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

Clare, please answer this question.

Hi, Catseye. No, she doesn't know about the Moon's orbit. AND she can't picture what that would do over the orbit of the Sun (which would turn it on its axis), or in place: which is rotate it on its axis *relative to the Sun*, even if we were stopped going forward. But she IS suggesting the E-M system is stopped going forward on the orbit of the Sun.

Now in real terms, if we stopped forward motion around the Sun, the Earth would continue to rotate AND revolve around the barycentre too. The Moon would only revolve around the Earth. But for different reasons, both the Earth and Moon would continue to exhibit different faces (rotation) relative to the Sun -- remember, for different REASONS:

In such a scenario (and it's also at all times a mind experiment, a mental superposition layer, i.e., order of magnitude, even if it is not in fact true that we are stop or are stopped as she claims) ...

So, in such a scenario,

a) the Earth faces the Sun differently because it a) is rotating on its axis in its own right, b) is revolving around the barycentre of the E-M orbital system. You would need to stop both motions, the former in the Pole Shift pause, and the latter by stopping the barycentric Moon orbit/Earth orbit at the same time.

b) whereas the Moon faces the Sun differently but not the Earth still, because it is rotating around (orbiting) the barycentre and has no proper rotation of its own. All you would have to do to stop it, is stop its revolution around Earth and the relative rotation from the Sun's view would stop.

You can STOP picking that one statement out of everything I've posted. The Moon doesn't rotate from the FRAME OF REFERENCE of Earth. Don't twist my statement into agreeing with WHATEVER you are saying!

The moon DOES have rotation of its own you IDIOT. How many times do people have to explain this to you?

If the rest of the solar system suddenly vanished the moon would continue to rotate around its own axis. Why can't you get this?

And stop mis-using words in an attempt to make yourself look clever, because it doesn't work. The paucity of your mind is evident in the stupidity of your words.

No, for the SAME reason. They are both rotating!

In fact, ALL astronomical bodies rotate along some internal axis, independent of anything else.

The absolute bottom line is that Clare is incapable of finding even one single reference that agrees with her claim.

Case closed.

I don't think she really has a 'claim'. She's more concerned with attempting to re-define the English language so it suits Nancy!

In summary, you are saying the moon does not spin on its own axis because it is tidally locked to the earth. Right?

The rotation may have become tidally locked, but that does not CAUSE it. The moon, like all other astronomical bodies, rotates, and has done so from the moment it cam into being.

She also said to you it doesn't orbit -- at one point in the discussion -- but if she does know of it when not irate and blind, she does NOT (like a lot of people) realize that the revolution of the Moon looks like a rotation when over the wole orbit. She pictures, like a lot of people, as id the Earth were not going forward; it thus doesn't show a sine wave (another thing a lot of people don't realize). They can't picture the total properly.

And if the E-M system stopped going forward around the Sun, the Sun would see rotation and retrograde motion in the Moon. Most people don't think of this as rotation, though, because it more obviously is an illusion from the revolution, when you picture it as if stopped in orbiting the Sun. But yes, the Moon still would show different faces along its rotation, and the Sun would see a rotation too from that.

Sure. But on orders of magnitude we can use the term "cause".

And from some point in the Universe, everything also rotates, in its view.

But this is obfuscation of the distinctions at each order of superpositional distinction, if we want to talk of the latter. Which we were.

I used TERMS interchangeably, but my language overall was clear: I always defined what I meant by the term at the time. I have now switched to the technical uses instead of merely using them as laypeople do, and yet I still define what I mean each time.

Are you so "spun" that you can't see that?

Anyway, :)

Link, quote or stfu. Nancy says LOTS of silly, contradictory things. It really adds up to no coherent belief system, whatsoever, other than "Zetas are always right". That is the ONLY commom denominator. There is NO logical basis for what she says, so why are you trying to conrtive one for this instance?




Bottome line: Both you and Nancy believe that the Moon is being DRAGGED around in rotation by the Earth.

THAT is why I was asking you about angular momentum. You danced all around the issue, as you do with everything.

This last sentence shows unequivocally that we have all been lead on.

DING DING DING... Returner... NEW Clare-inition!

You don't need to understand angular momentum to point out relative vectors.

You were wrong and misunderstood the point, just as Nancy misunderstood the larger view.

So you eat crow for once.

In terms of the AXIAL points for the Moon, the Earth "drags" it forward -- talking in layman's terms of DIRECTIONS for the rotation and revolution combinations (superposition).

In FACT it is deflected by the Sun away from a straight line, through angular momentum pull from the Sun AND by the Earth.

For once, GET THE RELEVANT POINT without insisting on other aspects. Geez. The Moon does not rotate on its axis at the order of the Earth as an axis (wel, the barycentre). That is what Nancy was saying would NOT have to be stopped, in a pole shift of the Moon, whereas such rotation would have to be stopped on the Earth, even if no longer revlving around the Sun, forward.

And don't pick up on the word "forward" because you want to make me show I know everything is relative. I mean around on its circle (revolution) around the Sun, which is a forward motion to the body, described simply. You CAN'T BE THIS THICK and mean, can you?

You a**holes.

You give no-one credit for using every possible word which can be used, to show you what is meant:

I meant superpostion AND level of distinction, which are the same thing, expresed in two ways, so you can see I know what superposition means AND have been making this distinction ALL ALONG.

So stfu, please.

Clare's Definitions, Part -- Oh Hell, I'm Losing Count:

SUPERPOSITIONAL DISTINCTION - A method of argumentative dialect which conflates duality-based relative observational tactics with superlative logical thematic coherences, in accordance with established guidelines of Hegelian third-magnitude oratory bellicosity.

SINE WAVES - The pretty patterns formed by planets as they revolve around an established axis a which is both parallel and perpendicular to the Solar constant axis f when viewed from a polar coordinate system with foci at galactic centers l, q, and c. Einstein knew about them and you are poopyheads. Usually appear as pretty blue ribbons.

Some of you will pick on anything instead of admitting there were insights from your interloquitor.

This shows no intelligence on your part; rather, it means mere smallness in you.

Do you mean "led" on -- if so, by whom?

Or do you mean "dead" on? If so, what do you mean?

Thanks.

Interloquitor?

You, Clare?

<Cue mad laughter>

Gobbledygook "understanding" of my points.

You seek to make fun where you do not even know of what you are speaking about me: I know what a sine wave is; I have identified it -- but no-one was impressed that maybe they should look more carefully at what I was saying.

And as to "superpositional distinction" I was linking the two ways of talking about orders of magnitude, which are distinctions and called superpositions.

Your mockery falls back on you.
I was the first one to point out the rotation of the Moon is only from an order of distinction or superposition, as related to the Sun and larger scales. It is not relative to the Earth.

And YOU GUYS misconstrued Nancy's point on this, and got your own orders of magnitude confused! And had no charity to understand me because every time I described it, you insisted on the proper terms but missed the descriptive elements which would have shown you your error in relation to Nancy's comment.

So ... boomerang! Bop on you!

LOL

Clare's Definitions, Part IX:

INTERLOQUITOR - One who feigns considerable knowledge in a field of study, but who is actually a slightly drunk ferret with access to a keyboard.

Take a valium, because a) except for my terminology at times (layman's), I made all relevant points about the Moon AND clarified what happened re. Nancy's point about the Earth-Moon relationship whic does NOT contain a rotation of the Moon (at that level) and b) in a technical sense ANYONE with whom one discusses is an interloquitor.

If I don't know OTHER things and/or get no credit for being bang on about the levels of perception of the movements, it is BAD ON YOU, not me.

:)

Sawwy, mad hatter.

Meaningless gobbledygook with an overtone of spite.

Someone who cannot recognize excellence of mind and separate it from semantics will also confuse a statement about the Moon not spinning on its axis relative to Earth, when the technical term would clearly be rotation, and the FRAME OF REFERENCE (level of superposition) would be the Earth-Moon actions.

No wonder you think I make no sense. You can't even analyze your own misunderstandings.

It's pretty obvious I meant led on. And by you, hence the "beating a dead horse" emoticon.

Is this a petty attempt to convey some sort of intellectual superiority on your part by pointing out my insignificant boo-boo?

I really should close this browser and get some actual work done before my editor bursts through the door with a pick-axe, but something about the sheer wrongness of this whole discussion has been mesmerizing. I know, Clare, that you're simply trolling, but damn you are good at it. I've been unable to look away, and for that, I doff my hat to you.

More installments of Clare's Definitions tomorrow, then. Please leave me some good material to work with -- hell, what am I saying, you will.

Night, all!


PS that star I suggested you look up earlier?

It's the Lunar pole star...