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

The references you identified deal primarily with the Mayan Calendar issues. The debate over the conclusion based on the proper translation of the Mayan Codex and what does the end of a calendar mean is for anyone to debate. People will always make money selling their theories. The existence of Planet-X is in the same boat . . . it was theorized to possibly exist based on 100 year old theories about the perturbations of the orbits of the outer planets. Again Zecharia Sitchen with questionable credentials made a lot out of his translation of Sumerian clay tablets . . . again a money maker. There are other things to consider like the one below:
Not to mention those warnings listed in the Christian Bible etc. People do take their religion seriously.



Last Edited by George B on 05/26/2010 03:03 PM

Watching people take this pole-shift nonsense seriously is truly saddening. Especially when you consider that just a bit of education would dispell any such ludicrous fears.

It's a shame.

I think you overestimate the power of data "education" to dispel fears. It is like pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it. In this case the hole in the bucket is very large. Also people's emotions are involved. You can discuss logic and then show a person a couple of movies, two or three History and Discovery Channel episodes and throw in one or two sermons regarding the second coming of Christ and TILT.

Solar flares and their potential for damage have been known for decades. 2012 just happenes to be at the predicted height of the normal 11-year solar activity cycle, but this cycle has proven to be one of the quietest in recent memory with very few sunspots in evidence.

Catseye and 74444.

The fact is, the Moon's primary orbit is around Earth. It does not revolve ("spin" on its axis), it merely rotates around Earth. The Earth revolves, while it goes around the Sun, as does Venus (backwards).

What the motion is relative to the Sun is irrelevant to comparing revolution with mere rotation, but it is where this confusion is coming from in your minds:

From the Sun, it does show different faces, giving it phases, because it spins on its axis ("revolves") RELATIVE TO THE SUN (giving phases, not true diurnal motion, which would be relative to the Earth, not the Sun, if the Earth were a sun).


Proper diurnal motion is revolution determinable at its lowest-order orbit. Going to higher orders (such as the Moon seen from the Sun) is not comparable.

If the Earth and Venus didn't have rotation diurnal motion relative to the Sun, (and the Sun weren't a light source) they would still revolve (spin on their axes) relative to the centre of the GALAXY. They would receive phases from the centre of the galaxy.

But that would, as with the Moon, be due to their rotation relative to the Sun as IT goes around the galaxy. They would not rotate relative to the Sun.

WHEN NANCY SAID IT DOESN'T SPIN ON ITS AXIS SHE MEANT IT DOESN'T REVOLVE AS IT ORBITS THE EARTH, though in orbiting the Sun together, it does in fact spin on its axis, and she didn't realize that.

Do you get this? Draw it out at each level and compare apples with apples instead of the Moon to the Sun's view, which is like Earth or Venus from not the Sun's view, but the Galaxy's view.

It spins on its axis once per orbit, if it didn't rotate then it would be stationary with respect to the stars and we would see all sides of it. It experiences sidereal time, therefore it rotates. If you were to launch from the moon's surface you would notice that it takes less delta-V to reach lunar orbit when launching with the rotation of the moon than against it. You're wrong, you've always been wrong about this subject because you always use an inappropriate frame of reference. Whether it shows more than one side from earth's point of view does not matter. The presence or absence of sidereal motion as seen from the surface of the moon is the only thing that matters.

It's unfortunate that you are not the reasonable person you tried to portray yourself as.

Last Edited by Astromut on 05/26/2010 03:11 PM

Yes, and it means it doesn't revolve at that level of action. It rotates only.

This is the thing which is different than the Earth relative to ITS first-order orbit, the Sun.

And it's why Nancy said it dosn't "spin on its axis". Relative to its orbital direction, relative to its first-order movement around Earth, she's right. And you all know this too! It was what she meant.

(She did get wrong whether it's a true orbit, however. It is.)

Relative to the Sun, you're right: the Moon shows face-change, from circling the Earth, giving phases. AND over the Moon's orbit of the Sun, this does not appear as a retrograde, prograde motion, the Moon actually spins on its axis along the sine wave around the Sun. It is being dragged to face the Earth and also going back and forth to orbit it, hence the spin on its axis, AT THE LEVEL OF THE SUN'S VIEW.

And so those who are unable to discern the quality of the arguments conclude that they are stalemated. They only see that there has been a 'retort', each time, not that the 'retort' has any real merit.




It rests with those who know the science. By the way, this 'science' of which I speak is not apposed to some sort of "feeling" type of assessment. It is opposed to the alleged "science" spouted by those who only THINK they are citing valid evidence.

WTF?

Is anyone following any of this logic?

Boiled down to bones, I think Clare is simply trying to defend Lieder's primitive cosmology. In other words, from the perspective of someone on Earth who believes the Earth is flat, the Moon is not spinning.

Bravo! You just listed a counter point. I have read scientists worried about the degree of low activity . . . could it be the beginning of a mini Ice Age? It is not the theory that counts or necessarily its basis in reality, it is the volume and number of them . . . the herd is spooked! Why are they spooking the herd?

So, if PX doesn't happen, then at least the PX crowd will be more prepared to be like the Amish.

Why does no-one here notice that.

Perhaps, if Menow's comment is right, that the PX thing is the red herring, not, *vice versa* the NASA story above, then it would have been good to heed the warnings from the putative Zetas anyway. They warned long before NASA.

The idea nothing is gonna happen is from you guys, not NASA, notice.

And as was brought up in Jesse Ventura's 2012 program of "Conspiracy Theory", the NASA claims of this "fireball" (look at the picture in the video above: it's the size of the Sun! Hope the artists are wrong there!), will knock out the power grids because NOTHING SUFFICIENT IS BEING DONE against it, to protect the power grid overall.

Let's have them speak for themselves, shall we?



And STILL you insist upon using 'rotate' improperly to describe an orbit. This is INTENTIONAL obfuscation on your part!




And AGAIN you use 'revolve' improperly to describe ROTATION! This is INTENTIONAL obfuscation on your part!



There is nothing "mere" about rotation. It is what it is. Revolution is what*IT* is. You should learn the difference!



How many times do you need to be told that "diurnal" rotation has nothing to to with rotation relative to Earth?

(snip rest, as meaningless do to being based on your above false premise)

I don't think there's an organized effort to promote this beyond increasing book sales and ratings.

It's a modern recycling of the Flood Myth, Ragnarok, etc., it appeals to a lot of people on an irrational level and publishers and producers are just cashing in.

These cable documentaries are pretty ridiculous, especially the usual cast of talking heads. Just because someone is sitting in front of a bookcase and there's a subtitle that says "researcher and author" doesn't mean they're not batshit crazy.

Please use the correct terminology! In that first paragraph, you used "revolve" everywhere you should use "rotate", and "rotate" everywhere you should use "revolve". Do not take that to mean I agree with you that the Moon does not rotate. I'm just saying you completely switched the definitions of the two terms, and it's just incomprehensible that you would continue to do that after all you have written here.

Well, since "revolve" and "orbit" mean the same thing, your statement is meaningless.

It is tidally locked. It does not face different sides to the Earth. It does not revolve AS IT MOVES AROUND EARTH, from Earth's perspective.

The Earth DOES revolve as it moves around its first-order orbit, i.e., around the Sun. The Earth is NOT tidally locked with the Sun -- and other planets, like Venus are not also.

This is the comparison. This is what she meant that the Moon does not spin on its axis. It is relative to Earth ONLY. Just as we are speaking relative to the Sun, when we say the Earth or Venus do, and not confusing it with a higher order orbit, say, around the centre of the Galaxy.

The only view from which the Moon orbits on its axis is *not first-order view* (around the Earth); it is from the view of the Sun that the Moon spins/revolves as it goes forward on its rotation. This gives the Moon phases (spin on its axis) over the sine wave of its orbit around the Earth and Sun together.

The Moon does not have revolution along its first-order orbit, around Earth. The Earth and Venus revolve as they orbit their first-order orbital centre, the Sun.

These guys aren't prepared to be like the Amish.

It's at least 90 percent fantasy.

If the moon does not rotate on its own axis, then why does it have sunrises and sunsets every 28 or so days?

No they don't. No I don't mean them the same.

I changed to your technical use of "revolve", many posts ago. And have been using "rotate" to mean total orbital positions around another axis.

Revolve is therefore the name (as you wished) for any turn on its axis EVEN RELATIVE TO ALL FORWARD MOTION NOT CONSIDERED ... if mere TIME is considered.

Venus has this. Earth has this. Relative to the Sun, they Revolve.

The Moon does not have this, relative to the Earth.

You know this. Why keep on with it, saying I am being meaningless.

I have made adjustments to your jargon usage. Now you adjust to seeing what I'm talking of.

Isn't that exactly what I just said your position was?

Oh, you mean like East Anglia Univeristy and climate gate.

Already covered that: from the Sun's perspective, it does rotate on its axis forward, but that is not first-order rotation for the Moon.

The Sun IS first-order rotation for Venus and Earth and the Planets. The EARTH is for the Moon.

So, the faces (or lack thereof) the Moon shows Earth is the comparison here, to determine if the Moon revolves as it orbits (implied, orbits THE EARTH).

The general PX thing has been coming through "channelled" sources for almost 25 years in my personal experience via knowing people who "channel". Don't even start with the 'all channelling is fake' argument. I'm tired of that discussion. If you haven't personally known people who "channel"(whatever that is) for 20+ years, then you are arguing without direct personal experience. The people I have known who were "channelling" stuff about that were definately not intentionally faking the phenomenon. It is something more than simply fake.

That's all I care to say about it.

Safer to overdo the preps.

I would agree but I know one of the producers of the channels mentioned. Their agenda and subjects are approved at a very high level. They do not independently just decide to produce X.

Which is an absolutely irrelevant frame of reference and inappropriate to answer the question, "does the moon rotate about its axis." If you launch a spaceship from the moon's surface into lunar orbit, does it require more delta-V to launch due west than due east? The answer, unless you're sitting on the axis at one of the poles (which is also true for earth), is yes. The reason? The moon is rotating about its axis.

Clare, it's time to stop this foolishness. You are constantly mis-using terms. The moon indeed DOES ROTATE or SPIN on its axis as it REVOLVES around the earth. Please quit mis-using these terms. They have very different and non-confusing definitions.

You have also been asked dozens of times now (but have evaded answering each time) what an observer would see if he stood on the north pole of the moon and looked straight up...what would the star field appear to do? This is a very simple question. Why do you avoid it at all costs?

Of course they do. References were provided.



You don't get to redefine well-understood technical terms to suit you.



Sorry, but you are still wrong. "Rotate" does NOT mean "total orbital positions around another axis".


total orbital positions around another axis
Revolve is therefore the name (as you wished) for any turn on its axis EVEN RELATIVE TO ALL FORWARD MOTION NOT CONSIDERED ... if mere TIME is considered.


Wrong. "revolve" describes an orbit.

total orbital positions around another axis
total orbital positions around another axis
Venus has this. Earth has this. Relative to the Sun, they Revolve.

The Moon does not have this, relative to the Earth.

You know this. Why keep on with it, saying I am being meaningless.

I have made adjustments to your jargon usage. Now you adjust to seeing what I'm talking of.



No you have not. You are STILL using the terms incorrectly. See above.

Only vaguely familiar, but probably.

My position? As if it weren't objective fact? Lol.

Relative to the Sun it spins on its axis, but it does not relative to its orbital axis centre, Earth. (Earth is the Moon's "Sun", if the Moon were Earth). Thus, no revolution -- on that level.

If the Moon were Earth, and Earth the Sun, the Sun would be like the centre of the Galaxy. So, Earth would show phases of the centre of the Galaxy even if it had no diurnal motion (revolution) like the Moon.

So yes, on that 2nd orbital level, the Moon shows faces, giving it phases relative to the actual Sun. It does not have revolution RELATIVE TO ORBITING (rotation) around EARTH.

Hence, same face in all the time.