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

Clare, what motions would the moon exibit if Earth suddenly went missing?

Now, Clare, must control ourselves, please.




One last weave and...



At LAST.

So, your definition of the spin of the Moon depends on an EARTH-centric view, then. You would claim a planet tidally locked to a star does not spin. You would claim a car going around a 360 degree track does not spin, despite the driver looking at all points of the compass as he goes around the track, despite the nose of the car pointing at all cardinal directions, that the car does not spin, it just turns.

Is that correct? Want to make absolutely sure I am understanding you.

Oh... you actually offered an answer. I'll respond....

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



I didn't say that something "knocked the Earth away", Clare.



You didn't answer the question, Clare. Let's try again:

Clare, what motions would the moon exibit if Earth suddenly went missing?

Sorry, Menow, didn't mean to interrupt.

Clare, I am curious as to your answers to Menow as well, for what that is worth.

How can you correct someone else on language usage when you keep repeating the SAME error about rotation and revolution after having been corrected on it at leasy half a dozen times?

It's funny, because I even made a simple post that said "I've noticed that many of the posts on this thread have been deleted. What is happening?"

A true statement..no debunking..not rude..and an honest question and still it was deleted. She obviously did not want anyone to know she was deleting ANYTHING that wasn't praise.

"where r is the particle's position from the origin, p = mv is its linear momentum, and × denotes the cross product."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

But just geometrically this means:

We only need to see the directions to understand where "spin on an axis" can get confused in your minds.

You are picturing the effect of the rotation; I am talking of if there's rotation relative to its immediate direction (i.e., relative to the Earth, having already eliminated other bodies -- there it will seem to spin, but it is not properly understood that way).

In relation to its immediate direction, there is no extra angular shift. Hence, over the total path, no spin in its own right. It spins around the Earth, and the total angular shift is a "spin around its axis" in only the loose sense of a secondary phenomenon which you can model: the angle-shift along its axial path forward.

If it spun truly, properly speaking, then around the Earth (its relative spin-point) it would show different faces.

It would take more of a turn than its path indicates.



Idiot.

I said reducing all other motions to static and CONSIDERING only the motion of the Earth-Moon around themselves (no motion around the Sun) or even better, imagining the Moon stopped relative to the Earth, you would NOT SEE THE MOON STILL SPINNING.

Venus, you would, if you imagined it not moving forward on its immediate path.

You can't be so confused yourself; you must be trying to confuse others.



Of course it is. (Said so many times, duh.)

Its actual rotation is round the barycentre as an axis, not its own.

But since its axis turns as it goes forward, you could call this turn "spinning on its axis" if you remember what you are talking of: forward motion relative to the Earth.

Since it always faces forward relative to the next point it gets to in its orbit of the Earth, it does not have proper spin on its axis, all things (including its axial movement in orbit) otherwise being static for the moment.

So, it does not give off more direction than its path needs, along its orbit.

I will leave any more meaningless gobbledygook from you as though it were never said.

***For others:

RELATIVE TO ITS PATH, AT ANY GIVEN POINT, IT TURNS ONLY SO MUCH AS THE PATH TURNS, NO MORE. Hence, no spin relative to itself, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING STATIC.***

Anybody done any work on the SOHO images, Vatican purported leaks, and the magnetosphere repulsion (with attraction) when repulsion was at the wrong times of the year two years in a row?

These would be interesting to discuss -- back to PX and whether it's here somewhere.

Yeah, I know you read my post, Nancy. I read your reply.

See, usually I get into it. Sometimes I write long-ass posts. I make it a point to never post anything I can't back up. I try to only bring up things I'm reasonably well-versed in. I don't call names. I don't shit-talk. I think I've got a reasonably good reputation as a poster who can hold his own in a debate.

But to me you're just Marshall Applewhite with a different colored-pair of Nikes.

Nancy.

You didn't misunderstand. It is calld PROPER (self-referential) motion and it is what is referred to as "spin on an axis" unless we are graphing other motions which ADD UP TO spin over time with other motions.

If you count forward movement, and graph that, the circle can be collapsed in your mind to one point and you see the Moon "rotate on its axis" 180 degrees.

Or if you see it over space in its orbit around the Sun, it will do "bobs and wiggles" in a sine wave, while "turning on its axis". This is not however proper motion, or it would be turning many more times and NOT JUST IN RELATION TO THE EARTH and the FORWARD MOTION OF THE E-M SYSTEM either.

Graphing the rotational turn completion of the Moon around the Earth in one image will show a "turn on its axis", as will graphing the rotational turn plus forward motion of its axial determinant (the barycentre) in orbit around the Sun.

These are all levels of understanding -- or lack thereof -- but ONLY understanding what the Moon does if all other axial relative motions (its own also in relation back) are eliminated.

If so, we can understand that the Moon does not demonstrate spin on its axis, properly speaking.

But it's easiest to see if you go one level up, to just the Earth-Moon situation of the orbit of the Moon, and if you see no turn relative to its next point in the path OTHER than a turn in the path, it is not rotating as "spin" proper on its axis.

As to your interrupting, no problem.

But as to being nicey with Menow, who is deliberately being nasty AND unclear ...

I refuse to acquiesce. At least mine was funny, no?! LOL.

Clare

Because I was nice, you are nasty. Can't admit you're wrong and mean (at least being so -- and not admitting -- at this point in your life), can you?

Okay, Sinatra.
I get you, Sinatra.

I can play these nasty games with you guys. Clearly I don't choose to if I can avoid it and would prefer otherwise, but you pick them out of all options. You pick fights: "I'm not listening", "you're a ..." whatever. How's that workin' for ya, outside of this?

Or do you even know really what it's like to go for a LONG time with patience and kindness?

At least I try. :)
I really don't min if you ever want to. I won't be nasty if you do. (Even if you would, or whatever.)

Yes.

When has Nancy ever admitted she's wrong? I've never seen her do it. On the many time she's been wrong she always blames it on someone or something else (the "Zetas") or making excuses. Hell, when confronted with the fact that she was wrong about what RA and DEC meant, she blamed it on the "Zetas" and the chip they placed in her head saying she sometimes looses something in translation.

For that matter, is there even the slightest evidence, other than the unsupported claim from LIEDer, that this chip exists?

Nope. Nor is there any evidence that the "Zetas" even exist. The one time she agreed to prove she was in contact with them, she was given a fairly easy math problem to solve and instead went on a rant about how the "Zetas" wouldn't answer the question because Nancy could (again) loose something in translation.

I think you're right about Nancy, though I'm not sure b/c I don't know her site in detail enough over time of all excuses.

I admitted I was wrong about the photo of the Pole Star(though the scale hasn't been known yet, for absolute certainty); and I admitted the SPT images by Nibirushock were faked, because the imaging from the real telescope wouldn't produce that type of image.

Fyi.
:)
Clare

However a wealth of data strongly suggestive that LIEDer is either mentally ill, or conducting a really bad scam abound, yet there are still people in the world so lacking in mental ability that they buy into her story which one wonder if their parents were not mating with vegetables.

I don't believe she's mentally ill. She probably really believes what she says.

Just like her 1,500 true believers.

I find it amazing that so many people can suspend disbelief and swallow such a load of horse shit without once thinking - "hey, this doesn't sound righ't".

It's my belief that people like her true believers are shallow individuals who have very thin social contact with the rest of the world. It's almost as if they are members of a cult and the only things they believe are those given from on high from their priestess (wait a minute, zetatalk is a cult!). All outside influences that counter their beliefs are shunned and those who don't believe are apostate.

Makes you wonder how mentally balanced they all are - they probably can't deal with anything that jostles their beliefs - it's all la-la-la to any evidence that counters their high priestess.

It will all be interesting once 2012 rolls around and even more interesting to see what happens when Nancy leaves this earthly existence. I wouldn't be surprised if Nancy passes that the true believers believe that the zetas took Nancy with them (shades of Applewhite).

Rotates around the Earth('s barycentre between it and the Moon), which is a path.

But relative to that path, it does not.

It turns on the path always with the same face.

Thus, if the rotation on the path relative to another axis stopped in our understanding, the Moon would show no spin.

Whereas if we stopped the rotational movement of Venus in our understanding, Venus would still show spin.

Venus makes more of a turn for every path-turn (rotation) it makes.

Your thoughts and the equivocal names are confusing ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, or if you will, relative motions.

Stop the forward motion around the Earth, or for that matter the bigger motion around the Sun, and the impression of rotation around its own axis would stop. Not true of Venus.

For understanding, we must draw these distinctions.

Any Moon pictures which show the Moon in place, rotating around itself, are diagramming (in your mind or in the original top-right-hand image of the .gif some days ago, with the red dot indicating where the Moon is rotated to) are in relation to the Sun, conflating the overall forward circle with a spin on the spot (if you eliminate other orders of magnitude, i.e., movements).

Not so hard, really.
But you are naming the total turn over space in relation to another axis, whereas I (and Nancy) were naming the movement PROPER (self-referenced), with no other movements to confuse in relative orientation.

IF IT MOVES IN RELATION TO ITS OWN AXIAL FORWARD MOVEMENT, IT IS A PROPER (SELF-SAME) MOVEMENT. Anything else is calling a total orientation over a moving axis-path, a rotation relative to its axis. Conflating different concepts. But it does get represented that way, ON THAT LAGER ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.

Properly, it's a rotation about another axis, with its axis moving forward and one face always facing its movement. No *proper-motion* spin/rotation about its axis.

1500 true believers? Try 15, or less.

Where did you come up with that number?

Note, i don't disagree with your points, just your number for the followers.

So is this debunker victory day?

Well ... I for one am very pleased ... Nancy will still be a mod though and continue to ban people that disagree with her ... hse deleted many posts today on her thread ... she will also post a pinned link to the ning every saturday ... I guess the final victory over Nancy will be won by nature (no sinister wishes here, just logic and reality ... at her age she has to be ready to enter 4th density ... but until then she will continue her circus).

That sentence means no such thing.



Balderdash.

I asked you if you know what angular momentum is. You clearly do not.




Direction of motion of an object has NOTHING to do with its rotation, Clare.



Hence NOTHING, Clare!

Direction of motion of an object has NOTHING to do with its rotation!!




Funny how you sniped the sentence of your to which I was replying. I replied to exactly what you said, Clare.



Again, you delete YOUR foolish statement, to which I was replying.



It's both, Clare.



I makes no differece whatsoever, what other motions the Moon is experiencing.



This is YOUR made-up difinition of 'proper spin'. I challenge you to find ONE reference for it. JUST ONE!



Meaningless gobbldygook.



Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?

Excuse me? What in the flying fuck is 'self-referential' motion????????????????

NOTHING is in motion relative to itself, Clare.

Well, I see that Clare has ignored 90% of the points made to her in discussion. Let's whittle it down a bit to two questions.

1)Clare... You DID finally claim to know what angular momentum is. So, moving on from that... does the Moon, as a massive spherical body, possess any angular momentum?


2) 7th repeat: What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing?

Sounds like Nancy coming up new phrases and definitions. Self referential motion only gets 24 google hits and none has anything to do with motion of a moon or planet.

Ohh.... I asked you this already, but you ignored it.

What if the Moon was rotating at exactly the same rate as it is now, but in the opposit direction? Would it THEN be rotating 'on its own axis'? Why or why not?

I already defined this.

It means eliminate all referential motions of axes. When I did so, you laughed at the idea of "fixed points". But it is a definitional problem of fixed points relative to each other. If all centre points of bodies are fixed, the Moon does not spin.

All this means is in order to define types of movement more than conflated terms can: when you remove the E-M movement around the Sun AND the forward movement of the Moon around the Earth always to face it, there is no turn of the Moon.

A simpler way to know this is: there is no ADDITIONAL turn of the Moon for every movement forward and to the right on its path. Thus, you are describing total roataion orientation around another axis (the barycentre), and picturing it relative to the Moon's axis.

With picturing no movement around Sun, no movement around Earth, the Moon's turn disappears. Not true of Venus.

All other levels of information are illusions, but definable illusions: so, the rotation around the barycentre by the Moon around the Earth, is a foward motion of the Moon.

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

In this, you can see that the 180-degree "rotation of the Moon", around its axis, is a trick of how we image it. We are imaging a total turn in space, centred through its axis. Thus, every turn it makes, it faces the new direction of the turn. Like a train on a circular track.

But if the train were hit on one end, and fixed enough not to fly off the track (some special pin, for instance, in a train set), this would be proper motion spin.

It would show a slightly different face toward its new point along the track as it moved forward on the track.

Or let's say a car is hit and spins along a circular racetrack road, forward and on its axis properly. If it completes the whole racetrack and doesn't fly off, then you have two definable motions: the 180 degree turn using its axis, going around the racetrack, and the spin around it, definable even if all other motion stopped.

A) How come this is so hard for you to see, enough to ...
B) Define the difference, enough to ...
C) Understand why the different models can all talk of axes and rotation without talking of the same thing?

You either are deiberately obfuscating or you're refusing to make clear distinctions as they are clarified.

It would still be only able to be called "rotating on its axis" through the conflation of the idea of rotating around another axis, with the total turn made RELATIVE to its axis.

But its axis would still be facing the same direction wherever it moved around the rotation circle: this time in the other direction in the sky.

If it were rotating on its own axis the way that is describable as a different level of understanding, then backward OR forwards, it would show different faces, as Venus does to the Sun.

You are conflating two movements but the same verbal phrases for each. That's all. It's common. The only way to clarify is through models which show what happens when you eliminate axial relative movements, and then to specifically describe these with more careful language.

<shaking head>

I am trying to express in language what is better seen in your own models as specific differences in types of motion.

Axes moving? Then turns occur around each other, and you can say motion occurs around an axis outside the object, and say it moved in rotation around its axis.

Axes understood more radically, with all forward axial movement eliminated (Galaxy, Sun, Earth-Moon), you will see no turns of the Moon left.

You would, with Venus.

It makes MORE of a turn for every forward movement of its axis (your "turn on its axis"). The Moon makes ONLY the axial forward movement related to its path.

Car on a racetrack circle (or ellipse, etc.)? The car "turns on its axis" around another axis -- the centre of the racetrack circle. But hit it into a spin while constraining it so it still turns around the centre of the racetrack, then you have Venus's movement and NOT the Moon's action. Then, you could stop its axis from going forward, in your understanding, and you'd still not have eliminated its proper spin in definition.

There are two orders of "spin" and axial relations here.

Same face to the place of axis it rotates AROUND external to it? Not self-proper spin. Rather, rotation representable as an axial change relative to the external point, but as it moves forward.

If there's no movement forward, then sure, the physical body around the axis is still moving relative to other points, but the axes are fixed, in order to see this and see the difference.