Does the Moon Exist When I'm Not Looking?

[The Starmaker]

The moon exist only when I look at it.

Do you really believe that?

[Poutnik]

The Starmaker posted Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:58:33 -0700

>
> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> Do you really believe that?

Do you exist only if I look at you ?

Do you have independent existance mode
for every single person ?

If 5 people look at you and five do not,
do you exist ?

--
Poutnik

[HunterdonX]

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:5169AAD9.2AB1
@ix.netcom.com:

> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> Do you really believe that?

Why are you assuming it's something I believe? And who is the "you" that is
being referred to? A collective "you"? If so then why are you living with
the assumption that everyone has that belief? Are you looking for
validation that your view that the Moon doesn't exist when not looked at is
correct or that you cannot come to grips with the idea that others believe
that?

[Ashton Crusher]

The moon exists. End of story.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 13, 11:58 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> Do you really believe that?

Define 'exists'. Define 'look'. Define 'I'.

[benj]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:58:33 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> Do you really believe that?

No, "Starmaker"! It does not exist unless SOMEONE is looking at it. It
doesn't have to be YOU! You really are ignorant of science, aren't you?

Things that only exist when YOU are looking at them is a liberal media
concept, not a scientific one!

idiot.

[RichA]

On Apr 13, 2:58 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> Do you really believe that?

Yes.

[thinbluemime]

Does your wife's ass disappear until she looks at it in the mirror?

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:58:33 -0700, The Starmaker

Dude. It doesn't even exist when you ~are~ looking at it.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Apr 13, 11:18 pm, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:58:33 -0700, The Starmaker
>

> <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> >Do you really believe that?
>
> Dude.  It doesn't even exist when you ~are~ looking at it.

I'm nearsighted. When I look at the moon without my glasses on I see
many overlapping fuzzy images of it, rather as if I'm looking at
alternate versions of it in slightly different positions.

Do any of them exist?


Mark L. "pretty sure *I* exist" Fergerson

[waldofj]

On Apr 14, 12:22 am, thinbluemime <thinbluemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:58:33 -0400, The Starmaker
>

> <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> > Do you really believe that?
>
> Does your wife's ass disappear until she looks at it in the mirror?

corollary:
If a man speaks in the woods and there is no one to hear him, is he
just as wrong?

[Mahipal]

On Apr 14, 5:51 pm, waldofj <wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:22 am, thinbluemime <thinbluemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:58:33 -0400, The Starmaker
>
> > <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> > > Do you really believe that?

Let's experiment. When are you not looking at the moon?

> > Does your wife's ass disappear until she looks at it in the mirror?

That's a lot of different kinds of moons I keep looking for! Moon me!

> corollary:
> If a man speaks in the woods and there is no one to hear him, is he
> just as wrong?

If being a man is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

-- Mahipal

[The Starmaker]

benj wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:58:33 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > The moon exist only when I look at it.
> >
> > Do you really believe that?
>
> No, "Starmaker"! It does not exist unless SOMEONE is looking at it.

You're wrong about that.


Reality *can* be taken to exist 'independently' of the act of measurement.


You spooky people...'you quantum people' got it all wrong.


The Starmaker


but it's a pattern with these people...they are wrong all the time.


Science means, we're always wrong... and we have the facts coming in everyday to prove we were wrong.



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What do you call a rope with a noose at one end, and is used for catching cattle, horses or asteroids?

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

[oriel36]

On Apr 15, 7:32 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> benj wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:58:33 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > > The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> > > Do you really believe that?
>
> > No, "Starmaker"! It does not exist unless SOMEONE is looking at it.
>
> You're wrong about that.
>
> Reality *can* be taken to exist 'independently' of the act of measurement.
>
> You spooky people...'you quantum people' got it all wrong.
>
> The Starmaker
>

They are spooky for other reasons relating to the moon,for
instance,Isaac Newton decided that not only does the moon orbit the
Earth each month,it actually spins as well!.These guys have trained
themselves to believe it spins even when any person walking around an
object with an outstretched arm pointing at the central object (Earth)
will come to understand why we always see the same face of the
moon.You simply can't make this stuff up !.

It was not just that Newton said the moon spins when it doesn't,it is
that he said it a few paragraphs after he has Venus rotating once in
23 hours !,something equally dumb -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&pg=PA579&dq=newton+moon+rotates&hl=en&ei=SQJ5TJP1FYTKswadoL2yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

The empirical welfare state is based on turning facts on their heads
and keeping things confused and maybe the wider world prefers it that
way as it is just one less thing to think about so I am not overly
critical of the empirical community who perhaps are offering a
service.They were making a nice living until they took themselves
seriously and tried to model the doom of the planet through a minor
atmospheric gas and they are bewildered why the man on the street is
angry at them.

A better question you should have asked - Does the moon spin when you
look at it ?, a sane person would answer no.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:32:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>You're wrong about that.
>
>
>Reality *can* be taken to exist 'independently' of the act of measurement.
>
>
>You spooky people...'you quantum people' got it all wrong.

Observations disagree with you.


--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.

[William December Starr]

In article <6c19077d-3f1e-4733...@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> said:

> They are spooky for other reasons relating to the moon,for
> instance,Isaac Newton decided that not only does the moon orbit
> the Earth each month,it actually spins as well!.These guys have
> trained themselves to believe it spins even when any person
> walking around an object with an outstretched arm pointing at the
> central object (Earth) will come to understand why we always see
> the same face of the moon.You simply can't make this stuff up !.

[...]

> The empirical welfare state is based on turning facts on their
> heads and keeping things confused and maybe the wider world
> prefers it that way as it is just one less thing to think about so
> I am not overly critical of the empirical community who perhaps
> are offering a service.They were making a nice living until they
> took themselves seriously and tried to model the doom of the
> planet through a minor atmospheric gas and they are bewildered why
> the man on the street is angry at them.
>
> A better question you should have asked - Does the moon spin when
> you look at it ?, a sane person would answer no.

Hey look, Period-of-Rotation-Obsessed Kookboy is back!

"The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
do like nobody else ever could"

-- oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>, May, 2012
article <3013ab47-8482-4da5...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>

-- wds

[Alen]

The idiot remark is unwarranted discourtesy, imo.

But I agree with your remark that something does
not exist unless someone is looking at it.

Some people suppose that something can exist with
no one (even God) looking at it. But this idea has
to be a real idea in the mind in order to represent
the external reality. So I ask, how does such an
idea work? If you imagine something existing then,
in your mind, you are its observer. If you get
rid of yourself as the observer, the imagination
disappears. So you can never imagine anything
existing without you yourself being its observer.
If you imagine an observer that is not you, then
you merely split yourself into two observers, in
your mind, and imagine that one of them, whom you
identify as your 'self', cannot see the thing.

Since, therefore, an imagination of a thing existing
without any observer is impossible, it is not
an idea at all, and therefore cannot represent any
reality at all, since it requires a workable idea
in order to know anything at all.

Alen

[The Starmaker]

How do you make "Observations" without looking?

[oriel36]

On Apr 15, 4:01 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <6c19077d-3f1e-4733-a75f-3867fa01f...@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > They are spooky for other reasons relating to the moon,for
> > instance,Isaac Newton decided that not only does the moon orbit
> > the Earth each month,it actually spins as well!.These guys have
> > trained themselves to believe it spins even when any person
> > walking around an object with an outstretched arm pointing at the
> > central object (Earth) will come to understand why we always see
> > the same face of the moon.You simply can't make this stuff up !.
>
> [...]
>
> > The empirical welfare state is based on turning facts on their
> > heads and keeping things confused and maybe the wider world
> > prefers it that way as it is just one less thing to think about so
> > I am not overly critical of the empirical community who perhaps
> > are offering a service.They were making a nice living until they
> > took themselves seriously and tried to model the doom of the
> > planet through a minor atmospheric gas and they are bewildered why
> > the man on the street is angry at them.
>
> > A better question you should have asked - Does the moon spin when
> > you look at it ?, a sane person would answer no.
>
> Hey look, Period-of-Rotation-Obsessed Kookboy is back!
>
> "The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
> do like nobody else ever could"
>

>  -- oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>, May, 2012
>     article <3013ab47-8482-4da5-b93e-0b0dfae4d...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
>
> -- wds

The last statement is not a boast or a put-down,the empiricists in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries were desperate to make sense of
Newton's absolute/relative time,space and motion definitions in an era
when electromagnetic forces were bearing down on these guys.They loved
the freedom given to them by Newton by way of the vague notion that
the predictable behavior of objects at a human level mirrored the
behavior of planetary and other celestial objects by pointing vaguely
at predictive astronomy as a bridge to experimental sciences.In the
absence of any clear idea as to what Newton was doing they simply made
up their own minds,dumped aether on Newton as 'absolute space' and so
began 100 years worth of varying hypothesis known as relativity or the
chair throwing exercise it has become today.

I don't suffer the hagiography surrounding Newton,I simply point out
what he was trying to do and why it doesn't work so genuine
empiricists can finally escape his clockwork solar system which is
based on the 365/365/365/366 day format,a framework which cannot
express the daily rotational and orbital motions of the Earth.Ex-
members of sci.physics.relativity even try to reformat the arguments
to the idea the there was an idealized rotation through 360 degrees in
24 hours back in the year 1820 and have since jettisoned the absurd
'solar vs sidereal' ideology but the 'new' perspective is just as bad
as the old insofar as the sidereal view was equivalent to 2+2 = 5,the
new one is 2+2 = 4.002 .

People who train themselves to believe the moon has an equatorial
rotational speed or 'spins' are in desperate need of some sort of
help,it was never mentioned by the old astronomers apart from Kepler
who rejected it outright -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJAS0eQ64C&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=nuchthemeron+kepler&source=bl&ots=2L8x_lJh7-&sig=vtLHgWoAtlQduGN8nATiIAp7pPw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qDHjUKT7M82QhQfB7oGICw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=nuchthemeron%20kepler&f=false

Mediocrity is not having desperately poor convictions,mediocrity is
knowing that the convictions of your opponent have as much validity as
your own.Shame that I have to use Kepler's comments against the
'spinning moon' cult but such is this era.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 13.04.2013 20:58, schrieb The Starmaker:
> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>

NO! You are way too irrelevant!

But from experience I can say, the moon vanishes, if *I* close my eyes.

TH

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

On 15 Apr 2013 11:01:03 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

There is a serious deficit of reference frames in which the moon
~doesn't~ rotate, eh?

Unless one wishes to place the moon at the center of the Universe. I'm
sure Ignignokt and Err would approve.

[oriel36]

On Apr 16, 10:04 am, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help
<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2013 11:01:03 -0400, wdst...@panix.com (William December
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Starr) wrote:
> >In article <6c19077d-3f1e-4733-a75f-3867fa01f...@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

> >oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >> They are spooky for other reasons relating to the moon,for
> >> instance,Isaac Newton decided that not only does the moon orbit
> >> the Earth each month,it actually spins as well!.These guys have
> >> trained themselves to believe it spins even when any person
> >> walking around an object with an outstretched arm pointing at the
> >> central object (Earth) will come to understand why we always see
> >> the same face of the moon.You simply can't make this stuff up !.
>
> >[...]
>
> >> The empirical welfare state is based on turning facts on their
> >> heads and keeping things confused and maybe the wider world
> >> prefers it that way as it is just one less thing to think about so
> >> I am not overly critical of the empirical community who perhaps
> >> are offering a service.They were making a nice living until they
> >> took themselves seriously and tried to model the doom of the
> >> planet through a minor atmospheric gas and they are bewildered why
> >> the man on the street is angry at them.
>
> >> A better question you should have asked - Does the moon spin when
> >> you look at it ?, a sane person would answer no.
>
> >Hey look, Period-of-Rotation-Obsessed Kookboy is back!
>
> >"The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
> >do like nobody else ever could"
>

> > -- oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>, May, 2012
> >    article <3013ab47-8482-4da5-b93e-0b0dfae4d...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
>

> >-- wds
>
> There is a serious deficit of reference frames in which the moon
> ~doesn't~ rotate, eh?
>
> Unless one wishes to place the moon at the center of the Universe. I'm
> sure Ignignokt and Err would approve.

You see,the thing about cults is that the members don't think they are
in anyway inferior to those who can think for themselves and the
'spinning moon' conclusion is certainly one such instance which
distinguishes a reasonable person from a severely dysfunction mind or
one prone to living in the comfort of their imagination.

It wasn't that Newton asserted the spinning moon,the idea is so
ridiculous that it merits attention only as long as a few analogies
dispel the idea,it is that he asserted it a few paragraphs after he
has Venus turn once in 23 hours and the Earth to stellar circumpolar
motion in 24 hours -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&pg=PA579&dq=newton+moon+rotates&hl=en&ei=SQJ5TJP1FYTKswadoL2yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

There is a temptation to see how far readers will go to believe that
the moon spins even in an era when men have landed on the moon and can
look out at the Earth constantly without having to budge or not look
at the Earth at all - the reason being that the moon doesn't spin.

[ppint. at pplay]

- do you still exist when the moon isn't full?

- emwltk(&allthat)

- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"but i believe the figure of one and one sixteenth
will be sufficiently accurate for poetry"
- charles babbage, writing to correct the second half of tennyson's line,
"every moment dies a man; every moment one is born"

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
> : See, Newton also did crackpottery - he was big on various types of
> : alchemy - but he knew HOW TO DO THE MATH. He _invented_ ways to do
> : the math, in fact. So he gets remembered for the stuff he did RIGHT,
> : and his potterings around in alchemy and angels are trivia questions.
> : THAT'S how you do it.
>
> Indeed... and to see what he did right, you look at how useful
> and accurate it is. Newtonian mechanics, *very* useful, and *very*
> accurate, in the exact circumstances ori sneers at.
>
> Lookit them yoyos, that's the way you do it
> You play the gee-tar on the Em Tee Vee
>
> --- Dire Straits, Money for Nothing



Sureeee it's accurate...when you *invent* -the math-, to fit the theory.


Anyone can 'invent new math....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLprXHbn19I


Anyone.

[The Starmaker]

You see...
what most people don't understand..
including members of the 'scientific community',
is that..
Newton was a smart guy.
He knew that Math is an invention of Man.

The universe is not mathematical.

It can be explained mathematical, but it is not
mathematical.

Math is an invention of Man.

That is why 13 x 28 = 27.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLprXHbn19I


Is the universe mathematical, of course not!

Where is the manual?

The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Sureeee it's accurate...when you *invent* -the math-, to fit the theory.
>
> So, expressing a theory in math rather than prose somehow makes
> it accurately model real observations in the real world?
>
> Sureeeee it does.
>
> Point is, both theory and math were fit to observations of the real world.
> Unlike what the starry one wants to con you to suppose.


Ohhhh puleeease...a theory is not a real world. Math is not a real
world.

[The Starmaker]

You cannot come up with a theory that comes from imagination,
and invent math and say, this is the real world. It's...fraud.

[Quadibloc]

On Apr 13, 12:58 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>

> Do you really believe that?

Obviously, this is an attempt to prove the existence of God, through
reference to the poem:

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

John Savard

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>

> : You cannot come up with a theory that comes from imagination,

> : and invent math and say, this is the real world. It's...fraud.
>

> Obviously, the starry one can make the accusation that somebody
> says theory and math are the real world. It's ... prevarication.
> His stock in trade.


Come on already, you're not fooling anybody...

Yous come up
from your imagination
a global warming thing,
find math to prove it,
and then try to convince
everyone it's
Real World.

It's a con!

It's a pattern with these people
who call themselves...the science people.


Any bird brain can recognize a pattern.


The Starmaker

[1,945 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

From their vantage point, those moon walkers might assume the moon
orbits Earth in a retrograde orbit with a period of about 24 hours
based on the passage of Earth's features, while the sun appears to
orbit both with a period of about 29 days.

Of course, upon using the calculations based on that assumption to
guide their ship back to Earth, they would be sorely dismayed...

[Mahipal]

On Apr 17, 12:05 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

> > : You cannot come up with a theory that comes from imagination,
> > : and invent math and say, this is the real world. It's...fraud.
>
> > Obviously, the starry one can make the accusation that somebody
> > says theory and math are the real world.  It's ... prevarication.
> > His stock in trade.
>
> Come on already, you're not fooling anybody...

Sure he is, he's got us thinking that a ball like object, some Moon
thingy, actually spins and has its own North Star. Give Wayne credit!

> Yous come up
> from your imagination
> a global warming thing,
> find math to prove it,
> and then try to convince
> everyone it's
> Real World.
>
> It's a con!

What new con? Earth's rotation is the cause of global warming?

> It's a pattern with these people
> who call themselves...the science people.

How many science people, by percentage, in a crowded ball game? I say
13% but that's only because I am partial to odd numbers.

> Any bird brain can recognize a pattern.

And bird brains never fly.

> The Starmaker

When I close my mind's eyes, does the Internet cease to exist?

-- Mahipal

[Rock Brentwood]

On Apr 13, 1:58 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> Do you really believe that?

You can never be "not looking". Its gravity leads to tidal forces
which impact your body. Your body is therefore continuously entangled
with the moon. Your question is also based on this notion of sighted-
conceit that nothing counts unless it's "ssen". Does nothing then
exist to a blind person? sight is not the only sense you have and for
many people it's not even the dominant one. So defining "exists" by
"seen" is beggging the question in a serious way, apart fromt eh
sighted-conceit.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<221093c2-72ff-47e3...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

Ah, the existence of the tree when unobserved is maintained by faith.
Allowing the tree to exist unobserved just s makes the explanation of
the Universe simpler. Having objects pop into existence when someone
is in position to observe them makes for quite a complex explanation
of observed phenomena.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[The Starmaker]

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> In article <bf81ea7e-321d-4c0a-a33d-ea2a2fab3229
> @n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, jfgo...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > On Apr 18, 6:32 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 18, 11:03 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> > >
> > > > : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> > > > : I think the Big Lie of a spinning moon and its followers via Newton is
> > > > : sufficient enough to draw parallels with tyrannical ideologies such as
> > > > : Nazi doctrine
> > >
> > > > Apparently, this is largely because you are a profoundly impressive loon,
> > > > and like to imagine that there's oppression inherent in the system.
> > >
> > > Fascinating people !.
> > >
> > > > The question of "does the moon rotate" is the same as "does the
> > > moon
> > >
> > > > change orientation over time". Obviously, it does. Even if you come
> > > > up with cult bylaws that the orientation of the moon must be referred to
> > > > earth and nothing else, the moon visibly changes orientation each month.
> > > > So there's no question whatsoever that the moon rotates. That's visible
> > > > in time lapse photography, and libration was well known before that.
> > >
> > > > So, the strange claim that the moon does *not* rotate is obviously false
> > > > to anybody who actually looks at the moon in any detail at all.
> > > > To keep up with that claim, you have to ignore the evidence of your
> > > > own eyes.
> > >
> > > The people who can see the far side of the moon because the moon
> > > rotates once separate to its orbital circuit of the Earth are the
> > > stuff of the worst horror stories by virtue of an odd pride in what is
> > > probably the most anti-intellectual fact there is.No astronomer and
> > > even Kepler who's work they rely on heavily ever mentioned a spinning
> > > moon as it is the only observation we share with all people stretching
> > > back to antiquity in that the moon orbits the Earth.
> > >
> > > Sci-fi is wonderful so long as it is appreciated against a backdrop of
> > > science fact but since Newton and his followers managed to hijack the
> > > great discipline of astronomy and turn it into a dumping ground for
> > > theoretical nonsense by blurring fiction with fact,our generation
> > > inherit a horror story.
> >
> > The moon is a local event. When we try to apply moon physics towards
> > terrestrial physics- we at once realize that they are not one and the
> > same thing.
>
> Who is this "we" round-eyes? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
>
> But I see that you are a sock puppet for the village idiot, so back in
> the bozo bin you go.
>
> Oh, and all of those who think he's not a troll, consider that village
> idiots don't use sock puppets, trolls do. Also note the crossposts.
> Again a troll sign, not an idiot sign.

Listen dummie, you might learn sometin...

If you look at your newsreader
at the Headings
it reads:

Newsgoups:

The heading is called: Newgroups:

Notice there is the letter 's' at the end of the word, it means Plural...more than one.

Usenet is designed for posting to 'more than one' newgroup.

If one is not posting to more than one newsgroup, then they are not using what the newreader is designed for.


It reads in your own newsreader and everyone else: Newsgroups:


Anyone who just post to one newsgroup is using their newsreader ...incorrectly.


I'm right, you're wrong.


The Starmaker


Now if you feel I'm wrong, why didn't you edited the thread to read only one newsgroup before you responded? Because you are a fuckin hypocrite!

Do I make myself clear?

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : John Gogo <jfgo...@yahoo.com>
> : My question would be- how confident are you about explaining the
> : situation at hand? It seems that you have unanswered questions
> : yourself.
>
> My questions are an attempt to discover oriel36's answers.
> The answers I'd supply are simple and straightforward, the
> general theme being, I account for the evidence of rotation by
> concluding that the moon is, in fact rotating. It's oriel36's
> position (and yours, apparently) that the moon is *not* rotating.
> That being the case, how do you account for the evidence?
> Again, I've already said how I account for it; here, be specific:
>
> :: Maybe you can answer me a question that oriel36 steadfastly refuses
> :: to even acknowledge exists, and maybe a couple others. If the
> :: moon doesn't rotate, how does it happen to be just the right amount
> :: oblat= e to be rotating once every four weeks or so? Is that just
> :: a remarkable coincidence, or what?
>
> It's not a coincidence; it's because the moon *is* rotating.
>
> :: if it's not rotating, howcome it changes the direction it faces in a
> :: cycle of about four weeks, howcome?
>
> Again, it changes the direction it faces because it *is* rotating.
>
> :: if the moon isn't rotating, where does libration come from?
>
> If the moon weren't rotating, there wouldn't libration.
> Since there is, it comes from the fact that the rotation of the moon is
> synchronized to the moon's orbit. The rotation is steady (conservation
> of momentum and all that), but the orbit is not (elipse and all that).
> So the moon appears to wiggle a bit during each orbit. (There are some
> secondary effects as well.)
>
> : I believe that questions of this sort will be eventually answered.
>
> Well. Near as I can tell, oriel36 is studiously ignoring them.
> Care to give 'em a whack yourself?


If the same side of the moon is always facing the planet Earth....then
that has to mean
the Moon is a television satelite sending signals back to someones TV.

[Quadibloc]

On Apr 20, 1:29 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> If the same side of the moon is always facing the planet Earth....then
> that has to mean
> the Moon is a television satelite sending signals back to someones TV.

It does? Could you tell me how it is that you get from your premise to
your conclusion?

However, people did bounce radar signals off of the Moon on occasion.

John Savard

[The Starmaker]

I thought I explained this before...the Moon is hollow. It contains
some sort of survelance camera or a television satelite that send signals
back to God's TV set, ...or whoever else is watching TV at his house.

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

An extra layer of tin foil in the hat will fix that right up!

[The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help]

California's Mount Shasta is also said to be hollow, and at one time
was home to no less than 15 different alien races. Last time I
checked, this was down to only 9.

Darned global warming...

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : John Gogo <jfgo...@yahoo.com>

> : Its all about finding that common reference point where the masses
> : understand more- not the exclusive theory that only the smartest of us
> : can truly know science. I learn science from everybody.
>
> Do the masses know that the moon has phases?
> Do the masses know that the sun lights up those portions of the moon
> which are visible from the sun? How smart do the masses have to be
> to be aware of these things? How exclusive is the theory that the
> moon has phases, and the sun lights up the parts of the moon visible
> from the sun?
>
> Do the masses know that geosynchronous satellites can only provide images
> of a single face of earth? Do they know that their DirecTV dishes
> point at a constant location in the sky? How exclusive is the theory
> that the earth rotates but shows only one face to a geosync satellite?
>
> I mean seriously, is this rocket surgery or brain science or something?
> Do people actually think this is *complicated*?


You're confusing knowledge with information.


Let me help you Wayne since you seem to lack both....


in搭or搶a暗ion Facts provided or learned about something or someone.

knowl搪dge Information and skills acquired through experience or education


It's obvious to everyone you have no knowledge what the masses have learned.


What information do you have right now on How To Fix A Washing Machine?
What knowledge do you have right now on How To Fix A Washing Machine?

You never heard "I know what I know. What I don't know, I don't know"?


I'll ask you a question...

Why do men stare at Asian girls? Or, why do asian girls wear t-shirts that read "Why Are You Staring At Me?" It's obvious
that asian girls feel that men stare at them. Why do people stare at asians? What causes them to...stare? Is this too complicated a question for you?


The Starmaker


How about a different question?
A baby is born with two heads.
'If both their brains are functioning, how do you choose which head to remove?' The head on the left, or the head on the right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076954/Baby-heads-born-Brazil-Dicephalic-parapagus-twins-Emanoel-Jesus.html


Is this too complicated a question for you?


Okay, I understand...maybe it's too hard for you, ...no wiki links to find the answer for you. Thinking on your own
is not your...forte.

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> :: Do the masses know that the moon has phases?
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : It's obvious to everyone you have no knowledge what the masses have learned.
>
> So you're saying the masses *don't* know that the moon has phases.
> Good to know. Calibration and all.

Not everybody goes to Moon school.

Where do you get your knowledge and information about the Moon?

Did you go to Moon University?

So, you're a Moon expert now.



Did you go on a honeymoon with your wife?

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> ::: It's obvious to everyone you have no knowledge

> ::: what the masses have learned.
>
> :: So you're saying the masses *don't* know that the moon has phases.
> :: Good to know. Calibration and all.
>

> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Not everybody goes to Moon school.
>
> So "Moon school" is necessary to know that the moon has phases.
> Good to know. Do they also have to go to some school to know
> that the sky is blue and grass is green? I suppose somebody
> raised in a compound in Oregon would need the former, and somebody
> raised in a compound in the Sahara would need the latter, but they
> probably have bigger problems.


The sky is at a distance..the grass is on the ground..

The moon is up! People don't have eyes on top of their head.

I'm from new york, i don't recall ever seeing a moon. The buildings
are too tall. They block the moon, the stars, the clouds and the sun.
I don't think grass grows in new york...you might have to go to central park to see grass.
Blue sky in new york? Don't remember seeing blue sky in new york....or any sky.


Looking up hurts peoples neck...and it's boring. There's nothing up there..


Tell your wife tonight "Lets go outside and look at the moon." She won't last two seconds outside...


you're not in touch with REALITY are you?


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

I seem to remember an episode of the Celebrity Apprentice where Clay Atkins had
trouble finding green grass in New York. The location manager told him, "I don't think they have grass in New York."

Good thing Clay Atkins wasn't looking for a Moon...

How about stars Wayne? Are there stars where you live at? I mean, can you look up without hurting your neck and see stars at night?

There are people here that will tell you, there are no stars where they live at...you have to go to another state or another country to see stars.


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> ::::: It's obvious to everyone you have no knowledge
> ::::: what the masses have learned.
> :::: So you're saying the masses *don't* know that the moon has phases.
> :::: Good to know. Calibration and all.

> ::: Not everybody goes to Moon school.

> :: So "Moon school" is necessary to know that the moon has phases.
> :: Good to know. Do they also have to go to some school to know that
> :: the sky is blue and grass is green?
>

> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : The sky is at a distance..the grass is on the ground..
> : The moon is up!
>
> So the masses are unaware of the fact that the moon rises and sets.
> The starry one unaware of this as well, it seems.
>
> : Looking up hurts peoples neck...and it's boring.

> : There's nothing up there..
>

> Didn't you say the moon is up there?
> Are you and the masses unaware of stars also?
>
> : won't last two seconds outside...
>
> That's about all anybody needs to notice that the moon has phases.
>
> : you're not in touch with REALITY are you?
>
> You mean as opposed to the masses and yourself, who don't know
> that the moon has phases, nor that it rises and sets?
>
> Or are you counting the moon as not a part of reality?

I keep forgetting you're a moon expert, ...you took your wife on a honeyearth instead.

[The Starmaker]

David DeLaney wrote:
>
> oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I wish people would discover that it is cool to work with 21st century
> >imaging rather than defend late 17th century nonsense - it is a
> >adventurous thing and although the idea if a flat Earth is actually a
> >joke,there are people who are dead serious about a spinning moon and
> >that is fascinating given that men have actually landed on a non
> >rotating moon.
>
> Sorry, dear. No human being has yet landed on a non-rotating moon.
>
> Dave, even most of the artificial satellites don't qualify, and you don't
> "land on" one of those anyway


The first landing was on a satellite.

[John Gogo]

On Apr 23, 11:18 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> David DeLaney wrote:

Yes, the moon is but a satellite.

[John Gogo]

Cannot we take this "tide locked" theory and apply this to the
universe? I think it would be better than thinking that everything
spins when it does not.

[John Gogo]

We have to remember what spin means. The planet Earth not only spins
but also rotates around the Sun. The moon also rotates around the
Sun, but more hierarchically it rotates around the Earth. This must
possess a special case in that all moon of all planets have different
functions than the planets themselves- they don't spin.

[John Gogo]

By the way, the phases of the moon are only Earth based measures of
light and shadow- and yield nothing but a special case which does not
apply to the rest of the universe.

[John Gogo]

Moons are simply counterweights- balancers of the planets of the solar
systems throughout the universe.

[David DeLaney]

John Gogo <jfgo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>By the way, the phases of the moon are only Earth based measures of
>light and shadow- and yield nothing but a special case which does not
>apply to the rest of the universe.

If you mean "the moons and planets in the rest of the universe don't have
phases" by the above, that's wrong wrong wrongity wrong. We can see phases
of Venus, Jupiter, Jupiter's moons, etc. It's a condition that exists
wherever you've got a sun shining on some round(ish) thing moving along
somewhere in its vicinity.

If you meant to mean "the phases as seen from Earth are not the same phases
as observers in other places would see", well, sure, but that's not all that
close to what you -wrote-.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[John Gogo]

On Apr 24, 11:34 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE        HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>http://www.vic.com/~dbd/- net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Well, it's good that we are all thinking about it, I suppose.

[John Gogo]

On Apr 24, 11:34 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE        HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>http://www.vic.com/~dbd/- net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

That is what I am not saying Dave. Nearly all of observations are
done on Earth. From Earth, the moon only shows one side to us. In
other words, we accept a bunch of theories that are Earth based-
while, at the same time, accepting a Sun based theory. Both theories
don't belong together Dave.

[John Gogo]

On Apr 24, 10:16 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 11:34 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >By the way, the phases of the moon are only Earth based measures of
> > >light and shadow- and yield nothing but a special case which does not
> > >apply to the rest of the universe.
>
> > If you mean "the moons and planets in the rest of the universe don't have
> > phases" by the above, that's wrong wrong wrongity wrong. We can see phases
> > of Venus, Jupiter, Jupiter's moons, etc. It's a condition that exists
> > wherever you've got a sun shining on some round(ish) thing moving along
> > somewhere in its vicinity.
>
> > If you meant to mean "the phases as seen from Earth are not the same phases
> > as observers in other places would see", well, sure, but that's not all that
> > close to what you -wrote-.
>
> > Dave
> > --
> > \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that       grows the flower
> > It's not the clock that slows the hour  The definition's plain for anyone to see

> > Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE        HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>http://www.vic.com/~dbd/-net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

>
> That is what I am not saying Dave.  Nearly all of observations are
> done on Earth.  From Earth, the moon only shows one side to us.  In
> other words, we accept a bunch of theories that are Earth based-
> while, at the same time, accepting a Sun based theory.  Both theories
> don't belong together Dave.

For instance, if we wanted to establish a base on the moon- it would
not be based on our view of the moon- on the contrary, it would be
based on the most advantaged position to exist.

[John Gogo]

On Apr 24, 10:43 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 10:16 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 11:34 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > > John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >By the way, the phases of the moon are only Earth based measures of
> > > >light and shadow- and yield nothing but a special case which does not
> > > >apply to the rest of the universe.
>
> > > If you mean "the moons and planets in the rest of the universe don't have
> > > phases" by the above, that's wrong wrong wrongity wrong. We can see phases
> > > of Venus, Jupiter, Jupiter's moons, etc. It's a condition that exists
> > > wherever you've got a sun shining on some round(ish) thing moving along
> > > somewhere in its vicinity.
>
> > > If you meant to mean "the phases as seen from Earth are not the same phases
> > > as observers in other places would see", well, sure, but that's not all that
> > > close to what you -wrote-.
>
> > > Dave
> > > --
> > > \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that       grows the flower
> > > It's not the clock that slows the hour  The definition's plain for anyone to see

> > > Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE        HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>http://www.vic.com/~dbd/-net.legendsFAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

>
> > That is what I am not saying Dave.  Nearly all of observations are
> > done on Earth.  From Earth, the moon only shows one side to us.  In
> > other words, we accept a bunch of theories that are Earth based-
> > while, at the same time, accepting a Sun based theory.  Both theories
> > don't belong together Dave.
>
> For instance, if we wanted to establish a base on the moon- it would
> not be based on our view of the moon- on the contrary, it would be
> based on the most advantaged position to exist.

Or, maybe, it would be both.

[David DeLaney]

John Gogo <jfgo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 24, 11:34�am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> If you mean "the moons and planets in the rest of the universe don't have
>> phases" by the above, that's wrong wrong wrongity wrong. We can see phases
>> of Venus, Jupiter, Jupiter's moons, etc. It's a condition that exists
>> wherever you've got a sun shining on some round(ish) thing moving along
>> somewhere in its vicinity.
>>
>> If you meant to mean "the phases as seen from Earth are not the same phases
>> as observers in other places would see", well, sure, but that's not all that
>> close to what you -wrote-.
>

>That is what I am not saying Dave. Nearly all of observations are
>done on Earth. From Earth, the moon only shows one side to us. In
>other words, we accept a bunch of theories that are Earth based-
>while, at the same time, accepting a Sun based theory. Both theories
>don't belong together Dave.

So you were trying to mean the latter; as I noted, what you actually said
didn't really convey that well. Yes, of COURSE the phases we're seeing
aren't the same phases someone at, say, Earth-L4 would see - they'd be looking
at the Moon from a different direction. And I'm not sure what you're trying
to say about "{place}-based theory" there; are you somehow under the impression
that the universe WORKS differently if you're looking from a different place?
It doesn't - that's translational and rotational invariance, which follow
from conservation of regular momentum and conservation of angular momentum,
thank you Emmy Noether. You don't need different scientific theories to
account how things work if you're looking outward from the Sun than you do
if you're looking outward from the Earth. Heavenly bodies are not made of
any sort of "quintessence" which doesn't occur in the Earthly sphere.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>

http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Thrinaxodon]

On Apr 13, 2:58 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> Do you really believe that?

Does your house exist, when You don't look at it? Yes, the moon does
exist.

[Wally W.]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote:

>even in an era when men have landed on the moon and can
>look out at the Earth constantly without having to budge or not look
>at the Earth at all - the reason being that the moon doesn't spin.

Please explain the variation in solar altitude during a single mission
on the moon:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-sunangles.html

[oriel36]

You can't understand the variations in solar inclination on Earth and
its orbital cause let alone deal with solar inclination seen from any
other celestial object - the answer being,of course,that all planets
turn once as a component of their orbital motion to the central Sun
hence axial precession goes from a long term axial trait to an annual
orbital trait.It is not a hypothesis,assertion or theory - it is a
100% observational certainty -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg

For people who imagine a spinning moon they will certainly not be
capable of comprehending what has been modified when it comes to
variations in solar inclination as we orbit the central Sun,if those
images above can't convince you then don't bother me again.

[Wally W.]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 05:09:25 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote:

>On May 6, 12:20�pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote:
>> >even in an era when men have landed on the moon and can
>> >look out at the Earth constantly without having to budge or not look
>> >at the Earth at all - the reason being that the moon doesn't spin.
>>
>> Please explain the variation in solar altitude during a single mission
>> on the moon:
>>
>> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-sunangles.html
>
>You can't understand the variations in solar inclination on Earth and
>its orbital cause let alone deal with solar inclination seen from any
>other celestial object

How do you know I can't understand it?

Where have you tried to explain it?

[The Starmaker]

I'll explain it...I'm the genius here.

Pretend this girl is pretending she's the Moon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBdRbEud8rI

[oriel36]

Each and every time the images of Uranus pop up you get the seasons
explained along with why natural noon cycles vary as a planet turns
two ways to the central Sun.

This is why axial precession has to shift from a 25900 year axial
trait to an annual orbital trait because effectively the Earth and all
the planets do this to the central Sun and can be seen to do it -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg

This is not rocket science,put an X on a ball and keep the X fixed to
an external point and move it around the central object as an analogy
of what a planet does and then point the X at a central object to
imitate what the moon does.

You have all these people drawing huge salaries and calling themselves
astronomers at the public expense yet seemingly can't make sense of
the motion of the moon around the Earth and fair dues to the guy with
the figure skater,although Kepler got their first with the hammer
thrower analogy as to why the moon always keeps the same face to us,at
least it was a good attempt at originality.