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

I meant in 1969, when supposedly they went around the Moon.

But anyway, the point is, in this journey, they would have transited behind the Dark Side, from our view. [link to www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk]

Nasties.

I used the phrase "sine wave" long ago, and pointed out HOW IT SHOWS THE MOON AND EARTH FROM THE SUN'S point of view.

When all of you missed the difference and what people mean normally when using the terms I used. You got all confused on what viewpoints we were talking of, back and forth, and couldn't distinguish the path of rotation creating a "spin" on the axis, as differentiated from the spin (revolution) on an axis relative to the orbit's direction!

So, who's the "scientificated" here?

By the way, I assume you guys won't have the decncey, unlike some others, simply to say, Oh I see what you meant and yes, you knew the movements all along and we merely confused all the terms and Nancy DID get that right, though she still doesn't know about the fact that the Moon ORBITS (dosn't merely stay over one spot of the Earth).

Anyway, enough on the Sun, Moon, Earth and rotation. And calling ME stupid; I pointed out all relevant issues long ago, INCLUDING relative viewpoints (which actually confused some of you as some people threw in viewpoint issues as if they were real issues, and I kept trying to clarify the difference, but the thread's nastiness often clouded the issues).

My only main error was that first I used terms interchangeably, but many people do who also understand the movements, and which is obvious from their other descriptive words.

Other errors I have admitted. Have you? Such as misunderstanding the difference between "spin" on an axis from rotation (orbital orientation) and "spin" on an axis relative TO its orbital orientation, which is technicaly speaking, "revolution" or "diurnal motion".

No. I hear no ah-has! She's not stupid! She got it all along.

Yikes.

"www.whatever.com"

Nancy's claim is that the Moon DOES NOT ROTATE. I, nor anyone here knows wtf your point is, if it is different than that.



How is that different than saying one side of the Moon always faces Earth?

After all the meaningless crapola you have posted, you are going to pick out ONE sentence from a post of mine and tell me it means I AGREE with you??



See above. I have repeated this to you about a dozen times: NO ONE is claiming that the Moon rotates relative to a reference frame where the Moon doesn't rotate. Why you think it is a different statement this time is beyond me.



Why would we want to introduce terms used by people who don't know the correct term?



An orbit is always 'around' something, Clare. You haven't introduced an novel concept, there.



You're REACHING again. What rotation of a body in space is NOT "around its axis"?



Wrong. There is NO SENSE in which the Moon doesn't rotate ON ITS AXIS.



The Moon doesn't rotate in a frame of reference where the Moon doesn't rotate. Got it!

The Moon doesn't 'accomodate' any new orbital direction. It simply spins ON ITS AXIS at the same rate at which it orbits. Period.

I don't care what your alleged point was. I asked you to consider a thought-situation. Since you have avoided all the others, I suppose you will avoid this one too.

I have told you this before. Nancy claims that Newton doesn't fully explain the Lunar orbit, so she most CERTAINLY knows that the Moon HAS AN ORBIT AROUND EARTH!

You don't even KNOW what Nancy's claims are!

So are YOU claiming that the Moon has no diurnal rotation?

Relative to the EARTH, yes.

I thought she said it didn't rotate around Earth.

Maybe I don't remember that right.

Clearly I'm NOT Nancy! LOL!

Anyway, I know she talks of its not spinning on its axis (no diurnal rotation towards Earth), and this is true.

It does rotate on its axis around Earth, and shows therefore different faces to the Sun. This is what you mean, and I always agreed with that.

The night has come. I'm going to bed.
Good night, Menow. Hope you sleep well, wherever and whoever you are (in the sense of not knowing you personally, i.e., face to face).

By the way, not that I think you WILL, but since you sometimes DO misinterpret me, and you do have a nasty side quite strongly, I want to say that I was not being snarky, but was trying to be nice there.

Good night. :)

Right...WE missed something... right

You got all confused


Right... WE got confused... right.



Right... YOU pointed out... right.



Right... WE were confused... right.



Right... YOU were clarifying... right.




Right... WE clouded the issues... right.



Here is no such thing as: "spin from orbital orientation", you hopeless maker-up-of-meaningless-terms.

You are about the most self-centered, willfully ignorant, narcissistic individual we have ever entertained here, and that is saying a lot.

As I said, relative to the EARTH, which is the relevant frame of reference in order to compare the Earth's own motion relative to the Sun, or for that matter, any orbital body relative to what it orbits.

The point was, Nancy was claiming the Earth has stopped in its orbit AND will eventually stop in its diurnal activity.

The Moon would only need to be stopped in its orbit of the Earth and Sun (with the Earth stopping) not also stop an axial spin (diurnal rotation) relative to Earth ... in addition to forward rotation.

'Nightie.

The term "diurnal" has nothing to do with Earth. Earth could not have ever existed and my question would still stand. For you to make that meaningless distinction, means you are simply blathering.

Nancy is babbling FOOL and so are you! Go to the moon and stay there!

"Towards Earth" renders your sentence meaningless.



"Around Earth" renders your sentence meaningless.



I don't mean any such thing.



Being nice is fine. It doesn't change the fact that you havn't the slightest clue what you are talking about, eyt don't have the slightest clue how clueless you are.

thats for McClarek!



Menow, you are on point, amazing you can stand the length and absurdity of this drivel!

We weren't comparing that, so why would you insert it here?



Rotation has nothing to do with what a body orbits.



The point WAS?! No point about that has been mentioned. If you want to attempt to support Nancy's claim that Earth is halted in orbit, go right ahead.




"Need to"??? WTF did ANY of that mean?

Admit it. You're simply trolling.

So you're claiming that because Earth has a diurnal rotation of about 365 turns during each of its orbits, and the Moon only has one, that therefor the Moon has NO diurnal rotation?

That is the only sense I can make out of your comparison.

Oh! Love the made-up "maker-up-of-meaningless-terms"! Very good!

Very Shakespearean, actually.

I have used YOUR terms for it AND used common parlance. I have described in various ways what PHYSICAL issues I am distinguishing. The distinguishing remains, even if I didn't use astronomical tech. terms, as long as I remained within common parlance and explained the distinguishing relations properly: which points we consider fixed in order to see the differences between orders of magnitude of distinction.

As to my supposed "self-centered, willfully ignorant, narcissistic individual" perhaps it's just that

a) SOME of you are so like that that you can't take someone who DOES know MOST of what she's talking of,

b) challenges your sense of layman vs. technical terms (which means you have to be charitable, not your strong suit, SOME of you),

c) isn't a fanatic PX believer, so challenges the fullness of your debunking,

d) knows more than you about the testable hypothetical method: how an hypothesis needs to be BUILT, charitably (again, not your strong suit, SOME of you), in order for you to know what links MIGHT lead to the hypothesis' viability ... even if some facts seem unrelated from *a priori* assumptions ... AND THEN compared to other similarly built hypotheses.

Thus, two levels of testing: 1. testing possibilities for exact lines of possible connection (to build the hypothesis), and 2. testing the hypotheses against each other in the end (as in a courtroom's argument comparisons).

By the way, I don't expect those who like science all to understand the fine points of how an argument works; some do, some don't understand the philosophical SIDE of their discipline.

Most DO a certain amount of predictive work, but rarely have to test hypotheses they find repugnant or impossible.

So that level of thinking about what they take for granted, not only within their field but in HOW they argue -- is not as common.

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

But anyway, back to supposed ego: can you not distinguish between belligerent misplaced confidence (common term, "ego"), and strength of character with goodwill, and willingness to express oneself and stand for what they know and if making mistakes adjust what's said, or if seeing others' confusion, try to set straight by using other terms?

Your version is entrapment. Mine is presentation.

Both are ego, but they are not both narcissistic.

I am interested in the subject, and how the technical terms apply (in the latest issue, the E-Moon relationship) but to be accused of not knowing the different motions AND perspectives on each ... and told I'm saying gobbledygook because you won't separate layman's terms (with qualifying references to make them clear) from technical terms ... this is ridiculous on the person who does it, not on me.

The latter makes you JUST egocentric, Menow. As your "name" seems to indicate. I hope not, but it does sound like it, post after post. How irate! How self-promotional! And finally, how uncharitable.

So it leads you to confuse things when I have been clear -- even if using layman's terms.

Long posts or not, I have not said gobbledygook in MEANING ... several people got the points. I understand something which you have deflected from and/or mocked, and/or rushed over understanding terms, no matter what I did to explain.

If you had a stroke and really DID have trouble speaking, remembering technical terms, would that mean you'd speak gobbledygook? If someone were charitable in listening, perhaps not. If someone just said to themself, "That old codger, I don't want to figure it out," then yes.

You did the latter, to me. Not nice. Not at all.
This is not sick ego (in case you don't know the difference); it's strength to stand up to you bullies. All of you.

Including the Comic-book mocker, a "chewer" on people. (Commentator, he calls himself.)

By the way, to him:
He brought up the idea I should get my head out of comic books. And others -- maybe he -- have said I "project"! When I brought this up to him, he ignored it.

Like so many on this thread, when I make a fine point about meanness, it gets unmentioned. But your meanness I am fielding all the time without giving much ire back.

I do have to commend you Menow:

A couple of times you have raised your voice to proclaim your reason for being an attacker, rather than a balanced inquirer: you have said you have been mistreated and you say mislabelled as a troll.

I have a feeling that you were probably irascible before Nancy came along, but nevertheless, I do commend you for your honesty and feelings about the situation. I understand.

I am suffering many blows here! :)

However, sorry I called you an idiot. A moment of ire.

You are clearly, also, not of a third-grade education; for one thing, Shakespeare, you are good with word creativity and for another you hyphenated only the adjectives (self-centered), not the adverb with the adjective, i.e., adverbial phrase ("willfully ignorant", which modified the noun "individual":
"self-centered, willfully ignorant, narcissistic individual".

This is a very fine point: willfully modifies ignorant, and the whole modifies "individual", but willfully does not modify individual directly.

Kind of like the Moon's actions! HA HA! The Moon orbits the Earth and the E-M system orbits the Sun, causing the Sun to see the Moon turn on its axis.


:)

'Night. For real. I saw your nasty post and stayed up to reply. You are good with words, Menow. I mean that andam not being covertly nasty or anything. Cheerio.

No, hon. (No offense, btw; I feel I know you somehow.)

You are still talking of its orbiting the Sun. I am talking on the level of its orbit of the Earth. Which is a mind-experiment, since in fact it also orbits the Sun, as a system, with the Earth.

The Moon's basic lack of revolution (what I called spin on its axis), is relative to the Earth; to compare what it does around the Sun to what the Earth or Venus does in its diurnal revolution ... is like comparing the Earth's daily revolution to what it looks like from the Galactic centre in a Galactic year.

In each case, one is skipping a key frame of reference.

The Moon first goes around the Earth, then around the Sun (in our understanding levels).

Around the Earth: no diurnal motion.
Around the Sun, different faces show, but as you know, this turn on its axis to the Sun is a secondary effect of its pull toward the Earth first.

So, it's not academic that in comparing diurnal motions: it is what the Moon does relative to the Earth which would compare with what the Earth or Venus do relative to the Sun.

And the latter show diurnal motion in their primary orbit (around the Sun) whereas the Moon does not, relative to the Earth.


To compare the Moon's rotation around the Sun with the Earth's rotation around the Sun is to confuse the orders of magnitude.

By the way, Commentator:

You have revealed yourself (at least temporarily, i.e., at the time you post on the thread) to be ruthless.

This looks bad on you, not me, except to other lampreys.

And by the way, since you like this mode, let me point out that some time ago, YOU, yes, YOU of all people, said for me to get my head out of comic books.

I pointed out that YOUR avatar -- a gross distortion of the male body -- from a comic book or some such ...

Yet you or someone supporting you said *I* project!

Of course, true to form, you never replied to that. Cat got your tongue for a moment? Gotta be even more spiteful because of that?

Silly.

And by the way, Menow, I still like you. Even if you don't want me to, or whatever. Why? Your spite and crudity of manner are clearly partly defensive, not merely offensice.

Plus, for all your not seeing meaning in my words, i.e., not parsing the layman's part of it and seeing the thought experiments I meant, you are good with words.

Weird. But true. I think maybe when they roll out of you you are creative with them. But coming in, others' meanings are blocked from you, if it requires charitability -- expecially if you've already decided (*a priori* emotional decisions affecting mind) that the person has to be unknowledgeable or is a dopey person in general.

However, in peace, *ad astra, homo!* (To the stars, fellow!)

Supposedly?

Are you a Moon Hoax Believer, too?

Not ruthless, clunk, just one who does not suffer fools gladly.

Sadly, you are either a fool or a troll.

You mean you are?

Shocking to face different lies we've been told. There are so many. Real shocker.

That issue is an interesting case, to be sure. Hmm. They would have needed lead suits (originally planned) and they couldn't fit in the LEM with their backpacks, (due to jutting apparatus inside). So maybe not. Oh, and they don't remember stars. Just a couple of oddities. Or is it impossibilities for real flight? Hmm. But ... belief?

Now, on a more exact note, we DO know the Zapruder film was faked -- absolutely: a composite, revealed because when lens distortion is corrected, a few frames show distortion of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the foreround lamppost, in a specific way, not mere stretching so somebody put them in uncorrected for lens distortion. The people claiming to have detroyed the arguments of the physicist who did the work, had not accounted for the angles, and so had not debunked it at all.

Sad reality.
For a long time it was suspected, but never proven absolutely, based on impossible inconsistency of optics.

Doug Horne's "Inside the AARB" is the best overview of most JFK evidence, and contains how Hollywood experts were shocked at the crudeness of the painting-in of certain frames' figures. But the absolute optical proof is in Fetzer, editor, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax."

Very important to get these things straight: because if you throw out the "timing" and "events" of the film, the witnesses can suddenly concur (and do) on major things like the limo stopping for the crossfire, etc. BTW, it was probably mostly for that that the film was made: that would have been so obvious.

Of course, also, the back and to the left, which so convinced many that there was a conspiracy: it was the only image set they had of JFK where he was NOT shot, where they could paint in the blob in the front which moves around (very quickly, thus not visisbly so for the early viewers).

Only frame-by-frame analysis shows a lot of the mistakes. And it's worked for a long time, for many people. But the case overall is complex: yet on every claim by the gov't, the thing falls apart, for different reasons.

So, could NASA have been (mostly unwittingly, compartmentalized) used to front for budget increases and US morale? Of course. Were they? Do deep research and let me know. I am not sure.

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

Or if you meant "too" as "in addition to PX":

I don't believe in PX. I am interested in it.

Of course you would say that. LOL!

"'Tever!"

Silly!

It doesn't revolve around its own axis, in diurnal motion around the Earth RELATIVE TO EARTH, its orbital centre axis. (Well, the barycentre, technically.)

The Moon does rotate on its axis around the Earth, one face in.

It also (as a system with the Earth) rotates around the Sun, but the motion is defined by the rotation around the Earth. It actually does a sine wave movement around the Sun as it orbits the Sun though, because its first-order orbit is around the Earth.


-- Because it is orbiting the Earth, from the Sun's viewpoint it faces different directions. So it looks like a purer (like Earth or Venus) diurnal revolution. But the only reason for the latter is the rotation around the Earth, thus its turning while orbiting the Sun is a secondary motion.

If the Sun, not the Earth, were its only axis for orbit, the Moon would not revolve diurnally at all relative to the Sun, but the Earth and Venus do.

This is the difference. So, to compare the issues correctly we must ask what the Moon does relative to Earth, not Sun, to find if it revolves on its axis, while going around Earth, to see if it does what Earth and Venus do relative to the Sun. It does not. Thus, if Earth is the Moon's "Sun" you can see that the Moon does not revolve.

The view from the Sun is a different point of reference -- but it does get a solar day. This is from its orbit of the Earth, not, properly, from its orbit of the Sun.

The Moon does not revolve diurnally relative to the Earth; thus it is not comparable with what the Earth or Venus do, relative to the Sun.

For Earth and Venus revolve diurnally on their way around the Sun (their orbital centre), and the Moon does not around the Earth (around its orbital centre).

Got it?

Reply by P Gray 8 hours ago
Allright. Here's the concept. The position of the Earth with respect to whether Earth is stopped in it's orbit should be easy to determine. Consider the following:
1) dig a hole in your yard deep enough to be below the frost line, place a metal pipe in the hole and cement it in place.
2) permanently attach a space type telescope to the pole
3) at exactly a specific time at night, (example midnight) align the crosshairs of the scope on a star in a constellation, with the proviso that the constellation is in the plane of the ecliptic
4) tighten the devices on the scope on the scope that attach the scope to the pole
5) check the alignment of the crosshairs each night at exactly the same time (example: midnight)
6) it seems by math to me that if the Earth is travelling in its orbit around the sun, then the following must occur
7) the crosshairs will slowly move away from the star chosen
I wish someone would do this and hook it up to a webcam. We could all check it and see if the crosshairs stay on target.
8) I realize with the "wobble" there may be some variability, but with the Earth progressing in an orbit, the "drift" of the crosshairs will be unmistakeable, large, and consistent. There.....end of the orbit debate. Please someone take this challenge on.... let's see the results. Thanks


from the ning

It's there now - but I wouldn't like to make book on for how long- or how long Mr Grey is going to be around there either

`show nancy wrong- thats a bannin'

What people are those, Clare?



Who are those some people, Clare?

I'm no astronomer but it's easy for me to understand what Menow et al are saying. But it sure isn't easy to understand what you're saying, Clare. Your explanations do tend to make my head spin. Is that your intention, to make people so confused they no longer know right from wrong?

So, is there anyone here who actually GOT IT what Clare is saying (other than the Ghost of Einstein, that is)? If there is, please say so and maybe also translate her speak into something clear, thank you.

That is beside the point, Clare. Did you not see that we're talking about a thought experiment here?

Now, please asnwer the question and stick to the conditions set up in the scenario.

That brings up a good point. Orbiting spacecraft HAVE to induce a rotation of the craft to keep it with one side oriented to the ground. An example is the shuttle keeping its open cargo bay aimed towards the earth. It HAS to induce a once per revolution rotation rate AROUND ITS OWN AXIS to make this happen. This is the SAME situation as the moon when tidally locked. Look it up in any orbital mechanics book.

BINGO!!!

That's what we've been trying to get you to see for days!