the earth (have an orbit of forward movement).

2. However, it keeps the SAME FACE to us. It is always in this context which she has used the term rotation and argued that it does not rotate. She is clearly emphasizing this, and hence the confusion.

Her example of dancing with a broomstick, or doll, was partly correct. If however the doll were attached by a rod, so that it faced you, and went around you, face-in, while you spun on the spot, THAT is the kind of rotation the Moon does, very slowly.

Her resistance to those who say it "rotates" when her context was comparing self-axis spinning (not having an orbit), has confused her, and angered her, and I can see the efforts of her to get out her message (correct or not), compared to what can feel like attacks by some questioners, getting in the way of mutual understanding.

She is not an intellectual, but she does have a lot of knowledge, and is in a "prophet" type role, so her focus is not figuring out her own mistakes, but rather letting the main words get out and having others also work it out for themselves. This is what I can tell over reading the past questions/responses on this issue, back and forth.

I hope this clarifies.

Clare

Sure. Sorry if I didn't see it. You weren't skunked, not deliberately.

Of course, I only have so much time, and have spent quite a bit in 2 days, responding to DrPostman, Menow and you and the other person.

I hope I can help.

If it's about the Moon rotation misunderstandings, and hot tempers, please see below to DrPostman.

As to the issue of the Moon's being "way off", I have commented that I THINK she's saying it's off enough to tell. She does sometimes speak in hyperbole. Have we not all done that in our effort to get out a fact we are impressed by, to point to its significance? Of course we have.

I have no idea if it's off AT ALL, but it is her impression, belief (or maybe knowledge?) that it is off.

I am not sure it is, but I look at the PX argument as a whole, with some parts remaining untrue, inconclusive, etc.

I am more concerned to figure out if there is evidence for its being here, not if every claim by its "prophet" is correct. Prophetic mind-sets (shall we say, instead, human enthusiasms?) can over-emphasize some things, in their efforts to make a point, and can make mistakes along the way.

I know Nancy does. But she does bring to our attention a possible threat, and it is that which I evaluate.



Ha ha.

Clare

Hi, Thanks. What's a Denial of Service attack?
Didn't the count go UP not DOWN? So why denial?

Clare

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?

"But she does bring to our attention a possible threat,"

Threat? What threat?

Her imaginary planetoid is NOT THERE. That's easily proven. It's been proven easily a dozen times over in this thread alone.

A body the size of Neptune ambling around the Inner Solar System?

No. Mass has easily observable effects on bodies whose orbital components are known down to the meter. None of them have been perturbed.

We won't even discuss how a body that size could 'hide' from the myriad of telescopes on Earth. It couldn't. It hasn't.

And as far as Nancy being a 'prophet' of some kind -- first, you'd need to establish that there is such a thing. And even if there is, Nancy's hardly a prime example, since she's been bloody well wrong about *everything* she's ever predicted.

The whole of ZetaTalk is just silly. It never even rises to the absurd. why you chose to champion such odious nonsense is beyond me.

Nancy says it's 'off' a lot or a little or not at all, depending on the immediate needs of her story.

You really aren't up on all of this at all.

Oh... I see you DID elaborate on what "self-axis spinning" is supposed to mean. So... that is supposedly to differentiate the Moon from some other body, like say... the Earth? Is Earth self-axis spinning then?

Nancy has absolutely no idea where the Moon should be. Seriously. she couldn't give you a set of coordinates and a time if a bag of money was at stake.

She thought 'RA' meant Right Angle, for Cthulu's sake.

She simply has no clue.

Are you for real ?

Here, Clare. If you want to learn something. Here is a gem from Nancy about the Moon. She reiterated this statement last Saturday as proof the Moon is somehow 'wrong'. See if you can spot the bullshit(lies). (hint: Look up "libration")

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour. The rotation of the Moon's face during a lunar night moved from a reported 45° on Mar 7, 2004 to 60° by July 31, 2004 to 95° by Sep 26, 2004 and for real drama, see that animation of the 95° turn. This Netherlands Feb 27, 2005 photo covering a mere 3 hours shows an almost 30° turn.

Yes. I'm not making that up. Nancy thought that the RA in RA and dec meant 'right angle.'

She's utterly clueless when it comes to astronomy. Yeah, she can throw terms around -- she's really fond of 'ecliptic,' though it's obvious she has no idea what the word means. And she claimed that 'streams of magnetrons' encircled the Earth, when a magnetron is the element in a microwave oven that emits microwaves.

I could go on...

Oh Menow, I was trying to use the same term for the same pull.

Look, what I meant is that PX would in fact create a noticeable DIFFERENT pull, a nameable torque, from electromagnetic pull.

As to the Sun, I was saying it TOO is pulling and pushing us by electromagnetism, but normally we are not aware of the overall tug or repulsion because a) the momentum of the Earth masks the switch from repulsion to attraction, as we go around the Sun, and b) the Sun doesn't turn its POLE to us ... it sends out different electromagnetic waves from its surface, over several years (Sunspot cycle changes the Sun's whole polarity, but not in one fell directional swoop!)

A PX would be adding itself to our system, and if so, and if its pole were pointing at us, its charge might very well first tug more noticeably (though slightly, as you've pointed out) on our Wobble through our core. This would be an initial adjustment, perhaps.

Now, leaving aside the idea of a total stoppage and aliens messing with starlight, just in case that's not necessary, I'd say we could continue with this hypothesis about the Wobble and say that the magnetic polarity pole of the Earth might begin to be repelled by such an object PX, before, but accelerating when such PX were actually in our orbital plane.

I am working through what electromagnetism (and pure gravity) might very well accomplish, both over several years of approach by PX, then upon a few critical months when it would be newly added to the orbital plane (have arrived at it), and then after, once it is now "part" of our plane.



Yes. I meant to type that. It means a pull from the Sun (gravity) with its charge pull-push which is over many years and part of our normal orbital variations, mostly masked by our momentum.

Plus a second "magnet" with gravity as well: PX.
That would be an explanation for (a part of building a PX hypothesis): the Chandler Wobble and Magnetic Pole anomalies of the kind we've had, and also the "magnetic holes".



I am presenting an argument for, a proof for PX. It may be flimsy or it may be strong. It may discount parts of Nancy's claims, or they may have to be fit back in later.

I am not saying it is or isn't; I am showing how it might be -- giving the "proof" you always ask for. A proof is a proving, a worked-out hypothesis, tested through discovered facts, and understood in total, as a theory. It could be wrong, but this is what a PROOF is. This is different than saying, "I want to have one thing, either way, which of itself is the thing or is not." That is a different proof: it would be PX or a direct single effect.

However, instead, we have suggestive facts, whose INTERRELATIONSHIP might indicate PX. Thus, I say it's "possible". I am constructing an argument for PX, to see if one can be constructed, and how sound it would be or not.

After that, compare that result -- and there are some odd things which one notices, once one understands the fine points of the hypothetical relationships. (By "hypothetical relationships", I do not mean "mere notional relationships", i.e., "hypothetical" as a put-down; I mean the technical sense of: careful relationships discovered between pieces of evidence, within the hypothesis.) The hypothetical relationships -- the relationships within the hypothesis -- might lead to a wrong conclusion IN FACT, but if proper relationships, they become a possibility for consideration.

A dog and a cat would hypothetically have an inimical (enemy) relationship, and facts could support that, but it could be the case that IN FACT in an instance, a cat and dog could get along.

So one can have correct hypothetical relationships of facts, make a strong case, and still be wrong. But it's a special kind of "wrongness", in that instance: it was a logical rightness, but wrong in fact.

This correct logic but wrong result is always from incomplete facts. The wrong interpretation of a fact comes from not having complete facts about it. We often think of this as flawed logic. But flawed logic itself, is mis-construing how to construct an hypothetical case proof.

It is the latter which I encourage you not to slip into.

I am constructing a case proof, slightly different than Nancy's, but accounting for most of what she says. If a case can be made for PX which is very logical, then it is worth looking at and maybe preparing for a disaster of this kind.

Even if a case can be made, and I think it can, it still could be wrong, as I said, but should not be from illogic or from not constructing the logic into an hypothesis AT ALL.

You seem to refuse to take the pieces and construct the argument to see where it leads, fully. This is a mistake.



I am not frenetically typing! Lol. I am quite calm. I am writing out, how reasoning works. It seems people often bandy about the ideas of "proof" and thus get into a tizzy when several items, interrelating in a specific way, can be seen (a "prooving"/"proof") to show a result. A PROOF takes time and consideration. And has variables which can be used in other contexts ("pink sweater" could fit alternate proofs/hypotheses inside a court case). But it's seeing IF there is a case for PX, a PROOF, which I am interested in.

Surely you understand that.

As to "the sentence" I missed, which one? Or have I now answered it?



I ignored nothing. You have not actually answered the contrary objections: I have accounted for the direction, and anomalous nature of all these things. You have not. You would suggest they are "too small" and ignore the scientists' own shock -- expecially about the "holes" of repulsion during the usual "Solar attraction" phase of the Sun Cycle. That's fine; your position is to minimize all pieces to fit into the opposite case. I am building a case for the defense and you for the offense.

Your hypothesis would be: a) un-relation between events; b) minimal impact of events; c) specific details which I put into salient relationships your position would see them as "MERE anomaly", not "significant ANOMALY". (Note the two uses of anomaly, indicated by emphasis there.)

You build your hypothesis; I'll build mine, and we will see if the two are equal, or one wins out.

But note: I am well aware that whichever wins beyond reasonable doubt in the end, COULD MAYBE still be wrong.

Hence the willingness of law to re-open a case if a salient new fact or relationship between facts is discovered.



I read what you wrote and have covered this.

I submit that a planet has a charge. It would seemingly have to if it has a metal core and was near a star. If so, our Newton-obsessed astrophysicists are mis-accounting for the total gravitic effects in the system.

If so, then ...
In arriving, it would create new anomalous magnetic effects. One of those might well be a tug on the gyroscopic actions of the affected planet(s), such as Earth. Other effects would be repulsion warps during attraction phases from the planet (Earth's) own star (the Sun). (Or vice versa, if a PX were attracting when the Earth planet's Sun were repelling.)

Have answered this over and over.
You now either absorb that for my case I'm building, or keep saying "but what evidence/what proof/what does this mean". At that point, you are not building a counter-claim, but rather willfully ignoring this particular claim-proof I'm presenting. I can only present it so many times before it's clear you do not want to argue the case, but rather NOT FOLLOW the case.

:)



Well, now here is an interesting question.
Here we can actually argue this out, as we did the Pole Star issue.

The claim by Nancy is that it's by the Sun. At various points in the past few years it supposedly was "sneaking around" in our view, to use an emotion-laced technical term! Ha ha.

It was also supposedly scrubbed in most images of the Sun. And a few images of it were missed, or partly scrubbed.

There was also the Neat Comet fiasco, where some of the images of that had future pictures of the comet in them: in other words, were clearly Photoshopped. What does that mean? Well, in my case for PX hypothesis, I would have to account for them as a cover story for the PX arrival and posit a belief that it would round the Sun so quickly -- as the putative Zetas did claim -- that the power brokers of the world decided they had to have a cover story of a comet ready.

The Photoshopping of the images (one as I said, had not only the comet but also part of the picture of the comet from a later image in it!), indicates some chicanery.

So, at various points, PX would, one might say "possibly" (hypothetically in this scenario) be at different points, at different times.

And now, right now? Perhaps very snug to the Sun but still repelled from going into it? That's my tentative answer from this hypothesis right now.



See below.




Not being obtuse. :)
Being very clear. Simply working it through, in case there's something in all this. This is what being truly open and reasonable at the same time REQUIRES.

However, that "no-one can find it" either a) offers hope that all this is in fact wrong, or b) means no-one has considered the so-called "pixel flare" Stereo-Ahead images as ROUND and ONLY SINCE 2005, and has not thought through that maybe the "Neat Comet" images are in fact that someone "found" it -- maybe enlarging comet images in the process, to make something clearly cometary out of an approaching PX, whose approach was misunderstood.

Dunno.

Or the Neat Comet could be unrelated and the Stereo images could be related. Or neither.

All lead to different versions of the Pro-PX argument ...
Or to a Non-PX argument in some cases.

I merely want to figure out if there COULD BE RIGHT NOW a PX from the evidence trains we have around this subject.

Because, if it's even logically possible from the evidence we have, we MIGHT have to be very prepared. This would be a good thing to -- even wrongly -- prepare in case of.

Besides, it's always good not to rely on civilization ... overmuch.

Cheers,
Clare

Excellent link on Moon libration here:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

She is suggesting that the libration (slight rock-and-roll in our perception of what's ROUGHLY one face of the moon) is more dramatic than it should be. (I don't know if it is.)

She's also confusing actual libration with ANY change in face aspect.

I DO know she misuses terms sometimes, in trying to get at some perceptual insight: if the Moon is moving its face too much, what do you call it? Libration? Turn? Change? The insight she's going for -- even if it ends up as a false impression -- is clearly that there's too much change in the face-presentational aspect of the Moon.

Is there? Maybe not. But why pick on words? She's not stupid, clearly. Nor are you. But she's also clearly trying to say any potentially related anomaly ... even if some turn out not to be related or even anomalous.

She's watching for signs -- and presenting as many as quickly as she can. If the darned PX is coming, then this is important, even if some of the signs were wrong, or WRONGLY EXPRESSED too!

I am not sure there is something wrong with the Moon, unless there is some slight perturbation, unnoticed. But I don't know. I have not been watching, and I don't see anyone giving comparable footage which shows otherwise EITHER.

But more than that, unless you have normal footage, I do not know the Moon stuff well enough to comment on whether there are problems such as she claims, or not, as you claim. Fair enough?

Of course, the "God hypothesis" that the Zetas are fixing our perception is untestable. So I won't go there.

But just in case, here's an emoticon:



I love that one! So cute.

Clare

I do love your jiving cat avatar.

Just fyi.

Clare

"She's not stupid, clearly.

You use the word 'clearly' in a wildly innapropriate fashion.

What other word would you use to describe a person who think aliens use unwrapped candies as a means of communication? What other word would you apply to a person who identifies photographs of KITES as mysterious peek-a-boo planetoids?

And all that blathering about charged plnets?

Puh-leaze. Nonsense, at least in any remotely relevant sense.

Tell me, 'Clare,' do you camp often with Elle?

What "pull" does the Sun exert on Earth, other than via gravity?



How, precisely, does 'pull' become 'torque'? There are no unexplained gravitational 'pulls' on any of our planets from some new object in the Solar System.



So you are saying that this force exists, but has never been acknowledged nor measured? How convenient.



Wild speculation, based on little more than imagination. I said no such thing as that such a thing could happen slightly.



Why all this speculation over a nonexistent object, causing nonexistent effects? Seriously... what are you ON about??



Why are you trying to re-invent astrophysics from the ground up? "Part of our plane" is meaningless, by the way.




You mean, you are challenging the validity of Newtons Laws? And... "ut" means what, exactly?



PX... Where is it? (10th time?)



"We".... heh...



Just keep typing. It's what you're good at...



As I said, you are trying to add up a thousand, in your eyes, "might-bes", and have it become something real.



See last.



You're rambling again.



You are accounting for what Nancy says, but discounting all of our understanding of astronomy, why??





You have yet to offer one solid 'piece', dear.



How helpfull, of you... /sarcasm



How does what you were saying about that Polaris image uphold nancy's 'wobble' claim?



You have NOT demonstrated any 'anomoly'. I asked you if you had studied the entire history of relevent data. Funny... you didn't answer.



Build away... Oh.... I thought you were done, here?



Where is PX? #11?



Where is PX? #12?



Where is PX? #13?



Really? Where is PX? #14?



Please show your math on this discovery.



You are correct... I lost all willingness to 'follow your case' when you waxed ridiculous about the Polaris image.




Well, was it seen/imaged approaching the Sun? Then how did it get there? There is no other way to describe such claims than in humorous terms.



So you have retreated to such parnoid musings as part of your argument? Somehow, I knew you would. There is no other way to support the PX nonsense.



Yawn.



Yawn...



Therefor... it must've 'snuck', there, right?



You are ignoring the fact that... wait for it... there IS NO NEW PLANET IN OUR SKIES!



No one has considered the images as ROUND??? What does that even MEAN??



Congratulations... we have a winner!



You have paranoia and bupkiss.



Don't you have laundry to do, or something else more productive you could be obsessing about?

Nancy confuses the normal appearance of a rotation of the face of the moon with the term "libration". It clearly is NOT the same thing. The apparent rotation of the moon as it moves across the sky is perfectly normal...and every object in the sky, including entire contellations, demonstrates that same apparent rotation. She somehow thinks that it is not normal, or is trying to get her followers to think it is not normal. It is simple geometry from observing from the surface of a rotating sphere.

Hi.

I meant she has a mind -- and if aliens are a delusion, who am I to say? There is interesting information on aliens over the years, and how any main knowledge was covered up. It stops our knowing the truth either way.

Now, charges ON planets isn't blathering. It is a serious oversight in Newtonian-derived political-aspected science teaching. (By political, I mean social-psychological blind spots.) I knew an electrical engineer who explained that they have to have charge, and why Newton didn't count that -- he didn't think of that, in fact. His focus was on describing the pull effect and making the ballistics clear (physical momentum, like knocked billiard balls but pulled into relationship).

Now whether there is a NEW planet to our solar system, a PX, is the question.

Who is Elle? I have seen something about her(/him?) -- I assume her. I don't recall.

I am in Toronto. I have looked into all this myself, and don't know all the history of the persons involved.

Clare

No, she's not. She says NOTHING about actual, observed Lunar libration.



No, she is confusing it with apparent rotation, which is utterly normal.



It's NOT 'moving its face' too much. That's the friggin' POINT!



No.
No.
No.



She is 'going for' that, because she is creating FALSE 'evidence'. There is NOTHING wrong with the Moon's motions. She, or "Zetas" if you wish, are LYING.



I'm not 'picking on words'. I'm PICKING ON LIES!



No, she is FAKING THEM as quick as she can.



You have yet to point out a 'right' one, or come to the realization that Nancy has simply piled one falsehood upon another for the last 15 years.

There is simply no THERE, there.



How many astronomers who follow Lunar occulations would you like? There was one just last night with Venus. Funny.. it came off EXACTLY as expected.



Then why are you attempting to defend Nancy's claims on this?



Gee... thanks...



You spend a lot of time to say "I dunno".

By the way.. Nancy or "Zetas" NEVER claimed to be 'fixing our perceptions'. That was a bit invented by Zetamax. Nancy was asked about it and responded NO, and that 'they' are ONLY tilting Earth and moving it 'up and down in the ecliptic' to simulate the seasons.

The whole "God hypothysis", in the way you suggested, is NOT part of Zetatalk.

Yes, I agree it was artificially pushed up over the weekend. However, SHR lowered the number far more than it should have been.

On that, I wholeheartedly agree. Luser used to bandy on about Nancy's popularity. But whether a person's thread is popular or not doesn't mean people in turn believe what's posted inside.

I can think of one possible good reason for that, but I won't elaborate. Let's just let it go...

Definitely. As I said on a previous page - we know this thread is popular so it won't take long for it to climb back up there.

well howdie doc...how is it hanging???...hope ta world is treating u fair to middlin'..

Last Edited by picesnator on 05/17/2010 07:19 PM

I covered this. We have to have charge, as part of our relationship to the Sun. The planets must be a charged, as well as mass-gravitic dynamic, since they receive electromagnetism all the time from the Sun. This is how electromagnetism WORKS. There are reasons this is not typically considered in science teaching.

Anyone who understands the inertia -- ha ha -- of teaching patterns, and thought excitement (Newton's effect was so "electric" ha ha) that people whisked away their new discoveries into electromagnetism as a "side issue". For goodness' sake, the Van Allen belts were only discovered in the 1950s. And in fact, Velikovsky predicted their existence and extent, plus radio signals from Jupiter, before those were discovered. Why? Because his discovery of past interplanetary disasters (he thought it was Venus entering our solar system and coming close), REQUIRED electromagnetism to account for some parts of the human records of such disasters AND to account for some of the effects on the mammoths of Siberia, which I have outlined before.



As I've said, and you could have further extrapolated, I think, we have more pull when we are near other planets, from very far away, and some of these cannot be accounted for by mere mass.

But the point here is that we have to have charge, and we have "accounted" for much of it by CALLING it gravity. But we have to be part of a charged system, perhaps overall evening out, and IF A NEW PLANET CAME IN, it would add to/disrupt the system in some ways, more than its mass. Period.



The nature of electricity demands it. Newton named the TOTAL force. When, however, bodies come closer, and have a charge on them (comets don't have metal cores much of the time, so they don't), they have a pull which would reveal more than a gravitic effect. They would pull, but also -- if their pole were turned to repel, or if they had an opposite charge -- they would have such an effect.



This goes into your "pile" as mere slight anomaly; I however have an account for the direction and the timing. And the unusual nature of this (unprecedented in record-keeping, which admittedly, is only since the 1940s, if I recall). And it could be considered as PREDICTED as part of "wobble" and "electromagnetic grip" by Nancy.

It still could be a mere anomaly, in the sense of a "coinkydink". :) (Co-incidence, for those reading this, who are not as proficient in English. I'm being funny with the word.)



If it's here, it's imperative to prepare.

However, preparations to be more self-sufficient is a) always wise, and b) very wise under the economical-political situation in the world right now.



From the ground up? "Re-invent?" No. It's only re-invention in the sense that we have to un-lump electromagnetism from gravity, and recognize the principles of each, so as to recognize which effects are from which.

Currently, they're largely lumped together, except for a few places. And THEN the electrical effects remained UNPREDICTED, and when discovered, were grafted onto an electrical-free gravitic model, rather schizophrenically (double-think).

The evidence has been amassing for charge on planets -- but has been grafted onto a mere ballistic system (Newton), with his mysterious mass-pulls-from-afar force called gravity. It turns out that gravity from mass does occur, but at the time he proposed it, it was -- by some, even he -- recognized as a "black box" style solution, a mere descriptive equation.

It turns out, therefore, that though there is mass-pull (true gravity waveform pull), there is also mitigation and addition by electrics. Many experiments show this, but it is not WORKED INTO THE LARGE picture by most.

This is merely how learning and resistence go, over time.

:)

Plus, of course, electricity HAS to leave a charge in metal. So something of that must be true in our system.




I meant "but". It was a typographic error. :)

As to Newton, I am challenging (as do others), how the evidence for electromagnetism in the solar system, which was unpredictable in his dynamical system, and remains uncomfortably separately treated, as regards our actual system dynamics.

Newton admitted his "action-at-a-distance" didn't make sense from "weight", but people hadn't worked out electromagnetism OR field theory. So, fair enough.

And his system's gravity "law" is a mere algebraic formula to calculate the total pull -- so that the pull can give meaning to why we don't fly off from our orbits. It is not, however, an explanation, and it does not necessarily have to do only with mass, which was all he thought of at the time.

I have studied science history at length, and this is how great minds think and also how things need to be corrected, but often it takes several turns before the corrective solutions are arrived at.



As you didn't handle what I said, why should I answer you?

On the other hand, I already commented, it could be right by the Sun. Nancy/"Zetas" say it's between us and the Sun now. I don't know. But it could be there and not be easily seen ... and there are hints which might mean that the Stereo-Ahead images, and through the Neat Comet issue, that there is something there which is being covered up in various ways.



Mere emotional response. However, all people have them, so that's fine. Express away.

However, the fact is that I was using "possible" in the technical sense. If something is possible, we can work out the hypothesis fully and see what it says about the subject, and where the pieces of evidence fit, and how, in this hypothesis, versus in other hypotheses. This is how cases are argued, and judged: the final arguments are compared.



Again, well-intentioned and full reasoning, written out, seems to get a mere expulsion of air in a "huh" from you.

So, if we are going to work out whether PX is here, we must work it ALL out, see where or if various pieces of possible evidence fit, and why. And then compare. Simple.



First, many might-bes figured out, is what reasoning requires. It's called hypothesis. It's also why we don't have to have all the pieces to know something is likely to be true, or even beyond a reasonable (reasoning) doubt true. (Which can still be wrong, but is the best argument at the time.)

Second, it is not mere "adding up". It is arguing relationships. Mere adding up won't do. Some relationships will be "bulk" (addition) -- such as "more than usual amounts of some event" -- but many will be TYPES of events related, hypothetically. This is not mere addition.



Then don't try to follow any argument in court, in science, in philosophy, or even try to follow a composition in music or art. :)




First, I am not discounting all of our understanding of astronomy.

Hilarious.

I am LINKING what we know of elecrical charge to what we know about the planet-Sun electrical relationship, and also TALKING of how this was missed by Newton and all Newtonian astrophysicists until the 1950s, as if the two physical principles and scales were UNRELATED.

I am also talking of how when electromagnetism was found to be part of the solar system in a big way, it was STILL NOT THEORETICALLY COUNTED AS PART OF THE DYNAMIC MOVEMENT of the mass-bodies. However, I would submit, much of the electromagnetic effect of charge on planets is actually art of Newton's gravity algebra.

It would only be under certain circumstances where the separation of mass-gravity from electromagnetic gravitic adjustments would become obvious as separate things adding up into one algebra "law".

But it's more than just the question of if gravity-description is 2 forces in one. It is also that the gravity-only prediction caused a split in concerns, between electrical-magnetism researchers and large-scale gravity-Solar system researchers.

Until Jupiter's radio signals "shocked" the latter. But Velikovsky and electromagnetists knew it was likely.

And since we now HAVE rebuilt Newton to ADD electromagnetism, we must ask -- and hopefully not take 2 centuries again to do so -- what other effects does electromagnetism have? Require?

One of them is CHARGE.

Hence, my argument that a PX might very well have some attraction torque pull on us, and might also be like a 2nd magnet: the Sun being the usual one, and in a stable form.

That you have never thought this through surprizes me. But perhaps you never really took the time to WORK THE WHOLE HYPOTHESIS THROUGH, to discover if there was anything to learn here.

Even if there's no PX, perhaps the discussion will get our astrophysicists to be less bean-counting, and more meaningful in their theory.



Wrongo, dear.
:)

The solidity of the pieces relates to understanding charge on planets, and also requires understanding of theoretical relationships, and what possibility does to the argument.



I am actually being helpful. If you want to see this through, for it might be life and death, it would be worthwhile to work through HOW we thing, HOW a case is made, and HOW IT'S NOT: what you often pull out is dismissal of a piece of evidence without COUNTING its relationship to other items, or you DON'T follow the required arguments which are background.

I wouldn't want you on a murder trial, if this is so!

You (and others: I am not picking on you as you know, I hope) often also don't seem to be willing to even BUILD the case for a PX, being FULLY not only open-minded, but intrepid about saying, "IF" this is possible, would that account for this hypothesis.

It's called being mentally generous. And it's HARD TO DO. Things which seem ridiculous, or totally implausible, but are possible, must be worked through.

WHY?

a) Sometimes one discovers something thereby.

b) This particular issue would be life and death.



As to "the sentence" I missed, which one? Or have I now answered it?


"Menow was silly to say this stuff "wasn't happening". Small or large, it is."


Goodness gracious.

You said the Wobble DIDN'T GO BACKWARD, and there were NO HOLES IN THE MAGNETOSPHERE.

You said that. We can argue about their implication in our constrasting hypotheses, but they happened.




I intended to ignore nothing. Hence the "manic typing" -- lol.

As to the cited source's not saying what I said it did: which one? And if it's an exact wording issue, then that's picayune. If it's that they were presenting the anomaly but didn't attribute it to electromagnetics between planets, of course they would not. I was presenting the factoid; the meaning is made in hypothesis, not by the attributions of answers inside the claims of the articles. These facts stunned the scientists (the magnetosphere holes and also the magnetic pole movement). Account for it otherwise, Menow. Or say you don't know.

I can account for it with the magnetic effects from a PX, but even there I don't know if that's true for sure.

But it DOES require you understand the argument about electromagnetic physics and how it hasn't fully been worked out in planetary actions. It's one of the big blind spots -- even without PX -- that our cosmology has. Electromagnetics are DYNAMIC, not static. They must play a part in the pull-push we usually name by the lump term "gravity".



How does what you were saying about that Polaris image uphold nancy's 'wobble' claim?[/image]

Well, it would mean we were off-kilter, not specifically wobbling. But the word "wobble" can imply in off-the-cuff remarks, that we are not "on true".

However, it definitely hypothetically relates to the Chandler Wobble backwards motion: did we "just move" or were we "pulled" that way? Those are the key questions, and thus we see which way each hypothesis would treat of that evidence.

We are a massive thing, and PX would be far enough away, if it did attract us (effecting a torque), that the result would, thank God, not likely be a sudden or dramatically big change. But there would be a change OF THIS KIND, and at this time. That's what I'm accounting for.

But I hope I'm wrong that that was in fact why it happened.



I did reply, but I don't have the article. I am not anymore doing surfing on that, and have run across far more than I now have at hand.

I will post on that when I get a chance.



I meant I'm building here EVEN WITH WHAT I'VE COVERED. But there's more, much more. Which would require more complex demonstrations. This one is fairly easy, to type out. Once you understand electromagnetism, and the HISTORY of Newtonian gravity, and how electromagnetism was finally grafted on, but without accounting for the dynamics of the latter ... a person can see the hypothesis about the Wobble and so on, makes sense.

Is it true there's a PX? Maybe. This would be one way to argue it.



Answered again and again: seemingly it would be still by the Sun, and only visible to satellites ... some of which seem to have been showing it, along with cover-up.

But other than that, I assume you mean: why is it not big and red in the sky? Well, if it's here, it's not HERE CLOSE UP yet.



You seem not to like handling anything about reasoning. So that you can not have to reason openly and carefully in future.




See above. Not all discussion is "where is it"; "I don't see it".

You'd fail to learn something new if you couldn't follow argument AND argument about argumentation.

Having said that, I'm glad it's not visible. It means it might not be in the system.



Hmm. Who's being distracting and illogical? If we cover it, you go back to "I don't see it"!

Maybe you will or maybe you will not. I am working through why we might see it soon.




Read about electromagnetics; read about Newton's inability to predict the 1950s electromagnetic descriptions; and so on.

When you understand that stuff, then you will realize that our mass-gravity law must be conflating gravity and electromagnetic physics.

The problem is conceptual, not algebraic.



Oh how charitable! I have been charitable with your unwillingness and snarkiness. Oh well! :)

Anyway, I submitted that it seemed that the North Star was off centre inappropriately. You pointed out, quite rightly, that the stars sweeping to the left of the seeming Polaris star (the bright one) could be from stars being picked up by the long-time light exposure, which allows invisible stars to show up. These might be stars closer to the Pole, even, than the North Star. If so, and if the scale of the photo were right for your claim, then I was wrong, and the Pole Star was shown correctly.

We still don't know -- but it seems that this piece of evidence might be not anomalous at all.

That is NOT true about the Wobble or the Holes or the Magnetic Pole movement. According to the scientists, those (the last two) are anomalous -- even if they have nothing to do with PX. But all are counterintuitive. And magnetic charge on planets PLUS a current PX -- would account for these things. So they fit the hypothesis.

Not that they have to fit in fact. But they fit the hypothesis. Which is scary, if the hypothesis is in fact true.

This post is getting long. I'm gonna respond to the rest of your questions/comments in a 2nd post. But first ... dinner and laundry ... thank you for asking if I do laundry.

Lol
Clare

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.