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

She doesn't want to repeat!!!

No irony meter yet created or even conceived could withstand the onslaught from that statement!

BWWWAAAAAAAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAAAAAA..A..A.A..A.A..!!!!!

I asked you when you first brought this thing up if you had checked all the historical data. Funny, you never answered. Why are you claiming an anomaly if you haven't even checked to see if it's unusual? You just looked at the chart and said.. "hmm... that can't be right..." and RAN with it, oh mighty-and-thorough-beyond-the-rest seeker of TRUTH???

You rambled on for PAGES about it without looking at the records!

GAWD!

OK, let's start there. On this point, I agree.

Now...

At some point in the future, the earth will become tidally locked to the sun, as Mercury is now. That means that the earth, spinning at a rate of once every 24 hours now, will gradually slow to a rate of once every 8760 hours, so that one side will always be in sunlight and one side in darkness.

When it slows to one rotation every 240 hours, is it still spinning? Yes or no? (Remember your statement: The Earth does BOTH: it spins on its axis relative to the forward motion around the Sun AND draws a circle of total forward axial momentum.)


When it slows to one rotation every 2400 hours, is it still spinning? Yes or no? (Remember your statement: The Earth does BOTH: it spins on its axis relative to the forward motion around the Sun AND draws a circle of total forward axial momentum.)


When it slows to one rotation every 8760 hours, is it still spinning? Yes or no? (Remember your statement: The Earth does BOTH: it spins on its axis relative to the forward motion around the Sun AND draws a circle of total forward axial momentum.)

If your answer to this last question is NO, then, when exactly did it STOP spinning?

She did the same thing with the story about the loss of one of Jupiter's belt. Can you say AGENDA?

Wrong. We already went through this. If you stop the moon along its orbit around Earth, we would then see all sides of the Moon each 29 days.

Could it actually be Nancy? Sure acts like her, with the voluminous output and getting nasty when cornered.

I fully expect some of "Clares" 'explanations' to end up on Nancy's pages or the ning.

Jupiter, 1973 -

Thanks for the discussion Clare. Actually, it’s nice to have actual debate instead of someone just posting photos that say “SOON” or “Zeta’s right again!”. Actually, I respect the fact that you actually made the attempt of explaining why you believe the things you do. When it comes to supporting Nancy's claims, this is somewhat of a rarity.

Cheers

Before you run away in stark terror, how about you answer my question?

Does the Moon rotate on its axis, a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Why do you avoid such simple questions?

Wow...just wow. That's all I can say about Calre and her willfully ignorant rantings. I had high hopes that she would be one bunker who might actually be up for the debate, but she's shown today that she lacks the basic knowledge of science and astronomy to make sense of it. Her mentions of "relativity" are comical, at best.

Good point. It will be interesting to see how Clare answers these questions...IF she does.

It would be ssoooooooo much like Nancy to take a term most people had vaguely heard of in passing and redefine it to suit.

Just sayin'

And to misunderstand it while criticising those who DO understand it. Like her little edisode with "Right Ascension" and saying RA stood for "right angle"!

None of us can count the number of times Nancy has been oblivious to pertinent facts and attacked those who try to explain them to her.

She won't answer this.

Then her silence will tell us what we already know.

I've been following this thread for awhile, quite amusing it is!







But these last few pages . . . I have never, ever, ever seen anyone make as big a fool of themselves as you have, Clare. What the hell is the matter with you? You have been using big words to explain your view while it's obvious you have assigned your own meaning to those words. And using the word "DUH" when you're wrong! For heaven's sake! Do you have any idea how you come across to intelligent, unbiased people on here? And sticking up for Nancy's belligerent attitude - you obviously didn't see her post to someone on what I believe was her Venus thread. She said "the shit you smell is your own because you have your head up your ass!" I think it has since been deleted but I saw it with my own eyes. This was total loss of control. People who are intelligent and know they are right do not lose control when challenged. They don't lose it because they know the correct facts will stand.

I expect you would make an excellent politician since you can ramble on and on and not really say anything. Most of your points didn't make sense at all. Perhaps if one was on LSD they may have warranted further contemplation. This whole thing about the moon, you were basically just arguing on and on that it didn't "spin" relative to the Earth. Well . . . DUH!!! And yeah, you had a taunting, condescending way of putting forth your incorrect points - I can see how the irony meter would not be able to register this high. The only thing I can conclude is that your cheese has slid off your cracker. Help get.

"...your cheese has slid off your cracker..."

Heh.

Well put. I had high hopes that Clare would be different, but alas, it is not to be.

Paper available here:

[link to arxiv.org]

Hello.

I have finally gotten a chance to go BACK into these posts.

Your .gif here still shows that the moon orbits around ANOTHER FIXED POINT.

You have confused this total rotation with its axis always pointing in direction of motion, and happening to complete a circle instead of some other figure or straight line, with actual SPIN relative to its rotation, which would remain even if it were not moving forward.

.........................

The only reason that the astronomers say it rotates around its own axis (as if it were rotating around its proper axis if all other forward motion were stopped) is that its circular motion, geometrically speaking around the exact center of the circle it makes around the Earth (though technically around the barycenter in mass terms), is stretched out along the forward orbit of the Earth-Moon system as it orbits the Sun.

In that visible motion, its continual motion, properly described as orbiting the Earth (barycenter), does, over the trail of space, turn the Moon relative to the Sun, in a form which goes around its axis, to the view from the top or side.

However, it is its axis itself moving forward in a constant turn of a PATH, facing forward on the PATH as it twists, which gives this second sense of "spinning" over space.

It is you who have conflated the two motions, equivocating the term "spinning on its axis", as do many astronomers who are not theoretical geometers who make these distinctions.

THUS:
If the forward-curve motion around the Earth's barycentre, also combined with the forward movement OF that barycentre along the orbit around the Sun WERE STOPPED, the Moon would exibit no self-referential ("proper") spin on its axis.

In this sense it does not spin on its axis as does the Earth.

But its constant face to the Earth, pulled out over space as the Earth moves in relation to the Sun does create a total turn in space relative to a straight line through its axis, and in this sense, its "wobble in space" (its circular orbit of the Earth over the forward orbit BY the Earth and it relative to the Sun) also involves a turning total by the Moon around its axis, if we imagine it fixed,
inaccurately.

But if it really WERE fixed relative to a fixed Earth (as your .gif shows) and relative to the Sun (which your .gif assumes, for the sake of clarity), then the Moon would not be spinning.

If so, as in your .gif, it would be rotating relative to its OWN forward motion relative to the Earth.

The latter is what you see if you image the Earth moving around the Sun.

Do you see that here? Of course you don't.

So take out the movement over the orbit by the Earth-Moon system around the Sun, you get this image of a circular motion (per your .gif, which has already eliminated the only way the Moon seems to orbit around its axis).

So, again, taking out the forward movement of the whole system, you get your image here.

In the image here it is clear that that little Moon is technically understood to complete a rotation which re-orients it "around its original position, centred on its axis".

But spin, proper, is without rotation forward.

Thus, as I said:
You have confused this total rotation with its axis always pointing in direction of motion, and happening to complete a circle instead of some other figure or straight line, with actual SPIN relative to its rotation, which would remain even if it were not moving forward.

Yours are.

If the Moon ROTATES completing a spin around ANOTHER axis (which is what it does), it is not considered to spin around its own.

You guys misunderstand the astronomers' claim, and put it on the simple example which shows the OPPOSITE of what you say. We DRAW it showing which side has faced the Sun, in this case, and can say it points its body in different respects. But a spin relative to itself would show different faces also to the inside of the circle.

And the astronomers' own reason for commenting that it goes around its own axis REFERS TO SOMETHING ELSE, which they also are not technically right in saying but it works: which is that as it goes around the Sun in the Earth-Moon system, both the Earth's axis (and barymetric centre) and the Moon's axis RELATIVE TO IT NOT ITSELF, properly speaking, move along, forward. In doing so, they complete the orbit but the Moon will be seen to turn (not, properly spin) around its axis over time in our perception.

But its ACTUAL motion is following a turn, with the same face always to the point (the barymetric centre of the Earth), and thus the same face "forward" in its own relative motion. Not spinning relative to its own system.

It's complicated, but that's the component parts of the analysis.

Unfortunately, I do know what I'm talking of here, and what the astronomers are naming (albeit geometrically technically inaccurate, but perceptually true, so an equivocated term), and what you guys have misapplied to even the simpler version than they were talking of -- where it's clear there is no spin on its axis, but a total movement which re-orients it relative to its axis.

Its spin is around the Earth, not itself (anything else is FORWARD AND CONSISTENT ROTATION RE-ORIENTATION), which you see here in the .gif of DrPostman; but again, over the total orbit when that barumetric centre of Earth moves forward around the Sun, there is the perception, of which the astronomers are speaking, which shows something closer to a "spin," but it's a pull-drag rotation actually.

Now, draw it out over space in the orbit around the Sun and you'll see it "spin" but it's actually always moving relative to the direction of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, so it's still rotation TECHNICALLY speaking, not self-referential ("proper" to itself) spin.

The astronomers named the latter effect over the total movement around the Sun technically inaccurately, but perceptually accurately; but you guys have gone so far as to apply it to the diagrams which show the actual motions more clearly!

Look again. Does that little Moon turn relative to its track? No. It only follows the track.

THANK YOU THANK YOU.

Good!

So, we have to deal with, then, the images from SOHO properly and the Vatican and the negative holes in the magnetosphere, just to be thorough.

Am wending my way back in these pages looking for the Chandler Wobble stuff. I hear that it has occurred before, this backward motion/stop point/resume.

I ASSUMED nothing; I hypothesized and said it needed testing, re. what does that telescope do, and whatnot.

Which is now solved -- beyond the nice-sounding but not-bedrock claim that someone's claim they hoaxed something is absolute proof they did.

Okay! Found the links for the CW stuff. (No help from you guys to do so.)

They were way back.

Anyway, yes, I'd seen those articles.

Okay, the "phase jump of 180 degrees", does anybody know if that means the graph of the forward movement?

Also, note the 1973 oddities did not go backward ... they paused more and this would (on a top-polar-view drawing) show a "stoppage" look, but not a backward motion AND then re-start.

Also note, they had only 1850 to compare it to.

So, what could do this -- barring "weather" a surface phenom. and almost certainly a dum-dum off-the-cuff answer from a flummoxed scientist ...

Also the French site [link to hpiers.obspm.fr] doesn't have a searchable graph-drawer for past years. They give raw data streams but I don't have the knowledge to interpret those. Does anyone have the expertise to link to one that's relevant on there, or to convert it into a map-picture to compare what it looked like? You could do 1850, 1920 and 1973 and 2005-2006 ...

Was Michael Mandeville's backward motion accurate?
Is this what the phase jump is?
How come the responders to the Rense article didn't put comparative map-pictures of their graphs up?

Yes, 1973 had wilder pauses and forward motions ... but in 2005 it went backward and didn't loop and went forward, as if starting and stopping. (Is this what the phase jump means, by the way?)

Intrigued,
and yes, I'd looked through this, but am not sure what some of the graphs indicate. [link to www.huttoncommentaries.com]

I think I have it right -- that the 1973 and 2005 info graphs don't show backward movement for at least 1973 ... whereas the Mandeville images show not mere pause or sinusoidal movement, but backward movement. Is that shown in the 2005 graph at all -- in the "dip" to the right after it "caps"? And I note that I think the biggest dip was in early 2006, where this graph *cuts off*.

Does that not show up on the kind of graph they show here?

Or where is it?

Tired.
Have a good night.

Me (Clare)

Oh, and I'm re-posting those links so they're available more easily again.
[link to www.physorg.com]
[link to www.huttoncommentaries.com]

The fools are the other way if you don't understand HOW the Moon's movement WORKS, and why ROTATION around another axis (which will create a perceived total orientation spin) is different than spin ON its own axis, relative to self-same physically, when all forward motion is stopped.

Its axis moves forward at an angle, adding up to a rotation through its axis. But if it were spinning on its axis it would do so, forward movement or not.

The reason the astronomers claim it is, is not from these models, but from the models as it moves forward (again relative to the Earth's forward axis-movement relative to the Sun). In this long-drawn progression, the Moon DOES indeed seem to SPIN more relative to its axis. But it's really dragged by the axial forward movement in a consistent direction. This is geometricl ROTATION around a fixed point, not SPIN relative to its proper self. The former looks like "spin" if you draw it in the same place. But the latter looks like spin no matter what you draw it like.

Check it out.
Get clear, Yoda, so you can be with the force!
:)
To use your image.

But seriously, work it out and clear yourself of equivocated concepts and words.

Yes, thank you.
I never ignored it; are you a jerk or something, really? I had hoped more people here would read people's (including my) explanations for what they're doing and where they're at. I HAD NO TIME TO GO LOOKING. Do you get that?

I have now been 1.5 hours on here, looking and posting and looking, and sifting.

So yes, I looked.

I remember 2 months ago seeing this, but the phase jumps on the graphs of how forward the movements were, didn't seem to reflect the backward motion.

Where do they actually show it? The graphs show a capping, a slowing ... but where is that backward issue? Would it show on these phase maps? Is it the dip in the one on the [link to www.huttoncommentaries.com] ?

And if so, note it cuts off too, right when it got worse in backward movement?

So I'd love to see that full article at [link to arxiv.org]

Oh and Menow can eat crow on the aspect of this is "small" and "unnoteworthy" etc. Clearly, it was not: [link to arxiv.org]

But anyway, what shows the backward movement? Those dips in the chart above?

I wish people would draw out the different maps from the different years so we could see what KINDS of unusual activity -- anomalous but not unprecedented -- these were, each. Were they all the same? Were some slowings but this was backwards?

We need to know comparatively to know if it's the same thing this time.

That would test to bedrock.

Anybody know?

Good night. (Really -- in spite of your impressions spewing at me),
Clare

You're talking about variations in what is an infinitesimal wobble relative to the aberrations alleged by Nancy Lieder.

In the context of the overall discussion it really is "small and unnoteworthy."

Final for anyone on Moon spin:

1. spin relating to its static OR own movement forward (real proper spin)
2. rotation around another point (your confusion) which completes a complete re-orientation through the axis
3. the final relativity/perceptual complexity of forward motion around the Earth while also rotating around another point -- e.g. the Sun -- thus seeming like real spin (the astronomers' misnomer):

Spin relative to rotation is "spin on an axis" in the strict sense. This means without trajectory or with trajectory. The Earth has this. The Moon does not.

Rotation around its axis, which can be collapsed and drawn as "spin" is a different and conflated concept.

To its own trajectory, it always faces forward.
And over the movement of the whole system forward (the Earth-Moon) around the Sun indeed it looks like a spin, not a turn, which is what the astronomers were technically misnaming as spin when it's rotation looking like spin then -- but you aren't even there, since you're quibbling over when the Earth is depicted stationary (except barycentre). And in THAT model, you can clearly see its face is always forward on its path, just turning on the path 180 degrees through the axis orientation. But if you stop the movement forward on the circle, there's self-referenced spin.

Get it?

Final for anyone on Moon spin:

1. spin relating to its static OR own movement forward (real proper spin)
2. rotation around another point (your confusion) which completes a complete re-orientation through the axis
3. the final relativity/perceptual complexity of forward motion around the Earth while also rotating around another point -- e.g. the Sun -- thus seeming like real spin (the astronomers' misnomer):

Spin relative to rotation is "spin on an axis" in the strict sense. This means without trajectory or with trajectory. The Earth has this. The Moon does not.

Rotation around its axis, which can be collapsed and drawn as "spin" is a different and conflated concept.

To its own trajectory, it always faces forward.
And over the movement of the whole system forward (the Earth-Moon) around the Sun indeed it looks like a spin, not a turn, which is what the astronomers were technically misnaming as spin when it's rotation looking like spin then -- but you aren't even there, since you're quibbling over when the Earth is depicted stationary (except barycentre). And in THAT model, you can clearly see its face is always forward on its path, just turning on the path 180 degrees through the axis orientation. But if you stop the movement forward on the circle, there's self-referenced spin.

Get it?