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

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.


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

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.

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.

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.


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

No they don't.


Of course they do. References were provided.


No I don't mean them the same.


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

The tidal lock leaves the Moon NOT REVOLVING as it ROTATES around Earth, from that order of view.

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

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.


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


Only vaguely familiar, but probably.

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.


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

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.


Clare, again, you have it ass backwards.

An object ROTATES or SPINS about its own axis when that axis is internal to the object. An object REVOLVES around or ORBITS another object or axis when that axis is outside of the object. The two motions are INDEPENDENT and can be analyzed seperately even when OCCURING AT THE SAME TIME as is the case with the moon.

PLEASE look up these terms and learn just a little before continuing to make a complete fool of yourself.

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.


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


Only vaguely familiar, but probably.

All this argument about semantics does not alter the FACT that Nancy's Planet X is a figment of her imagination.

All this argument about semantics does not alter the FACT that Nancy's Planet X is a figment of her imagination.

Having gotten the terms interchanged does not change how much I know and I have been saying the following all along, again and again (but if I'd used the term "independent" people here would have said I was claiming it doesn't all happen in the same body! they are so full of themselves so want to make trouble, but since you said it I'll quote you):

"The two motions are INDEPENDENT and can be analyzed seperately even when OCCURING AT THE SAME TIME as is the case with the moon."

So,

Good. Are we done here.

Clare, direct question for you; you have a spaceship sitting on the equator of the moon and you're launching it into lunar orbit. If you launch your spaceship from the moon's surface into lunar orbit, does it require more delta-V (and therefore, fuel) to launch due west than to launch due east? Yes or no?

All this argument about semantics does not alter the FACT that Nancy's Planet X is a figment of her imagination.


True: it WAS an argument about semantics at the end here -- but also there was confusion in sme of these people's minds because the ROTATION around its axis that the Moon exhibits is MERELY from a 2nd-order perspective (the Sun).

[Youtube vid on Climategate]

The tidal lock leaves the Moon NOT REVOLVING as it ROTATES around Earth, from that order of view.

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?

Clare, please answer this.

She's avoiding it because it proves her wrong as does Nut's Rocket question.