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

So Clare is saying if Earth went missing the Moon would stop spinning? Is she serious?

From what I could read out of her babbldyboo she doesn't think the moon is rotating around it's own axis in the first place. But actually her babbling is 95% meaningless goo ... or my english skills are real bad. She (?) obviously is not able to channel her thoughts (if there are any) into a clean sentence.


In a nutshell, isn't she arguing that the rotation of the Moon is caused by its movement around the Earth?

I think that's what Nancy's basic claim is, that the Moon is being 'dragged' around in rotation by the Earth. Nancy states, plainly, that without Earth, "... the Moon wouldn't move at all..." I think that is a fairly accurate quote.

I think that's what Nancy's basic claim is, that the Moon is being 'dragged' around in rotation by the Earth. Nancy states, plainly, that without Earth, "... the Moon wouldn't move at all..." I think that is a fairly accurate quote.

So Nancy basically claims the moon is much like on a rope centrifuged around earth, like the hammer of a hammer thrower, like this ??? :

[link to www.youtube.com]


Or like the retard who came up with the beach ball held by a Zetard a few pages back ?

I haven't seen anyone post so many words and end up with a post that means- nothing...

meaningless word babble

What gets me is that clunk (nice nicename that, very appropriate) seems totally stuck on using words incorrectly, redefining words to mean something else and generally trying very hard to avoid being pinned down on what (if any) meaning she has herself applied instead of either the common or astronomical usage

What gets me is that the only viewpoint that the moon doesnt `spin' is from the earths surface, and that same viewpoint also shows that the sun rotates around the earth!!!

Stand on either of the moons axis points and the starfield clearly rotates
Stand on any point on the moon that receives sunlight and there will be a `sunrise' and `sunset'as the moons rotation causes an apparent rotation of the sun around the moon...

I was able to explain this to an eight year old, and she readily grasped the concept that not only was the moon spinning, but its spin rate had to be the same as its orbital period in order to show the same face to the earth at all times (didn't use words that big, but she readily grasped the concept when shown with a tennis ball and basket ball)
She even grasped the idea that if the moon didn't spin on its axis then it would indeed have a `dark side' and a `light' side (fun games can be had with a torch or table lamp and a basket ball and a tennis ball- we even managed to have an `eclipse' on the basketball/earth)

Learning can be fun clunk- ask your mummy or daddy to try this out with you (but dont touch the lightbulb- it's ouchie burnies hot ok- just like the sun!!!)


so many words and a post that means nothing...

you are right about your own post -
meaningless word babble

Moon does NOT rotate around its own axis. It only rotates in an orbit around the Earth, with its one side always "glued" to Earth.

and this doesnt depend on what words you chose to attach to these things to decribe.

and peer pressure (social/group conformity) often overrides ones own Independent Thinking and Objectivity, and critical thinking.

Rather than further complications about using the same words to talk of different actual motions, on different orders of magnitude (one "turn around its axis" relative to path, the other "turn around its axis" relative to another axis) ...

Let's deal with PX. It's our purpose here.

N'est-ce pas?

:)

Refusing to look into the evidence on PX, no matter who brings it forward, or how unlikely you consider the postulate, is inadequate to actually having done due diligence.

So, is there a PX? Does the Vatican leak show it? Or the round-flare SOHO show it? Or what is going on with the damned magnetosphere -- magnetic fields don't just repel without another source, and NASA says it wasn't the Sun, because that was attracting us and giving more particles than usual, because the breaches from repulsion allowed even more attraction particles in from the Sun.

What is repelling us?



Nope, lets deal with your lack of understanding of lunar rotation before we go on to other subjects.

Serious suggestion: Get a copy of Physics for Dummies and Astronomy for Dummies. Read them until you understand them both. Then we can talk about more advanced topics.


Nope; let's deal with your lack of the difference between lunar rotation spin vs lunar spin around its rotation direction!

Or are you just deliberately being difficult?

And refusing to handle PX ... :)



Clare, you have yet to address ANY of my thought experiments. Why is that?

(Menow-style mercy snip)




On a force level, yes, the pull turns the axis as the momentum directs it straight away.


Excuse me? What "PULL"?
]/quote]


am I getting confuzzled between klunk and nandrew here??

which one does the pull thing again?

you fools

That's quite an accusation from someone who doesn't think that the moon rotates around it's own axis.


why? how can those who believe that Moon rotation is arranges so very carefully to show us only one its side, becalled?

Ok, fools is a bit too harsh, let it be dummies

I'm outta here.

Bye.

Anyway,
on a positive note, I wish you well in spite of it all.
I really do hope you can debunk PX one day fully. It would be nice.

Clare --

So Clare is saying if Earth went missing the Moon would stop spinning? Is she serious?

From what I could read out of her babbldyboo she doesn't think the moon is rotating around it's own axis in the first place. But actually her babbling is 95% meaningless goo ... or my english skills are real bad. She (?) obviously is not able to channel her thoughts (if there are any) into a clean sentence.

It's hard to pick the best Clare comedy moment out of all this, but this bit gets my vote. It's Clare apparently responding to this question:

2) 9th repeat: What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing?

And Clare said:

"1. The Moon would display different motions: it would "spin" off in wider and wider circles ... "around its axis" around a now-moving straight trajectory point instead of around the Earth's trajectory point.

However, these are still circles amounting to orbit ...
which turn an axis, though the total turn can be also called a "spin" but it's not clear that way what is going on."



That has to be the quintessential "Clare" postlet, IMHO. I knew it was worth the effort to get her to answer that Q!

Thanks for the yuks, Clare-bear!

I think Clare is saying that the moon flies on a straight path and the earth's glue is causing it to turn. So it's motion is just forward, not spinning.

Menow, Commentator, Returner and others, I am worried for your own cheese! Cheese will be sliding off crackers right and left! How can it not? Clare won't answer your simple questions because she has her own way of describing things! Look what happened when she did answer them - same old warped, goofy descriptions.

What's being argued here is just semantics. Science uses certain definitions to describe the properties of matter, including celestial bodies. The words are defined in any dictionary. Clare, you are arguing facts which are not even open to debate! And you can't see that? We can all see what the moon is doing. And it's motion is described using certain definitions of words - this is not debatable! Just because you want to use uneducated layman's terms to describe something doesn't change what that something is doing. You are basically arguing against the definitions of words that science is using.

axis - an imaginary line about which a body rotates - not arguable!

rotation - the action of rotating around an axis - not arguable!

orbit - the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet or moon, esp. a periodic, elliptical revolution - not arguable!

revolution - motion in orbit - not arguable!

angular momentum - the quantity of rotation of a body, which is the product of its moment of inertia and its angular velocity - not arguable!

angular velocity - the rate of change of angular position of a rotating body - not arguable!



I enjoyed reading Returner's definitions better, though, much more amusing. It makes it all the funnier knowing the person is joshing and not really thinking that way, so you don't find your mind attempting to wrap itself around unintelligible logic.

Anyway,
on a positive note, I wish you well in spite of it all.
I really do hope you can debunk PX one day fully. It would be nice.

Clare --



How can we start missing you if you don't leave, clunk?

But the Moon would not fly off if the Earth disappeared. It would continue around the Sun.

Thank you. Just popping in. I said many times the semantics were screwing things up, the the egos here refused to work with me as I worked with them in their lack of understanding of which items we were talking of. (The "We" by the way, referred to the conversation in total, back-and forth between us all, that is.)

And as Wikipedia said, the "laymen" include astronomers, who use "rotation, spin, orientation, orbit and revolution" interchangeably for different real motions, which require specifications in addition to these words, just like me.

And no, Menow, I was wrong re. your "Earth disappearance" idea: and should have said re. if the Earth disappeared, it would fly off in a straight line. Sorry, Menow (I think it was) who posed that question and I was miffed and so, like you, got confused what the issue was. Yes, you do, dear! -- too.

So anyway, if Venus similarly flew off, it would be in a straight line away, at some angle relative to the Sun, but Venus would continue to have spin/"revolution",

or as Wikipedia pointed out "rotation" will be also used to talk of this sometimes.

So, what I am talking of is not open to debate, and it was this I was talking of: motion relative to its forward path, which is right now around the Earth instead of straight (as Newton pointed out). And RELATIVE TO ITS FORWARD PATH IT DOES NOT TURN, but rather the path turns it. But at that level, you can say it turns on its axis, too.

:)

And it would be the extra turn which would have to be stopped on the Earth, not merely its forward orbital movement, if PX came near: stop forward (supposedly) and stop daily rotation (pole stop and reorientation) shift.

The Moon would only be stopped on a forward movement of its orbit, THAT turn.

Thanks.

Menow.

People are saying upon analysis that the video looks fake but the photos do not. Also, that witnesses are reporting the photos look like what they saw, but not the video. That perhaps the news agency was pressure to produce a video (as less suspect of doctoring) so doctored a video to do so! I think we should concentrate on an analysis of the still photo(s), thus.

This is wonderful, the guy who made the Canadian Spiral admitted the hoax:

[link to www.theweatherspace.com]

Guess who fell for it:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

[link to poleshift.ning.com]


People are saying upon analysis that the video looks fake but the photos do not. Also, that witnesses are reporting the photos look like what they saw, but not the video. That perhaps the news agency was pressure to produce a video (as less suspect of doctoring) so doctored a video to do so! I think we should concentrate on an analysis of the still photo(s), thus.

So it may have been real, like the Norway spiral, whatever that was.

Regarding the Vatican images i first suggest you link them again, as I have no time to wade through 40 pages back until I find them.
Then your next task would be to prove beyond doubt that the source of the images are really the Vatican Telescope, so far you failed to prove this, you only link to other more than dubious websites like yowusa.com.
After you have proven to us that these images are originated from the Vatican Telescope then it's time for us to debunk them.
Until you have proven that these images are truly by the Vatican Telescope (and not photoshop) discussing them will be a waste of time.

I have read Kepler

Regarding the Vatican images i first suggest you link them again, as I have no time to wade through 40 pages back until I find them.
Then your next task would be to prove beyond doubt that the source of the images are really the Vatican Telescope, so far you failed to prove this, you only link to other more than dubious websites like yowusa.com.
After you have proven to us that these images are originated from the Vatican Telescope then it's time for us to debunk them.
Until you have proven that these images are truly by the Vatican Telescope (and not photoshop) discussing them will be a waste of time.


I linked to them -- and others wouldn't re-link for me on other things. So why should I? :)

I'll do so later, though. Off to the movie about Tony Blair's treason with Bush, cloaked in a fiction form: "Ghostwriter".

Re. MY proving it: they make claims. You test it. I wanted your opinions.

I want to know: CAN they be from the Vatican -- their own telescope, or a satellite they share with NASA?

And the magnetosphere ... what's up with that? Repulsion while the Sun attracted it. Hm.

And those Bad Astronomy claims about the SOHO images ... could they be right? So far, no comparable "flares" have been presented, except from comparable photos since PX was supposedly already possibly here.