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

Why? You, mean person, would think this through and listen if I were? Lol.

Anyway, I am told I am. Are you, dude?

What a question. :/

Stooopid.
And NOT hot of you. LOL!

Whoah! Look, hotness trumps astronomical accuracy every time.

Clare, I AM READY TO BELIEVE YOU.

And I'm not mean. I'm just a weary soul burdened by the crushing weight of fantastic wealth.

Ohh... I thought she said sign wave.... that would make more sense in the context of everything else she has said.

Hang on, now that I think about it, space is freaking full of sine waves!

Sine waves, square waves, oscillations of every conceivable amplitude, attack, and rate of decay -- she was RIGHT!

What's that other thing? Oh yeah, the Moon. Still as a brick. Hasn't spun once, the lazy sod. Unless it's relative to the Sun, in which case - -hell, whatever she said.

Turncoat... just because of her purported hotness.

She is hot in a thermitic way if you remove the calorimetric component and only consider the objective kinetic of the forward perspective. I'm sure Clare and Einstein would agree.

And, of course, it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Discuss.


R.

I you neither, of course; but I did give it, so appreciation would be normal, no matter whether you NEED it or not.

To whoever reported it, TY.

A sexist or racist comment does not have to be a threat to be abusive.

And if you think it would have to be, DrPostman, then you are treating women in this way, as the scapegoat (n**gers) of the world.

As to needing a nanny, abuse needs people recognizing it, yes. But the real need here is for a reparenting of Menow, for saying such things. Would he with a race? Would you?

What? Race? WTF?

Okay, it's true I'm drinking a bit, but did I miss something?

Time to shut this thing OFF.

Just something I thought a bit relevant to this thread:

I caught a bit of the UFO mythbuster's show today, can't remember what it's called, maybe that's it. It has these guys that go around interviewing abductees and witnesses and checking out their evidence if they have any. They also ended with a piece about the starchild skull. They had a guy do a facial reconstruction of it. Looked like a person with a big head.

Anyway, I only caught bits and pieces because I wasn't paying much attention but there was a couple who had been abducted by what they referred to as the Greys. And these Greys had shown them a star map of where they were from. And the lady reproduced it under hypnosis or something like that. They compared the formation to star charts and said it looked like it was in the Zeta Reticuli binary star system.

The couple wasn't exactly happy about their experience, hence the need for hypnosis to recall it.

Maybe someone is channeling some nasty Greys with a sinister agenda?

And Doc, I know you didn't bring race into the conversation. She Whose Name I will Not Speak did that.

And to think I let her state of alleged hotness sway my dedication to whatever the hell it is I'm dedicated to.

Man, this is some good vodka.

Clare-ie is having a widdle melt down-ie because we decided not to play with her anymore.

Yes, it rotates relative to the Sun. It revolves relative to the Earth and Sun (and so on out).

If it rotates only relative to the Sun, what motion is it making around the Earth? Only a revolution. This is physically caused by tidal lock.

And -- regarding the Sun's view there are two parts to this impression from the Sun:

- the totality is, with the E-M system moving on a revolution around the Sun. The Moon thus makes a sine wave with a very obvious rotation on its axis along it.

- the next level down in superposition is to eliminate the revolution around the Sun. Then you would see the revolution of the Moon as a prograde and retrograde motion, plus it would face differently towards the Sun at different times but quite clearly the motion would be not exactly a rotation on its axis. It would more clearly be a revolution completing a reorientation, but since it would give phases, you could say it had rotated, loosely speaking.

IF YOU THEN STOPPED THE REVOLUTON of the Moon AS WELL as the already stopped revolution around the Sun, the Moon would exhibit no rotation at all, not even the loosely used sense of rotation in the last section above (which is actually a reorientation on a revolution, seen from the Sun, when the E-M system is stopped in its revolution around the Sun but the Earth is still orbiting the Earth).

Get it?

Menow already agreed this is the case, but then went back to how the tidal lock accomplishes the non-rotation of the Moon relative to Earth -- as if the cause was the point. And then jumped back up to the superposition from the multiple motions, and said again it rotates -- not specifying it's again from the Sun AND with certain motions active (revolution) around the Sun.

And then says I'm a troll. LOLOLOL! Oh, and then is sexist in his attack, instead of sex-neutral. Wow.

That wouldv'e been, umm.... Betty and Barney Hill I think.

No telling what people get into when the "channel". I've heard some pretty radical stuff via that vehicle.

Is English your native language? I will give you one thing . . . you have stamina . . . me thinks you will outlast the debunker with sheer doubletalk.

Last Edited by George B on 05/27/2010 10:41 PM

No meltdown. Not at all. Am pointing it out; you know it's true that you wouldn't say it OR defend it if I were black and that were a line of socially sick but possible attack.

As to using my name in a mocking manner too, at least you are not calling me someone else any longer, like Nancy or whoever else. LOL!

I think I hear some distant yammering, but I can't really remember what it's all about. A blessing, that.

Time for a cold one... Mirror Pond Pale Ale it is!

Absolutely wrong again, Clare. The moon's own angular momentum would keep it rotating on its own axis.

+1

My thoughts exactly. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Have fun.


R.

Clare, you've missed the whole point AGAIN. Yes, indeed the moon DOES in FACT rotate as it revolves. If it did not we would see all sides of it over the period of one orbit. You STILL apparently don't understand tidal locking.

DANG... it's ssooooo far to the kitchen.... HEY BITCH... BRING ME A BEER!

a) You can't read? My English vocab and creativity, even if occasionally not knowing a jargon-term, are excellent.

b) You mean to say you want me to get your point that you do not need me to care. As in, the sentence, "Do you speak English?!!?" used almost as an expletive. If the latter, I already said I don't need you and vice versa, but appreciation goes beyond that, in healthy people's interactions, and I am pointing that out in case you forgot.


On both possibilities from you, if you're gonna be like this, then:

Wrong again. The moon has its own rotation about its axis. Stopping its orbit around the earth, or the earth's orbit around the sun will have no effect on the moon's own angular momentum.

No-one says it's gentle! ROTFL at you!

Sexism and racism though, outright -- not experiences, but such talk used to attack, no.

I could slam Menow for drinking, say he's a drinker, and a luser for it and so on, even if in fact he'd had one drink and was not addled by it, as he would likely do if I said was drinking ... but a) I am not going to say that to him, and b) it's not the same as sexism and racism, which are innate not character traits.

Rpetition of truth has no effect on the Clare-bear. Her conflate-shields are up. Why bother?

Your deltaH just went negative relative to an externally internal hotness metric.

That's bad.

Your hotness is waning, you must be doing some adiabatic work. If only it were internally external you'd be ok, but you are quickly but slowly losing internal E.

Clapeyron.
Clausius.
Gibbs.


R.

No.

Now you're not only having trouble distinguishing what gives the Moon a rotation movement, and how levels of superposition in understanding will show it's a phenomenon relative to Sun viewpoint ... now you're confusing meanness with scapegoating.

I was being mean in calling you idiots -- not scapegoating your nature.

And I sunk there from your baiting. <shrug> Oh well. As you said, it's not necessarily NICE at GLP.

But actually sexist or racist? Hmmm. Well, if so, at least we've identified the difference and if you sink to that level, it's on your head.

No, Clare, you are wrong again. The moon's rotation was instilled in it at its creation, just as the planets' rotations were. A net rotation of a condensing cloud of matter is a natural occurance since not all motions will average out...there will always be a net rotation left when an astronomical body is formed. The moon's rate of rotation ABOUT ITS OWN AXIS simply has been adjusted over time due to tidal forces raised in it from the much more massive earth nearby so that its rotation period now equals its orbital period. As that happened, the earth's own rate of rotation slowed down as well (due to passing energy to the moon through tidal action) as evidenced in the geological record.

The moon's rotation is not "caused" by the earth at all but is an inherant feature present in ALL astronomical bodies.

No, wrong again, as noted in my post above.