Re: Does the Moon Exist When I'm Not Looking?

[The Starmaker]

underante wrote:
>
> seems like the question to ask here is why would the moon _not_ spin?
> the earth, spins, the sun spins, even uranus with its weird flipped
> over sideways axis spins, so why, perhaps uniquely, wouldn't our moon
> spin?


I thought I already answered that question...
The Moon works the same way as our television satilites.

So God, when he is watching TV, He doesn't have to adjust his Dish.

The signals are picked up from the front of the moon and sends signlas to God's TV set from the dark side of the moon.


Don't they teach this stuff in school?


The Starmaker

[Quadibloc]

On Apr 27, 1:49 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> I thought I already answered that question...
> The Moon works the same way as our television satilites.
>
> So God, when he is watching TV, He doesn't have to adjust his Dish.
>
> The signals are picked up from the front of the moon and sends signlas to God's TV set from the dark side of the moon.
>
> Don't they teach this stuff in school?

Oh, that's just silly. God is omniscient, so He doesn't need any
artificial aids to see everything everywhere.

But I'll admit that the synchronization between the Moon's rotation
and its orbit is perhaps handy for the mysterious "blue area" on the
Moon's most famous resident - Uatu, also known as The Watcher.

John Savard

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

And, since God is everywhere - that lunar antenna ~must~ rotate or God
will have to keep moving his recliner around the room.

Also note - the correct phrase is lunar "far side", not "dark side'.
When you factor in the occasional lunar eclipse on the near side, the
far side actually sees more sunlight than the near side.

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

Don't forget Ignignokt and Err...

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:16:21 -0700, The 'Brightness' control still
doesn't help <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>And, since God is everywhere - that lunar antenna ~must~ rotate or God
>will have to keep moving his recliner around the room.
>
>Also note - the correct phrase is lunar "far side", not "dark side'.
>When you factor in the occasional lunar eclipse on the near side, the
>far side actually sees more sunlight than the near side.

The term "dark side" is old. Nobody thought "Darkest Africa" didn't
get sunlight.

--
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.

[The Starmaker]

Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:16:21 -0700, The 'Brightness' control still
> doesn't help <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >And, since God is everywhere - that lunar antenna ~must~ rotate or God
> >will have to keep moving his recliner around the room.
> >
> >Also note - the correct phrase is lunar "far side", not "dark side'.
> >When you factor in the occasional lunar eclipse on the near side, the
> >far side actually sees more sunlight than the near side.
>
> The term "dark side" is old.

March 22, 2013

NASA probe reveals dark side of the moon

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/22/on-moon-nasa-probe-sees-where-sun-never-shines/

a month old i guess


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/science/space/probes-will-crash-into-the-moons-dark-not-far-side-today.html?_r=0
http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/nasa-finds-lost-spacecraft-on-dark-side-of-the-moon.htm
http://www.dailyastronomy.com/link.asp?ID=1468400&Title=Rare%20Volcanoes%20Found%20on%20Dark%20Side%20of%20Moon%20by%20NASA



Pink Floyd didn't get the memo....

[Adolf Arch-Impersonator]

On Apr 28, 4:33 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:16:21 -0700, The 'Brightness' control still
> > doesn't help <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >And, since God is everywhere - that lunar antenna ~must~ rotate or God
> > >will have to keep moving his recliner around the room.
>
> > >Also note - the correct phrase is lunar "far side", not "dark side'.
> > >When you factor in the occasional lunar eclipse on the near side, the
> > >far side actually sees more sunlight than the near side.
>
> > The term "dark side" is old.
>
> March 22, 2013
>
> NASA probe reveals dark side of the moon
>

> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/22/on-moon-nasa-probe-sees-whe...

>
> a month old i guess
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/science/space/probes-will-crash-int...http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/nasa-finds-lost-space...http://www.dailyastronomy.com/link.asp?ID=1468400&Title=Rare%20Volcan...

>
> Pink Floyd didn't get the memo....

There is a legend that parallel universes are infinitesimally close to
each other, like tubes bound in 5D. Space travelers would use some
sort of planetary harmonics program for each star system as the
transmission bundle, e.g.:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6782/earthmoon.gif

Any 'visible' activity (such as a full moon phase) becomes
characteristic of the POSITION of the moon on the dark side of a
planet, not having anything to do with the observation of the moon
itself. Lunar and planetary positions calculated forwards and
backwards, could provide space travelers with the orbital positions so
that FTL velocities would basically 'rewind the clocks' for other
earth/moon systems to be visited, landing somewhere in their charts:

http://caps.gsfc.nasa.gov/simpson/software/slunar_for.txt

But these things have already been accomplished by others, making it
easier for interstellar craft to come and go, ref. @ 0:58.00 in the
following video. He says that saucers come into land best during a
full moon, i.e. the gravitational tug of the earth is easier to
overcome at that time, on that side of the earth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBACualU3Qc

The moon’s pull on the sun-shielded side of the earth increases,
because aetheric compression from interplanetary space (during
perigee) actually pushes the moon closer to the earth.

Dark Side of the Moon ?(s)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VouHPeO4Gls

[Quadibloc]

Well, Heywood was Caucasian...

John Savard

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

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:33:30 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:16:21 -0700, The 'Brightness' control still
>> doesn't help <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >And, since God is everywhere - that lunar antenna ~must~ rotate or God
>> >will have to keep moving his recliner around the room.
>> >
>> >Also note - the correct phrase is lunar "far side", not "dark side'.
>> >When you factor in the occasional lunar eclipse on the near side, the
>> >far side actually sees more sunlight than the near side.
>>
>> The term "dark side" is old.
>
>March 22, 2013
>
>NASA probe reveals dark side of the moon
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/22/on-moon-nasa-probe-sees-where-sun-never-shines/
>
>a month old i guess

Yes. Vaguely clever headline. Polar craters that are always in
shadow. Hardly what is meant by the phrase "dark side of the moon".

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

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:28:28 -0700 (PDT), Adolf Arch-Impersonator
<gooses...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh.

[The Starmaker]

You have to 'watch out' with those people in the 'scientific community'...
they have a History of changing definitions and changings words when no one is looking...
they prefer to *isolate* themselves from the rest of the world.

Their goal of course is for you not to be able to understand them, because they don't understand their own selves.
They don't want you to know what they are talking about, and they don't know what they are talking about.
You know what I'm talking about?

[Quadibloc]

On Apr 29, 11:39 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Their goal of course is for you not to be able to understand them, because they don't understand their own selves.
> They don't want you to know what they are talking about, and they don't know what they are talking about.
> You know what I'm talking about?

Just because you don't have the mental capacity to understand calculus
and differential equations, don't assume that reality is bound by your
mental limitations.

John Savard

[oriel36]

On Apr 29, 6:39 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:33:30 -0700, The Starmaker
> > <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > >Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> > >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:16:21 -0700, The 'Brightness' control still
> > >> doesn't help <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >> >And, since God is everywhere - that lunar antenna ~must~ rotate or God
> > >> >will have to keep moving his recliner around the room.
>
> > >> >Also note - the correct phrase is lunar "far side", not "dark side'.
> > >> >When you factor in the occasional lunar eclipse on the near side, the
> > >> >far side actually sees more sunlight than the near side.
>
> > >> The term "dark side" is old.
>
> > >March 22, 2013
>
> > >NASA probe reveals dark side of the moon
>

> > >http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/22/on-moon-nasa-probe-sees-whe...

>
> > >a month old i guess
>
> > Yes.  Vaguely clever headline.  Polar craters that are always in
> > shadow.  Hardly what is meant by the phrase "dark side of the moon".
>

> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/science/space/probes-will-crash-int...
> > >http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/nasa-finds-lost-space...
> > >http://www.dailyastronomy.com/link.asp?ID=1468400&Title=Rare%20Volcan...

>
> > >Pink Floyd didn't get the memo....
>
> You have to 'watch out' with those people in the 'scientific community'...
> they have a History of changing definitions and changings words when no one is looking...
> they prefer to *isolate* themselves from the rest of the world.
>
> Their goal of course is for you not to be able to understand them, because they don't understand their own selves.
> They don't want you to know what they are talking about, and they don't know what they are talking about.
> You know what I'm talking about?

I have spoken at length about this insofar as they owe their voodoo to
Newton who first figured out you could gain a reputation if you chant
enough buzzwords you can force people to try and understand you,the
more ridiculous and more distorted the explanation the better.Isaac
was and remains a special case while his followers are mere imitators
(including those in the early 20th century),it just happens that I can
read what Isaac was trying to do,why it doesn't work and why his
followers will fight tooth and nail to keep things confused,awkward
and distorted so they can draw their salaries.

Because the moon is so close to the Earth it is difficult to grasp
that its phases are just orbital points as it travels around the Earth
yet if a person looks at the phases of Venus in context of its orbital
motion around the Sun,it is easy enough to transfer it to the moon and
its phases and what they mean -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg

What do all these people know of time,space and motion if they insist
that the moon has a separate spinning motion as it orbits the
Earth ?.I don't know about sci-fi but I can tell you a few real life
horror stories about people who lose their minds and would have the
rest of the world lose it with them.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:e9495226-7683-49c2...@af5g2000pbd.googlegroups.
com:

And if there's anybody here that knows about being bound (and gagged)
by mental limitations, it's Quaddie!

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[underante]

oriel36, can you help me out here?
there have been so many posts in this thread that i fear i have
missed
something vital, for if i assume that the moon revolves round the
earth on
a circular path at a constant distance, d, between their centres of
mass,
then if point X on the moon's surface is the point that is the most
closest
to the earth and always pointing towards it, it will be obliged to
follow a
circular orbit with radius (d - r ) where r is the moon's radius.
likewise the point Y on the moon's surface that is always furthest
from the
earth and pointing away from it, will follow a circular orbit with
radius
( d + r ), which then leads to me calculate the orbital momentum, L,
of the moon around the earth's centre to be (approximately) L =
M*d*d*w
for r << d and where M is the mass of the moon and w its constant
angular velocity around its earth orbit, but also this leads to a spin
angular
momentum, S, for the moon around its own centre of mass, of
S = (2/5)*r*r*m*w which is not at all in agreement with you own
result
of S = 0 if it were not spinning.
what has gone wrong here? how do you arrive at a result of S = 0 ?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

Al Gore's movie, Al, himself, uses this tern
of endearmant; as for Pfloyd,
could be a metaphor viz the Wiz of Oz soundtrack.

> Polar craters that are always in
> shadow.  Hardly what is meant by the phrase "dark side of the moon".

thus:
if your "theory" is that the bombs were inadequate planes,
you have a bit of flightschool to do, yet.

> There are some problems with that ...

thus:
time is simply not a dimension,
no matter some diagrammatic representation;
it is awareness *of* dimensionality; if
one has no awareness of Universe, one cannot do any
of the God-am *mathematica* (any
of the four subjects, or quadrivium, including
Gauss's "queen of the sciences").

spacetime is nothing but quaternions,
as shown by Einstien's assistant, Lanczos,
in _Variational Mechanics_ from Dover,
a vast treatise on configuration spaces.

[John Gogo]

On Apr 29, 9:30 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I know- can't somebody do the plug and chug of what we are aware of?

[The Starmaker]

you don't seem to 'understand' oriel...he doesn't answer to no one.

[oriel36]

Thank you for chanting empirical voodoo which can get the moon to spin
inside your head even when it doesn't,of course,it takes only time
lapse footage of what a spinning celestial object looks like to clear
up any objections or misunderstandings and obviously your community is
having huge difficulties understanding the difference between a
spinning/rotating object and an orbiting object.On a table,spin a ball
on its spot and that is a rotating object,move the ball from place to
place around the table with an X on its face pointing at a center
object (Earth) and you will see immediately that as the moon orbits
the Earth each month it keeps the same face to the center hence it
doesn't rotate as it orbits nor does it spin.

The wider population and especially students have been told that
chanting voodoo gives these mathematicians the right to speak for
astronomy but they themselves never understood Newton who first
introduced the contrived explanations that don't work nor fit together
and once they were honest about it -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form
appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown,
and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in
themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the
controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by
a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them"
Newton

So,you have generations and generations of people who are told you
need calculus to handle astronomical observations (time,space and
motion) but common sense and good interpretative skills are the only
thing necessary to make sense of celestial motions and the structure
of the solar system or greater structures.If you see a spinning moon
where there is none,and I assure you the moon does not spin,there is
not a chance you can interpret any other astronomical observation.

I wonder how many other people than Starmaker understand that
reputations and salaries are made by keeping things contrived and
nonsensical while passing them off as explanations that can only be
understood by chanting voodoo.

[alie...@gmail.com]

That was mathematics. Let me guess- you failed all your math classes
too.


Mark L. Fergerson

[oriel36]

That was voodoo,you begin with the moon's orbital circuit of the Earth
and work from there,apply a few easy analogies such as putting an X on
a ball and keeping the same face to a central object (Earth) as you
move it around the table.As this description is not beyond a child you
can imagine that I don't have a regard for you and your mathematical
'wizards' who firmly believe the moon spins like the Earth,Sun and
other planets.Don't worry if you can't accept what your eyes are
telling you and everyone else who has not seen the far side of the
moon by virtue that a spinning object is separate to an orbiting
object hence the moon does spin as it orbits the Earth.

How many billions and billions of dollar are spent each year on
empiricists (they are called 'scientists/astronomers' among
themselves)who have a great time making sure that the wider population
understand how important and superior they are because the average
person shuts down when confronted by people who are convinced that the
moon spins and would have others believe it too.Truth is that it takes
more to prove a round Earth than it does a non spinning moon because
we can see the moon directly.Great scam that has a beginning in the
late 17th ccentury when it was all about reputation whereas today it
is about salaries and lifestyles.

[underante]

profound insight indeed, thank you for your reply, it appears i must
ponder this matter more deeply.
but meantime, what of point Y, the point that is drawn on the moon's
far side pointing away from the earth?
so for instance, say, point Y were to start out on its travels on the
right hand side of X, (the point on the surface of the moon's near
side), such that a horizontal line might be drawn through both X and Y
and the centres of both moon and earth, and so as point X travels
around its orbit, point Y will travel faster and after a half-orbit
has been made, Y will now finds itself on the left hand side of X, a
motion which creates a most disturbing illusion within my mind that
point Y is revolving around point X, or indeed vice-versa, i cannot
quite decide, and all-in-all a state of affairs that can surely only
be resolved if the moon itself rotates about its centre?

[oriel36]

Ponder indeed !,you are an answer to my prayers that you can chant
mathematical voodoo at the moon all day long but you can't get it to
spin however you are serving the purpose of opening up the flood gates
to all other notions of time,space and motion which mathematicians
appear to speak for but have no idea about.

One of the greatest ideas was that of Copernicus who figured out that
the forward- backward-forward motions of the planets was actually the
Earth overtaking them in our annual orbital circuit of the Sun just
the way a car in an inner lane going around a traffic island will see
the slower moving car in an outer lane fall behind -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . ." Galileo

Now,unlike Galileo and any high school student today,mathematicians
just don't get this insight no more than they get that the moon
doesn't spin.It is easy enough to interpret the apparent backward
motion of the outer planets as an illusion caused by the faster motion
of the Earth but mathematicians just don't get it,they seem to think
you need an observer on the Sun to make retrogrades disappear which
isn't the case -

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton

So Underante,it doesn't take much pondering to figure out Newton and
his mathematician followers just don't get astronomy and that
Copernicus and Galileo understood why the planets appear to go
backwards and what causes it.All it takes is a few individuals who can
reason things out and actually enjoy what modern time lapse footage
tells them.

[Quadibloc]

Needing an observer on the Sun to make retrogrades disappear. Hmm.

It seems to me clear enough that on the Earth, we see retrogrades. If
they are an 'illusion', it is because the planets do not actually move
around the Earth; they move around the Sun.

So it is their movement around the Sun that is always direct - and it
is not clear to me that Newton is saying more than that.

John Savard

[underante]

well, erm, glad to be of help? - i think. but sadly i must get back to
the mindless chanting before the boss-lady here starts to stick pins
into the wax dolly that she has fashioned in my image, and a far more
convincing illusion than that those two surface points X and Y are
revolving about the moon centre as it progresses around its orbit.

[1,954 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

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

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:36:01 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 30, 11:02嚙窮m, underante <undera...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 7:33嚙窮m, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 30, 12:21嚙窮m, underante <undera...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 29, 8:47嚙緘m, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> > > > On Apr 29, 6:39嚙緘m, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:33:30 -0700, The Starmaker
>> > > > > > <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:16:21 -0700, The 'Brightness' control still
>> > > > > > >> doesn't help <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> >And, since God is everywhere - that lunar antenna ~must~ rotate or God
>> > > > > > >> >will have to keep moving his recliner around the room.
>>
>> > > > > > >> >Also note - the correct phrase is lunar "far side", not "dark side'.
>> > > > > > >> >When you factor in the occasional lunar eclipse on the near side, the
>> > > > > > >> >far side actually sees more sunlight than the near side.
>>
>> > > > > > >> The term "dark side" is old.
>>
>> > > > > > >March 22, 2013
>>
>> > > > > > >NASA probe reveals dark side of the moon
>>
>> > > > > > >http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/22/on-moon-nasa-probe-sees-whe...
>>
>> > > > > > >a month old i guess
>>

>> > > > > > Yes. 嚙碾aguely clever headline. 嚙瞑olar craters that are always in
>> > > > > > shadow. 嚙瘡ardly what is meant by the phrase "dark side of the moon".

>> > > to the earth and always pointing towards it, 嚙箠t will be obliged to

>> > > follow a
>> > > circular orbit with radius (d - r ) where r is the moon's radius.
>> > > likewise the point Y on the moon's surface that is always furthest
>> > > from the
>> > > earth and pointing away from it, will follow a circular orbit with
>> > > radius
>> > > ( d + r ), which then leads to me calculate the orbital momentum, L,
>> > > of the moon around the earth's centre to be (approximately) L =
>> > > M*d*d*w

>> > > for r << d 嚙窮nd where M is the mass of the moon and w its constant

Dude... he just proved it does spin.

[oriel36]

On May 1, 11:47 am, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

You don't prove the moon spins,you look out at the moon as it makes
its monthly circuit of the Earth and see it doesn't spin as it keeps
the same face to the Earth at all times,if it spins we would see all
360 degrees of its surface and that is not proof,that is common sense.

Now trying to prove the moon spins is a type of tribal initiation as
it forces the mind to accept something which doesn't exist,in this
case,a spinning moon so the empirical follower is certainly at a level
lower than a flat Earther and indeed the flat Earther society is a
kind of a quaint joke whereas the spinning mooners are dead serious.

Here is what a spinning Earth looks like along with an orbiting moon
that doesn't spin,it doesn't need proof no more than the spinning
Earth does -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s

It is no coincidence that Nazi ideology applies as the closest the
human mind has approached the level of a vicious yet lucrative strain
of empiricism was Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-four' which itself was
drawn from Nazi ideology -

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists.The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs" Orwell

The more I looked at empiricists (they call themselves 'scientists')
the more I found myself researching holocaust literature by virtue of
the way they react which goes from total disappearance to outright
hostility but they never,ever alter their minds.They do not find it
the least remarkable that Newton was the one and only person ever to
suggest that the moon spins and to have that power over his followers
is quite incredible for all the wrong reasons.I assume there are
people who truly value their ability to make their own minds up on
matters but in the case of empiricists this doesn't happen.

It is as though men never landed on the moon !.

[Greg Goss]

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

>That was voodoo,you begin with the moon's orbital circuit of the Earth
>and work from there,apply a few easy analogies such as putting an X on
>a ball and keeping the same face to a central object (Earth) as you
>move it around the table.

But for the moon, you have TWO "central objects". The sun is even
more central to the moon's orbit than the Earth is. And the moon
rotates if you watch from near the sun.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Howard Brazee]

From where I stand, the moon does not appear to be rotating relative
to me. But neither does the Earth.

I'm not the center of the Universe though.

[oriel36]

On May 1, 3:18 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >That was voodoo,you begin with the moon's orbital circuit of the Earth
> >and work from there,apply a few easy analogies such as putting an X on
> >a ball and keeping the same face to a central object (Earth) as you
> >move it around the table.
>
> But for the moon, you have TWO "central objects".  The sun is even
> more central to the moon's orbit than the Earth is.  And the moon
> rotates if you watch from near the sun.
> --

No it does not - a spinning Earth like any other spinning object has a
maximum equatorial speed which diminishes zero at the polar
coordinates hence any hypothetical observer on the Sun will see the
moon orbit the Earth but not rotate.If I need to explain the
difference between an orbiting object and a spinning object then that
would be embarrassing and spinning on object on its spot and moving an
object from place to place is really beneath anyone who values their
intelligence.So,if you want to make an orbiting object look like a
spinning object then good for you but ultimately it goes back to what
is effectively a Nazi type ideology where one person and his dictates
have a grip on you and you dare not let go from that slavery into
intellectual freedom.

It is not that you can do better,it is that you cannot do any worse
and likewise for your 'information technology' buddies.

[David DeLaney]

oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> Dude... =A0he just proved it does spin.

>
>You don't prove the moon spins,you look out at the moon as it makes
>its monthly circuit of the Earth and see it doesn't spin as it keeps
>the same face to the Earth at all times,if it spins we would see all
>360 degrees of its surface and that is not proof,that is common sense.

As usual, you totally ignore that it is moving all the way around us while
it spins once, which common sense tells us means the two attempts at getting
us to see every side of it - one from it spinning THIS way which would let
us see all sides going THIS direction and one from it moving around us the
same way which would let us see all sides going the OTHER direction - cancel
out. But continue to insist that its orbital motion is somehow the same
as rotational motion, without actually doing the recommended experiment on
a tabletop near you with a dime or penny that would SHOW you how moving
something in a circle doesn't make it rotate at the same time.

You _are_ going to continue to flat-out refuse to do that experiment, right?

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.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

heads or tail or the bistable catastrophe?

[Quadibloc]

On May 1, 6:23 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You don't prove the moon spins,you look out at the moon as it makes
> its monthly circuit of the Earth and see it doesn't spin as it keeps
> the same face to the Earth at all times,if it spins we would see all
> 360 degrees of its surface and that is not proof,that is common sense.

Fine. From a common-sense point of view, the Moon doesn't spin.

But there's still the irrefutable fact that it wiggles a little.
Libration - the part called libration in longitude is what concerns me
here.

When the Moon orbits the Earth once, an observer on the Moon would see
stellar circumpolar motion take place.

But it turns out that stellar circumpolar motion, observed on the
Moon, is uniform like clockwork. While the Moon's orbital motion does
not take it through each degree in the same amount of clock time, due
to the orbit being elliptical and not circular (Kepler's law of equal
areas in equal times).

That is what led Newton - and still leads today's astronomers - to
view the Moon as rotating with the same period as its orbit, because
simple rotation should be uniform like clockwork, except where forces
are acting to speed up or slow down the rotation. Changes in angular
momentum need a cause.

Of course, you don't like this idea of reducing celestial motions to
Earthly mechanical laws; that's the "empirical agenda" or whatever.
Tough. If we just gave up and said the planets and the Moon can do
whatever they like because God has the power to make it work that way,
then there would be no reason to give up epicycles, and no reason to
listen to Copernicus.

You praise Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler - but by denying Newton,
the one who proved them to be right beyond any further rational
argument, you reject everything they stood for.

John Savard

[Greg Goss]

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

>On May 1, 3:18�pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>> But for the moon, you have TWO "central objects". �The sun is even
>> more central to the moon's orbit than the Earth is. �And the moon
>> rotates if you watch from near the sun.
>> --
>
>No it does not - a spinning Earth like any other spinning object has a
>maximum equatorial speed which diminishes zero at the polar
>coordinates hence any hypothetical observer on the Sun will see the
>moon orbit the Earth but not rotate.

You're wrong. From the sun, the moon will NOT appear to be going
around the earth. For that visual to work, the moon would
occasionally be moving retrograde, and it doesn't. The solar observer
would watch two objects revolving around himself, with occasionally
one further or closer and one out in front or the other. And both
spin.



--

[John F. Eldredge]

He no doubt found it overly empirical to point out that 2 + 2 = 4.

--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

[oriel36]

On May 2, 12:05 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 1, 3:18 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >> But for the moon, you have TWO "central objects".  The sun is even
> >> more central to the moon's orbit than the Earth is.  And the moon
> >> rotates if you watch from near the sun.
> >> --
>
> >No it does not - a spinning Earth like any other spinning object has a
> >maximum equatorial speed which diminishes zero at the polar
> >coordinates hence any hypothetical observer on the Sun will see the
> >moon orbit the Earth but not rotate.
>

> You're wrong.

You will see the same thing regardless of where you view it from - a
rotating Earth orbited by a non spinning moon -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s

This thread hints at the atrocities which take the name of science/
astronomy but constitute a vicious strain of empiricism which relies
on keeping things confused and contrived and then passes them off as
an 'explanation',it would be a joke played by a tiny minority and
dismissed as such but unfortunately it is not.

> From the sun, the moon will NOT appear to be going
> around the earth.

You have all these salaries and reputations hinging on such statements
of celestial motions in space which are based on inverting facts or
mixing fiction with fact thereby constituting one of the longest and
largest assaults on human creativity and productivity the world has
ever known.A spinning moon exists at a lower level than a flat Earth
concept by virtue that the old astronomers took time out to point out
reasoning why the Earth is round free of locality such as seeing the
top of a mountain first as a ship sails towards the horizon whereas a
non spinning moon is just something people see directly from anywhere
in space whether it is on the surface of the Earth or any other
planet.

 For that visual to work, the moon would
> occasionally be moving retrograde, and it doesn't.  The solar observer
> would watch two objects revolving around himself, with occasionally
> one further or closer and one out in front or the other.  And both
> spin.
>

There must be some sort of unnatural pleasure among empirical drones
in turning simple facts on their heads in order to draw attention to
themselves as a desperate attempt to appear superior in some way but I
have 21st century imaging and the knowledge the people have actually
stood on a non spinning moon to call attention,not to the technical
details alone,but rather the prevailing attitude which is shocking in
its hostility to information,science,human endeavor and just plain
human goodness which empiricists see as a weakness.There is your
atrocity.

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

On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:38:38 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 1, 3:18 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >That was voodoo,you begin with the moon's orbital circuit of the Earth
>> >and work from there,apply a few easy analogies such as putting an X on
>> >a ball and keeping the same face to a central object (Earth) as you
>> >move it around the table.
>>
>> But for the moon, you have TWO "central objects".  The sun is even
>> more central to the moon's orbit than the Earth is.  And the moon
>> rotates if you watch from near the sun.
>> --
>
>No it does not - a spinning Earth like any other spinning object has a
>maximum equatorial speed which diminishes zero at the polar
>coordinates hence any hypothetical observer on the Sun will see the
>moon orbit the Earth but not rotate.

An observer on the sun will see all faces of the moon over a roughly
four week period. If that ain't rotatin', then nuthin' is.

>If I need to explain the
>difference between an orbiting object and a spinning object then that
>would be embarrassing and spinning on object on its spot and moving an
>object from place to place is really beneath anyone who values their
>intelligence.So,if you want to make an orbiting object look like a
>spinning object then good for you but ultimately it goes back to what
>is effectively a Nazi type ideology where one person and his dictates
>have a grip on you and you dare not let go from that slavery into
>intellectual freedom.

Screw you and your nazi fixation. Congratulations. You have
graduated from netkOOk to beneath contempt.

>It is not that you can do better,it is that you cannot do any worse
>and likewise for your 'information technology' buddies.

You have proven wrong so many times and so many ways, it's not even
ludicrously funny any more.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in message news:aue7ok...@mid.individual.net...

He no doubt found it overly empirical to point out that 2 + 2 = 4.

--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

 

It is worse than even that. He finds 365.25 + 1 = 366.25 sidereal

days per year to be overly empirical.

 

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

On Wed, 1 May 2013 05:23:04 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 1, 11:47�am, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help
><inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >Ponder indeed !,you are an answer to my prayers that you can chant
>> >mathematical voodoo at the moon all day long but you can't get it to
>> >spin
>>
>> Dude... �he just proved it does spin.
>
>You don't prove the moon spins,you look out at the moon as it makes
>its monthly circuit of the Earth and see it doesn't spin as it keeps
>the same face to the Earth at all times,

If you look at your feet, you don't see the Earth spinning beneath
them. Therefore the Earth does not spin.

>if it spins we would see all
>360 degrees of its surface and that is not proof,that is common sense.

That is loon nonsense.

>Now trying to prove the moon spins is a type of tribal initiation as
>it forces the mind to accept something which doesn't exist,in this
>case,a spinning moon so the empirical follower is certainly at a level
>lower than a flat Earther and indeed the flat Earther society is a
>kind of a quaint joke whereas the spinning mooners are dead serious.

Speaking of quaint jokes...

>Here is what a spinning Earth looks like along with an orbiting moon
>that doesn't spin,it doesn't need proof no more than the spinning
>Earth does -
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s

Considering you are seeing about 1% of the moon's orbit in that
animation, and at such low resolution that you couldn't even measure
the 1% of its rotation in that period if you wanted to...

>It is no coincidence that Nazi ideology

You once again babbling about nazis shows your are not only insane,
but quite likely dangerous.

Steps will be taken.

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

On Wed, 1 May 2013 12:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On May 1, 6:23 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You don't prove the moon spins,you look out at the moon as it makes
>> its monthly circuit of the Earth and see it doesn't spin as it keeps
>> the same face to the Earth at all times,if it spins we would see all
>> 360 degrees of its surface and that is not proof,that is common sense.
>
>Fine. From a common-sense point of view, the Moon doesn't spin.

"Common sense" as demonsrtrated by Oriel's Flat Earth feloow
travelers.

[oriel36]

On May 2, 9:17 am, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:38:38 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 1, 3:18 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >That was voodoo,you begin with the moon's orbital circuit of the Earth
> >> >and work from there,apply a few easy analogies such as putting an X on
> >> >a ball and keeping the same face to a central object (Earth) as you
> >> >move it around the table.
>
> >> But for the moon, you have TWO "central objects".  The sun is even
> >> more central to the moon's orbit than the Earth is.  And the moon
> >> rotates if you watch from near the sun.
> >> --
>
> >No it does not - a spinning Earth like any other spinning object has a
> >maximum equatorial speed which diminishes zero at the polar
> >coordinates hence any hypothetical observer on the Sun will see the
> >moon orbit the Earth but not rotate.
>
> An observer on the sun will see all faces of the moon over a roughly
> four week period.  If that ain't rotatin', then nuthin' is.
>

Move an object from place to place and that is the orbital motion of
an object and that is what an observer from the Sun or anywhere else
sees,an object spinning on its spot with a maximum equatorial speed
which diminishes to zero at its axis is a rotating object.An empirical
drone could only have difficulties between these two separate motions
hence their ridiculous spinning moon.

> >If I need to explain the
> >difference between an orbiting object and a spinning object then that
> >would be embarrassing and spinning on object on its spot and moving an
> >object from place to place is really beneath anyone who values their
> >intelligence.So,if you want to make an orbiting object look like a
> >spinning object then good for you but ultimately it goes back to what
> >is effectively a Nazi type ideology where one person and his dictates
> >have a grip on you and you dare not let go from that slavery into
> >intellectual freedom.
>
> Screw you and your nazi fixation.  Congratulations.  You have
> graduated from netkOOk to beneath contempt.
>

They had to create a fictional novel to fully indicate what an
indoctrinated mind is capable and incapable of,it is called 'Nineteen
Eighty-four' but it is based on Nazi ideology so that a spinning moon
is the equivalent to 2+2=5 -

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists.The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell

With no observational support and nothing outside Newton's assertion
that the moon spins,the vicious strain of empiricism that emerged is
catastrophic in how it smothers creative and productive endeavors and
especially now in the 'information age'.

[oriel36]

On May 2, 9:31 am, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 05:23:04 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
>

> <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 1, 11:47 am, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help
> ><inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >Ponder indeed !,you are an answer to my prayers that you can chant
> >> >mathematical voodoo at the moon all day long but you can't get it to
> >> >spin
>
> >> Dude... he just proved it does spin.
>
> >You don't prove the moon spins,you look out at the moon as it makes
> >its monthly circuit of the Earth and see it doesn't spin as it keeps
> >the same face to the Earth at all times,
>
> If you look at your feet, you don't see the Earth spinning beneath
> them.  Therefore the Earth does not spin.

Honestly,Newton's strain of empiricism is virulent in effect that the
Nazi doctrine ever was - your feet are attached to a spinning Earth so
how your conclusion that the Earth doesn't spin on this account is
worse than your inability to distinguish an orbiting moon which shows
all faces to an external observer and a non rotating moon which keeps
the same face always to the Earth.

So drab are 'information technology' guys that they would be unlikely
to understand variations is rotational speeds at given global
latitudes because of their homocentric rotating celestial sphere cult
which is another dumb conclusion they drew in that period in the late
17th century.

Again,it is nothing to do with stupidity or intelligence although I
wish it were,it is far worse than that by virtue of a servile mind
that cannot think for itself.It was a minor problem centuries ago that
has now snowballed into a monster of a thing because if any of you are
concluding that the moon spins you are merely the wrong side of
Galileo's comments -

" I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not
so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always
be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor
of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me
that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some
conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own
or because of their having received it from some person who has their
entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it
impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in
support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set
forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain
their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is
brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they
receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them
ill " Galileo

The 'ill' business is Nazi like in its symptoms as no regret or
remorse is shown and I understand that the grip of empiricism is so
great that you would indeed become ill rather than accept that there
is not a single astronomer apart from Newton ever suggested the moon
spins and the moon's motion around the Earth is shared by every
astronomer stretching back to remote antiquity.

[David DeLaney]

oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 2, 12:05�am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>>�From the sun, the moon will NOT appear to be going around the earth.
> �For that visual to work, the moon would

>> occasionally be moving retrograde, and it doesn't. �The solar observer
>> would watch two objects revolving around himself, with occasionally
>> one further or closer and one out in front or the other. �And both spin.

He's right, you know; our Moon is somewhat unusual among satellites in this
system for this. Its orbit is always-concave towards the Sun. From the Sun's
point of view, the Earth and the Moon share an orbit, performing a complex
dance because they're so close to each other... with the Earth spinning on its
axis once a day and the Moon once a month. If the Moon were closer and orbited
the Earth more strongly, from the Sun you'd occasionally see it go convex
in its orbit, or even backwards for a bit ("retrograde"). But you don't.

[Quadibloc]

On May 2, 5:53 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> With no observational support and nothing outside Newton's assertion
> that the moon spins,the vicious strain of empiricism that emerged is
> catastrophic in how it smothers creative and productive endeavors and
> especially now in the 'information age'.

Librations are observed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbeLKRHad5M

And the amount of libration can be calculated based on the Moon
rotating! So the Moon is observed to rotate.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On May 1, 10:26 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A spinning moon exists at a lower level than a flat Earth
> concept by virtue that the old astronomers took time out to point out
> reasoning why the Earth is round free of locality such as seeing the
> top of a mountain first as a ship sails towards the horizon whereas a
> non spinning moon is just something people see directly from anywhere
> in space whether it is on the surface of the Earth or any other
> planet.

And here's a demonstration of why libration proves the Moon rotates:

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/LunarLibrationOfLongitude/

John Savard

[Wayne Throop]

: The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help <inv...@invalid.invalid>
: But there's still the irrefutable fact that it wiggles a little.

: Libration - the part called libration in longitude is what concerns
: me here.

Libration in latitude puts paid to oriel36's "interpretation" of the
moon's behaviors just about as effectively as libration in longitude.

Longitudinal libration means that the earth-facing behavior (or
"turning" as oriel36 puts it) doesn't speed up and slow down as the
orbital motion does. So it's independent of orbital motion.

But there's also latitudinal libration, which means that the
earth-facing behavior has an entirely different axis than the orbital
motion. So again, it's independent of the orbital motion.

[Quadibloc]

On May 2, 5:53 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They had to create a fictional novel to fully indicate what an
> indoctrinated mind is capable and incapable of,it is called 'Nineteen
> Eighty-four' but it is based on Nazi ideology so that a spinning moon
> is the equivalent to 2+2=5 -
>
> "Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
> truth" exists.The implied objective of this line of thought is a
> nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
> not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
> an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
> two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
> frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell
>
> With no observational support and nothing outside Newton's assertion
> that the moon spins,the vicious strain of empiricism that emerged is
> catastrophic in how it smothers creative and productive endeavors and
> especially now in the 'information age'.

Empiricism prevents precisely this kind of nightmare. Instead of some
somehow appointed high priest of interpretive intuition deciding for
everyone what is allowed to be true, the facts sit there and anyone
can appeal directly to the facts - but the ability to construct sound
logical arguments from the facts, and to handle the fine details with
mathematics are, admittedly, required.

John Savard

[Greg Goss]

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

>Move an object from place to place and that is the orbital motion of
>an object and that is what an observer from the Sun or anywhere else
>sees,an object spinning on its spot with a maximum equatorial speed
>which diminishes to zero at its axis is a rotating object.An empirical
>drone could only have difficulties between these two separate motions
>hence their ridiculous spinning moon.

There may be one or two people in this thread who cannot tell
"rotation" from "revolution", but that's not the core of this
argument.

Viewed from the sun, the moon spins "with a maximum equatorial speed
which diminishes to zero at its axis" which makes it "a rotating
object".

Thank you for providing a clear definition that we can use to
determine whether something spins.

The moon spins.

--
"...to give you the ability to say 'Up periscope' in the sea of knowledge that is the Internet."

[The Starmaker]

Does the Earth know the Moon exist?

[Will in New Haven]

On May 3, 1:42 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Greg Goss wrote:

I was going to ask you if it is uncomfortable not being the looniest
person in a given thread, because of the presence of orie136, but now
I see that Brad has joined us. So you are the third looniest person in
this thread, which must make you feel all educated and sophisticated.

--
Will in New Haven

[The Starmaker]

But, does the Earth know the Moon exist? In other words, is the Earth *aware* that there is this thing
called a Moon running aournd itself?

Is the Earth aware that the Moon exist?

Surely the Earth must ask itself, "What is pulling the water up and down?" The Earth must feel the pull of the Moon.

The Moon is a by product of the Earth. The Earth gave birth to the Moon.

Where do you think the Moon came from and Why? Where do TV satilites come from? Same place the moon came from!


I thought you people knew this stuff?

I couldn't possiblby be making it up, I'm not that smart.


You guys are experts in 'making stuff up' like "global warming" and "dark matter" and Boson buddies....


The Starmaker

Oh, I forgot, you got the science fiction crew, ...isn't that where scientist come from? Babies from H.G.Wells.


Where is my Time Machine? Is anybody building one? Come on, we got all the high technology...what parts do you need? I can find them
on Amazon.com. First you need a clock that goes backwards, right? How about print calenders backwards? Start off with the first month of the
year, December 31st, and last month of the year Jan 1st...how am I doing? Next year is 2012. Am I the only one building a time machine here?

Hey, tomorrow is Thursday!

[underante]

but as was pointed out by Pratchett, the real problem with building a
time machine is trying to find a laboratory opposite a dress shop that
will keep the same dummy in the window for sixty years

[Quadibloc]

On May 3, 4:54 pm, underante <undera...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> but as was pointed out by Pratchett, the  real problem with building a
> time machine is trying to find a laboratory opposite a dress shop that
> will keep the same dummy in the window for sixty years

Today, riding the bus home from work, as it was a newer model, the
display that shows "Stop Requested" when someone pulls the cord also
gives other useful information.

Thus, it might flash "6:20 PM"... or "May 23, 2013".

Very handy for time travellers. Who else would not know what year it
is...

John Savard

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

On Fri, 3 May 2013 19:20:59 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

You haven't ridden on some of Seattle's more coma-inducing bus
routes...

[The Starmaker]

How many Moons does Saturn have?

That ring around Saturn...it used to be a very big moon that exploded into little pieces forming a ring.


Venus didn't make a Moon...

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 10:03:57 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>How many Moons does Saturn have?
>
>That ring around Saturn...it used to be a very big moon that exploded into little pieces forming a ring.

Billions? What is the definition of "moon" here?

--
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.

[Quadibloc]

On May 4, 6:05 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> Billions?    What is the definition of "moon" here?

A natural body orbiting a planet that is big and unique enough for the
IAU to take notice of it.

John Savard

[oriel36]

A person standing on the South pole will experience a single day/night
cycle as our planet turns once to the central Sun as all planets do as
a component of its orbital motion unlike the moon which does not turn
as it makes a circuit of the Earth let alone have a spinning motion
like the Earth's daily rotation.

Put an X on a ball and move it around a central object (Earth) with
the X continuously facing the object and that is what observers see as
the same side of the moon always shows its face to us.Replace this
analogy with the Earth moving around the Sun which keeping the X fixed
to some external point imitating this following observation -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYqh72i2mhg

In order to keep the X fixed to Polaris,the ball has to turn once to
the central object as it orbits and completing a full rotation in the
same period as it orbits the object and that is what observers see
Uranus do and subsequently the Earth and other planets -

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

Kids will love this explanation and why the moon is different to the
planets in the way they move around a central celestial object,no
voodoo which is backward looking but using 21st century imaging they
can actually enjoy science once again.This new approach shifts axial
precession from a long term axial trait to an annual orbital feature
and only requires responsible people who realize exactly what has been
done and why it is important for terrestrial sciences ranging from
climate studies to evolutionary geology.

It is difficult to believe that NASA as an agency which landed men on
the moon and actually works with differences between the near side and
far side of the moon could willingly support this nonsense of a
spinning moon arising from Newton's assertion -

http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/?question=3318

So much for the supreme technological achievement of spaceflight when
a late 17th century theorist has such a grip on the minds of men.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On May 5, 12:23 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A person standing on the South pole will experience a single day/night
> cycle as our planet turns once to the central Sun as all planets do as

Does "turns once to the central sun" mean the same thing as
"completes one orbit of the sun"? If so, please do not make up new
phraseology for well-known phenomena.

> a component of its orbital motion unlike the moon which does not turn
> as it makes a circuit of the Earth

Here you are apparently using a different meaning of "turn". Are you
now claiming that the moon does not turn once to the Earth as a
component of its orbital motion, as planets do when orbiting the sun?

> as it makes a circuit of the Earth let alone have a spinning motion
> like the Earth's daily rotation.

That is false, as I pointed out before, and which you are apparently
carefully ignoring. Every point on the moon's surface experiences a
day-night cycle- it sees the sun rise and set. There are two possible
ways this can occur- either the sun orbits the moon (I doubt you would
support that view) or the moon rotates..

> Put an X on a ball and move it around a central object (Earth) with
> the X continuously facing the object and that is what observers see as
> the same side of the moon always shows its face to us.Replace this
> analogy with the Earth moving around the Sun which keeping the X fixed
> to some external point imitating this following observation -
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYqh72i2mhg
>
> In order to keep the X fixed to Polaris,the ball has to turn once to
> the central object as it orbits and completing a full rotation in the
> same period as it orbits the object and that is what observers see
> Uranus do and subsequently the Earth and other planets -
>
> http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
>
> Kids will love this explanation and why the moon is different to the
> planets in the way they move around a central celestial object,no

Nonsense. The moon does not have a north polar star, but its south
pole points at Delta Doradus.

> voodoo which is backward looking but using 21st century imaging they
> can actually enjoy science once again.This new approach shifts axial
> precession from a long term axial trait to an annual orbital feature

That is completely ridiculous. Polaris and Kochab were the same
distance from the apparent point Earth;s north spin pole pointed at in
the night sky.

Axial precession *is* a "long term axial trait". If it were an
annual phenomenon there would not be a given pole star in a given
historical epoch. Any sailor worth his salt water will laugh long and
hard at you.

> and only requires responsible people who realize exactly what has been
> done and why it is important for terrestrial sciences ranging from
> climate studies to evolutionary geology.
>
> It is difficult to believe that NASA as an agency which landed men on
> the moon and actually works with differences between the near side and
> far side of the moon could willingly support this nonsense of a
> spinning moon arising from Newton's assertion -
>
> http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/?question=3318

Nothing to do with Newton or whether the moon spins.

> So much for the supreme technological achievement of spaceflight when
> a late 17th century theorist has such a grip on the minds of men.

I notice that you are carefully ignoring my earlier post. Here, let
me reproduce it for you:

On Apr 25, 5:56 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -

> On Apr 25, 10:39 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Apr 25, 12:39 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Apr 25, 12:10 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

> > > > In article <66f5d114-5e73-42d1-a15a-de7bc753d...@y14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:

> > > > > Of course you need people of some stature who realize that the
> > > > > perception of axial precession has to be modified from a long term
> > > > > axial trait to an annual orbital trait but I have not known people
> > > > > yet who can make the transition to this more productive 21st
> > > > > century view.

> > > > So you're the only one then? Imagine that.

> > > > -- wds

> > > It is a 100% observational certainty that as a planet orbits the
> > > central Sun it turns once as a component of its orbital motion

> > So now you're saying that completing an orbit equals rotating once-
> > do I have that correct?

I would like a straight answer to a straight question.

> You must be another DeLaney in that you didn't bother to look at the
> time lapse footage of Uranus from Hubble

Of course I did, just to make sure you hadn't got hold of something
not congruent with reality.

Are you now saying this is unique to Uranus, or not?

Did you intend your statement "It is a 100% observational certainty
that as a planet orbits the central Sun it turns once as a component
of its orbital motion" to apply to other planets, or not?

Please clarify.

> ...where the planet turns South
> to North in its diurnal rotation and runs parallel with the equatorial
> rings whereas the planet turns roughly 4 degrees East to West each
> year.

Sorry, but you appear to be using nonstandard meanings of north,
south, east and west here.

> The second motion as a component of its not its orbital motion is
> not an assertion or a theory so when you are good enough to
> extrapolate it out of video footage then get back to me with the only
> answer,if not then I suggest that astronomy is not for you.

I had not noticed you asking a question. I asked you a question for
clarification.

> I will even
> reproduce the Hubble website for you -

> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast29mar99_1/

> There is no shame if you can't work this out as it is new and takes a
> lot of getting used to.

Yes, thank you just the same, I already looked at it. It is not new
to me and takes no getting used to.

I'd very much like a direct answer to my original question, please.
I will even reproduce it here for you -

"So now you're saying that completing an orbit equals rotating once-
do I have that correct? "

While you're formulating a response, please ponder this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg


Mark L. Fergerson

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

On Sat, 04 May 2013 18:05:13 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 10:03:57 -0700, The Starmaker
><star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>How many Moons does Saturn have?

62 confirmed and counting.

>>That ring around Saturn...it used to be a very big moon that exploded into little pieces forming a ring.
>
>Billions? What is the definition of "moon" here?

I believe the current thinking is that Saturn's rings are more likely
just debris that never managed to aggregate into a moon. All told,
even if the rings were to do so, it would be a very small moon.

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

On Sun, 5 May 2013 00:23:14 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>A person standing on the South pole will experience a single day/night
>cycle as our planet turns once to the central Sun as all planets do as
>a component of its orbital motion unlike the moon which does not turn
>as it makes a circuit of the Earth let alone have a spinning motion
>like the Earth's daily rotation.

A person standing at the south pole of the moon will experience a
single day/night cycle (in the form of the sun appearing to slowly
circle the horizon) with a period of about 4 weeks as a direct result
of the moon's rotation, and its rotation alone. That this period is
synchronized with its orbit around the Earth is nothing more than the
effect of tidal locking due to gravity. Many - most - of the moons in
the solar system are also tidally locked to their planet.

Were the Earth to suddenly cease to exist, the moon would continue in
an orbit a little more eccentric than the Earth's, depending on where
in its orbit it was when Earth's gravity disappeared, but would still
rotate about its axis with a period of roughly four weeks.

That you can deny these facts is your failing, and yours alone.

[David DeLaney]

oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A person standing on the South pole will experience a single day/night
>cycle as our planet turns once to the central Sun

at some times during the year. At other times they will experience unending
night, or unending day. Look into this thing called the Antarctic Circle,
and "axial tilt".

>as all planets do as
>a component of its orbital motion unlike the moon which does not turn
>as it makes a circuit of the Earth let alone have a spinning motion
>like the Earth's daily rotation.

Except that it does, Blanche; it turns once as it goes around the Earth,
because its rotational motion, the turning, is synchronized just about
completely with its orbital motion, the going around. The reason for this
is tides. Not magic, not some weird compulsion to turn to face the Earth
because of angels, just tides.

>Put an X on a ball and move it around a central object (Earth) with
>the X continuously facing the object and that is what observers see as
>the same side of the moon always shows its face to us.

...and to do that you have to TURN the ball once for each time it goes around.
If you just hold it in your hand and move it around the central object? The
X does NOT FACE the central object continually and the ball does not turn.

But you won't do this experiment.

[oriel36]

On May 5, 11:13 am, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2013 00:23:14 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
>

> <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >A person standing on the South pole will experience a single day/night
> >cycle as our planet turns once to the central Sun as all planets do as
> >a component of its orbital motion unlike the moon which does not turn
> >as it makes a circuit of the Earth let alone have a spinning motion
> >like the Earth's daily rotation.
>
> A person standing at the south pole of the moon will experience a
> single day/night cycle (in the form of the sun appearing to slowly
> circle the horizon) with a period of about 4 weeks as a direct result
> of the moon's rotation, and its rotation alone.

It is called lunar orbital motion as the single day night cycle is due
to the moon moving from place to place around the Earth,rotation is a
separate motion with a maximum equatorial speed which diminishes to
zero at the polar coordinates.The Earth has both a maximum equatorial
speed and moves from place to place around the Sun hence there are two
day/nights involved - the normal daily day/night cycle and the
separate orbital day/night cycle experienced at the South pole as
roughly 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness.Perhaps
your empirical indoctrination is so disruptive that you are unable to
accept dual day/night cycles from separate causes but then again you
are the unfortunate people who believe the moon spins.

 That this period is
> synchronized with its orbit around the Earth is nothing more than the
> effect of tidal locking due to gravity.  Many - most - of the moons in
> the solar system are also tidally locked to their planet.
>

Thanks for the empirical voodoo but the problem is not the technical
details of the difference between a moon that keeps the same face to
the central Earth while all planets turn once to the central Sun as a
component of their orbital motion,the difficulty is finding people
with common sense who can work with graphics and images needed to
explain this to kids.

It is not your fault,if you can't make sense of the orbital behavior
of the moon by analogy or by direct observation then you will not be
able to make sense of a planet as it makes a circuit of the Sun and
turns as it does so as a component of its orbital behavior -

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

I assure you that the rings will keep turning East to West through 360
degrees to the central Sun while the separate motion of daily rotation
runs South to North and parallel with the rings in its daily
rotation,it is a 100% observational certainty that neither you nor the
empirical academics can compete with.

> Were the Earth to suddenly cease to exist, the moon would continue in
> an orbit a little more eccentric than the Earth's, depending on where
> in its orbit it was when Earth's gravity disappeared, but would still
> rotate about its axis with a period of roughly four weeks.
>
> That you can deny these facts is your failing, and yours alone.

More speculative voodoo and backward looking to boot,not by design but
by an indoctrination which has all the traits of Nazi dogma.Again,the
German nation has a genuine chance to undo the damage that was done
before the last great war by revisiting what was done in the name of
science and particularly astronomy/terrestrial sciences by a vicious
strain of Royal Society empiricism,the same could be said for
denominational Christianity which created the mess in the first place
back in the era of Galileo.

Don't be an empirical drone,the Usenet is fading for many reasons so
those who come here to offer their opinion are valuable and may be the
difference between the dystopian intellectual oblivion society is
heading in or,in the opposite direction where productive
interpretative sciences make an appearance once more after being
dormant for centuries.

[Greg Goss]

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

>> A person standing at the south pole of the moon will experience a
>> single day/night cycle (in the form of the sun appearing to slowly
>> circle the horizon) with a period of about 4 weeks as a direct result
>> of the moon's rotation, and its rotation alone.
>
>It is called lunar orbital motion as the single day night cycle is due
>to the moon moving from place to place around the Earth,rotation is a
>separate motion with a maximum equatorial speed which diminishes to
>zero at the polar coordinates.The Earth has both a maximum equatorial
>speed and moves from place to place around the Sun hence there are two
>day/nights involved - the normal daily day/night cycle and the
>separate orbital day/night cycle experienced at the South pole as
>roughly 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness.Perhaps
>your empirical indoctrination is so disruptive that you are unable to
>accept dual day/night cycles from separate causes but then again you
>are the unfortunate people who believe the moon spins.

Right. You're creeping up on the idea of "sidereal day". The extra
(or less, depending on how your planet or moon spins) day "at the
poles" compares to the solar day measured by daylight. These two
definitions of day have value, but when you're plotting out orbits or
space missions, the sidereal day matters most because it is an
inertial frame of reference. All of those nice formulas of motion
from that guy you love to hate so much work so much better in an
inertial frame.

The moon's spin make it thicker across the equator than pole-to-pole.
You haven't yet said why YOU think the moon isn't round, if it's not
spinning.

>More speculative voodoo and backward looking to boot,not by design but
>by an indoctrination which has all the traits of Nazi dogma.Again,the
>German nation has a genuine chance to undo the damage that was done
>before the last great war by revisiting what was done in the name of
>science and particularly astronomy/terrestrial sciences by a vicious
>strain of Royal Society empiricism,the same could be said for
>denominational Christianity which created the mess in the first place
>back in the era of Galileo.

You keep badmouthing empiricism. Empiricism is the idea of checking
your theories against the real world to make sure that they really
work. Are you sure that this is what you want to be against?

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[oriel36]

On May 5, 5:15 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A person standing at the south pole of the moon will experience a
> >> single day/night cycle (in the form of the sun appearing to slowly
> >> circle the horizon) with a period of about 4 weeks as a direct result
> >> of the moon's rotation, and its rotation alone.
>
> >It is called lunar orbital motion as the single day night cycle is due
> >to the moon moving from place to place around the Earth,rotation is a
> >separate motion with a maximum equatorial speed which diminishes to
> >zero at the polar coordinates.The Earth has both a maximum equatorial
> >speed and moves from place to place around the Sun hence there are two
> >day/nights involved - the normal daily day/night cycle and the
> >separate orbital day/night cycle experienced at the South pole as
> >roughly 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness.Perhaps
> >your empirical indoctrination is so disruptive that you are unable to
> >accept dual day/night cycles from separate causes but then again you
> >are the unfortunate people who believe the moon spins.
>
> Right.  You're creeping up on the idea of "sidereal day".  The extra
> (or less, depending on how your planet or moon spins) day "at the
> poles" compares to the solar day measured by daylight.  These two
> definitions of day have value, but when you're plotting out orbits or
> space missions, the sidereal day matters most because it is an
> inertial frame of reference.  All of those nice formulas of motion
> from that guy you love to hate so much work so much better in an
> inertial frame.
>

Thanks for the empirical voodoo however you still think the spoon
spins apart from its orbital motion hence are unable to appreciate how
the daily day/night cycle combines with the orbital day/night cycle to
produce the seasons and the variations in length of the natural noon
cycle.In short,although separate motions,they combine to produce all
the effects of the day due to daily rotation and the orbital component
which causes the seasonal variations at lower latitudes and
constitutes a single polar day/night cycle at the Northern and
Southern polar coordinates.

With your dull and dreary 'frames of reference' you cannot appreciate
the orbital day/night cycle as you watch the poles and the rings of
Uranus turn 360 degrees to the central Sun whereas the moon doesn't
turn to the Earth -

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

Keep trying and you will eventually get the dual day/night cycles of a
planet while the moon has a single day night cycle by virtue of its
orbital behavior.If you get lost then resort to the analogy I showed
you before.

> The moon's spin make it thicker across the equator than pole-to-pole.
> You haven't yet said why YOU think the moon isn't round, if it's not
> spinning.
>
> >More speculative voodoo and backward looking to boot,not by design but
> >by an indoctrination which has all the traits of Nazi dogma.Again,the
> >German nation has a genuine chance to undo the damage that was done
> >before the last great war by revisiting what was done in the name of
> >science and particularly astronomy/terrestrial sciences by a vicious
> >strain of Royal Society empiricism,the same could be said for
> >denominational Christianity which created the mess in the first place
> >back in the era of Galileo.
>
> You keep badmouthing empiricism.  Empiricism is the idea of checking
> your theories against the real world to make sure that they really
> work.  Are you sure that this is what you want to be against?
>

The wider population are hardly aware of the empirical scam and how it
is maintained yet somehow when they see people convinced that the moon
spins,they can be certain that something is badly wrong with the ideas
of time,space and motion,after all,you look out at the moon and watch
its position change each 24 hours as its orientation to the central
Sun shows up as a change in the circle of illumination covering the
surface of the side we always see,the change is solely due to its
orbital motion of the Earth.

> --
> We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

The flat Earthers have nothing on the spinning mooners but at least
you all know now that you make the creationists look like scholars by
virtue of what fact is proposed and how it is dealt with.Truly !,your
convictions are that bad and disruptive.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 4 May 2013 23:08:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

Ahh, that should be a moving target then. Can the IAU use space
craft to see individual ring particles?

[oriel36]

There was a documentary on a while ago about a company called Enron
where the fraud became the only reality and all the employees and
customers paid for the scam,it is the same with empiricism as the scam
of keeping things confused and distorted has been so effective that
eventually it has become a victim of its own dubious success where
everyone gets to chant voodoo yet can't interpret the images of what a
spinning Earth looks like,an orbiting moon which doesn't rotate as a
component of its lunar orbital circuit nor as an independent motion -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s

All the tortured statements can't get the moon to spin and that is how
much empirical drones know about time,space and motion - the greatest
scam of them all !.

Click on the link and the graceful sweep of a rotating celestial
object that is the Earth soothes the mind as does the orbiting moon
which makes a brief appearance about 15 seconds into that time lapse
footage.No scam involved,no tortured explanations but simply the
knowledge that the technical achievements of humanity which those
images possible must be matched by interpretative skills.

[Quadibloc]

On May 5, 9:07 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> where productive
> interpretative sciences make an appearance once more after being
> dormant for centuries.

Ah, yes: we would finally escape from that dormant period, which
started shortly after the Renaissance, and continued through the 20th
century, during which scientific and technological progress stagnated,
compared to their rapid pace of advance during the Middle Ages.

Hey, wait a moment...

John Savard

[John Gogo]

On May 5, 5:13 am, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2013 00:23:14 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
>

If the Earth were to suddenly not exist, then the moon would start to
spin of its' own volition, eventually crashing into the Sun.

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

It would ~continue~ to spin as it does now, with a roughly 4 week
period.

It's orbital velocity (~1.023 km/s) relative to Earth would be added
or subtracted or neither from the recently departed Earth's orbital
velocity around the sun (~29.78 km/s), depending on where in its orbit
it was when Earth went poof. This change would not be enough to
either eject the moon from the solar system or bring it into a
sun-crossing orbit.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On May 6, 1:17 am, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

Something Oriel wossnumber doesn't want to hear (and may grate a few
others here) even though it's true, is that the moon orbits the sun,
severely perturbed by the presence of the earth. The moon's path
around the sun is always convex, hence it's an orbit.


Mark L. Fergerson

[oriel36]

Thank you for that empirical voodoo once again,as far as I am
concerned it is a thumbsucking exercise even though 'perturbation
theory' is interesting from the standpoint that the Ra/Dec framework
through which empiricists draw their 'predictive' power has a
shortfall of roughly 44 minutes every 4 orbital circuits so that the
unfortunate guys after the late 17th century were working off a
365/365/365/366 day framework which would produce anomalies as they
went to model the next 4 orbital circuits and the relationship of
objects to each other and their positions against their beloved
celestial sphere.Don't worry about it,it takes a genuine astronomer to
know what he is looking at so you may continue spouting voodoo in the
hope that others will convince themselves that they have something to
say.

I much prefer,at least in the way this thread has evolved, to dwell on
the fact that there are a lot of salaries dependent on Newton's agenda
which is designed to distort and conceal things rather than explain or
reveal anything worthwhile.The spinning moon is just one of a number
of assertions where facts are turned on their head and reasonable
people find themselves off-balance and shrink away from astronomy for
these reasons.If you can convince a person the moon spins you can just
about convince them of anything else you care to assert and
empiricists have turned it into a lucrative lifestyle and control it
through the so-called 'scientific method or the patronage of the peer
review system.

It is the most remarkable scam the world has ever known and as
disruptive and destructive as any.

[Quadibloc]

On May 6, 2:32 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:

>   Something Oriel wossnumber doesn't want to hear (and may grate a few
> others here) even though it's true, is that the moon orbits the sun,
> severely perturbed by the presence of the earth. The moon's path
> around the sun is always convex, hence it's an orbit.

That's true, and it's one way to look at it. Still, the mathematics is
simpler if you first treat the orbit of the Earth-Moon barycenter
around the Sun, and then deal with the orbits of the Earth and Moon
around their common barycenter as perturbed by the Sun's gravity.

Treating the Earth's gravity as a perturbation of the Moon's orbit
around the Sun, on the other hand, isn't nearly so tidy.

In the former case, the Moon orbits the Earth in an elliptical path,
but the ellipse keeps moving (the anomalistic, draconic, and sidereal
months all being different) - in the latter case, the Moon's orbit of
the Sun may be convex, but it's still *bumpy*.

It's all right to say the Moon orbits the Sun _pour epater le
bourgeoisie_ and to open people's minds to new ways of thinking, but
when you do the nitty-gritty of celestial mechanics, the old-fashioned
understanding is actually the simpler one. To me, that decides where
the "reality" lies.

John Savard

[Wayne Throop]

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: That's true, and it's one way to look at it. Still, the mathematics

: is simpler if you first treat the orbit of the Earth-Moon barycenter
: around the Sun, and then deal with the orbits of the Earth and Moon
: around their common barycenter as perturbed by the Sun's gravity.

You do realize that, in fact, the earth/moon barycenter can't really
be treated as "orbiting the sun", and then treat the moon as "orbiting
the earth", right? At least, not in any normal sense of the world.
The notion of an object orbiting pretty much implicitly includes the
notion that you can treat the objects as point sources. This is true
for moons and planets and such because spheres behave just like point
sources, and planets are close enough to spheres for government work.
But the earth and moon, considered as a single object orbiting the sun,
doesn't approximate a sphere closely enough.

And of course the moon by no means has a "normal" orbit around earth.
The tidal influences of the sun distort things significantly.

Mind you, the differences are small-ish, but you do have to keep in mind
that it'll have noticeable divergence with the real behavior. And if
the "mathematics" you are attempting is numerical integration, it is
much MUCH simpler, and much MUCH more accurate to treat all objects as
separate point sources. Of course, over the long term, you can't even
do that to the moon, since its frozen tital bulge affects its orbit on
long timescales. But still.

Or put it this way. There are many many things that are simple...
and wrong. Treating earth/moon as a single orbiting body, and the moon
as simply orbiting earth, are among them.

( Origel has come up with something more *complicated* instead of simpler,
but still manages to be wrong. Or maybe even, so misguided it
isn't even wrong; the filters in origel-tinted glasses render any
determination of right and wrong in real-world terms very problematic,
maybe impossible. It is, after all, wicked empiricism, which origel
would like to stamp out. )

[John Gogo]

On May 6, 3:17 am, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

If the Earth suddenly disappeared from the moon- the moon would not
have any place in the solar system. Its illogical- its like saying-
can a human have a heart and exist without a liver? Venus and Mars
would squeeze the moon out for hierarchy of the gravity situation.

[John Gogo]

Maybe, the moon would be captured by Venus or Mars and be turned into
the next Earth.

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

It is a thought experiment. As such, it requires at least a minimum
of thought to be applied.

[David DeLaney]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>: That's true, and it's one way to look at it. Still, the mathematics
>: is simpler if you first treat the orbit of the Earth-Moon barycenter
>: around the Sun, and then deal with the orbits of the Earth and Moon
>: around their common barycenter as perturbed by the Sun's gravity.
>
>You do realize that, in fact, the earth/moon barycenter can't really
>be treated as "orbiting the sun", and then treat the moon as "orbiting
>the earth", right? At least, not in any normal sense of the world.
>The notion of an object orbiting pretty much implicitly includes the
>notion that you can treat the objects as point sources. This is true
>for moons and planets and such because spheres behave just like point
>sources, and planets are close enough to spheres for government work.
>But the earth and moon, considered as a single object orbiting the sun,
>doesn't approximate a sphere closely enough.

On the other hand, the ratio in mass between the Sun and the Earth/Moon
system is quite large, and the E/M system is far enough away, that as a
first approximation "the E/M system is a point mass at the barycenter" gives
you a pretty good first approximation. The corrections and perturbations
around that solution give you details, yeah, but the Sun mostly ignores us
in favor of Jupiter and some Saturn.

So it's wrong, but it's just a little wrong, is that so bad? Maybe it's just
DRAWN that way. Gravitationally.

[Greg Goss]

It depends on how you remove Earth from play. If you bring in a "When
Worlds Collide" set of planets, they could perturb the moon off in any
direction. But gravity is an "elastic" force -- it's just about
impossible to "capture" an object without multiple bodies interacting.
Capture of the orphan moon would be incomprehensibly unlikely.

If the earth just went "blip" and disappeared, the moon would still be
in orbit around the sun, just like it is now. The orbit might be a
trace more eccentric, but I expect the amount of change to be less
than the printed line width of the orbit in your space atlas.

[The Starmaker]

Greg Goss wrote:
>
> John Gogo <jfgo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 6, 9:27 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> If the Earth suddenly disappeared from the moon- the moon would not
> >> have any place in the solar system. Its illogical- its like saying-
> >> can a human have a heart and exist without a liver? Venus and Mars
> >> would squeeze the moon out for hierarchy of the gravity situation.
> >
> >Maybe, the moon would be captured by Venus or Mars and be turned into
> >the next Earth.
>
> It depends on how you remove Earth from play. If you bring in a "When
> Worlds Collide" set of planets, they could perturb the moon off in any
> direction. But gravity is an "elastic" force -- it's just about
> impossible to "capture" an object without multiple bodies interacting.
> Capture of the orphan moon would be incomprehensibly unlikely.
>
> If the earth just went "blip" and disappeared, the moon would still be
> in orbit around the sun, just like it is now.

I never knew the sun had a moon. How many moons does the sun have?

[Quadibloc]

On May 8, 9:24 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> If the earth just went "blip" and disappeared, the moon would still be
> in orbit around the sun, just like it is now.  The orbit might be a
> trace more eccentric, but I expect the amount of change to be less
> than the printed line width of the orbit in your space atlas.

I felt the change could be more than that, so I checked:

The orbital velocity of the Moon around the Earth, relative to the
Earth, is about 1,023 metres per second. That of the Earth around the
Sun is about 29,800 metres per second. So it's over one part in 30,
enough to make for a significant amount of eccentricity.

John Savard

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

All of them.

[John F. Eldredge]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 10:15:38 -0600, Greg Goss wrote:

> You keep badmouthing empiricism. Empiricism is the idea of checking
> your theories against the real world to make sure that they really work.
> Are you sure that this is what you want to be against?

As far as I can tell, oriel36 is of the opinion that, if the real world
doesn't match his theory, this means the real world is wrong.

--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

[Quadibloc]

On May 10, 4:39 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:

> As far as I can tell, oriel36 is of the opinion that, if the real world
> doesn't match his theory, this means the real world is wrong.

For the most part, his theorizing saves the phenomena; he is
quarreling about what should be given the name "rotation", and not the
length of the mean solar day, or the fact that the Moon keeps only one
side visible to the Earth, or the existence of the Equation of Time.

His problem is not with what the real world does. But, in effect, he
doesn't want people to think too hard about the real world. They
should use intuition rather than mathematics. He thinks this will work
better - *that's* where he is colossally, stupendously, in error.

John Savard

[Wayne Throop]

:: As far as I can tell, oriel36 is of the opinion that, if the real
:: world doesn't match his theory, this means the real world is wrong.

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: For the most part, his theorizing saves the phenomena; he is

: quarreling about what should be given the name "rotation", and not the
: length of the mean solar day, or the fact that the Moon keeps only one
: side visible to the Earth, or the existence of the Equation of Time.

If by "saves the phenomena" is meant "requiring terminology and
organizations that force one to go the long way 'round to get anywhere",
then I suppose so.

But he sure seems to believe that, as far as astronomical bodies go,
there's no such thing as the "sidereal day", there's no such thing as
inertia, foucault pendulums (penduli? penduli, pendula, joy is everywhere?)
cannot possibly work right, because they refer their motions to the
sidereal background (if that IS what they are doing... all those
guys might by lying about what they dose, and origel isn't going
to touch one of the arch-fiends tools of obfuscation).

And apparently, that atstronomical (aka "celestial") bodies do in fact act
just as if they have inertia, and follow all the same rules as smaller,
earthbound, mundane and corruptible earth bodies do, is so great an
insult that it is beneath him to acknowledge it, and sertainly beneath
him to try to account for it in any sensible way.

"Behold, the Underminer! I am always beneath you,
but NOTHING is beneath ME! I hereby declare war on
peace and happiness! Soon all will tremble before me!"
---- soliloquy at the end of "The Incredibles"

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

On 10 May 2013 22:39:59 GMT, "John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 May 2013 10:15:38 -0600, Greg Goss wrote:
>
>> You keep badmouthing empiricism. Empiricism is the idea of checking
>> your theories against the real world to make sure that they really work.
>> Are you sure that this is what you want to be against?
>
>As far as I can tell, oriel36 is of the opinion that, if the real world
>doesn't match his theory, this means the real world is wrong.

It does, however, make it easier for him to eat his oatmeal in the
shower each morning.

[oriel36]

On May 11, 2:23 pm, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help
<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 10 May 2013 22:39:59 GMT, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com>

Here is what a spinning Earth looks like from any point in space while
its orbital motion around the Sun is taken as a given -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s

When people look out at the moon and imagine the same thing it has
nothing to do with right/wrong but it sure may be a question of
sanity.The chances of showing me time lapse footage of a spinning moon
are about the same as showing me images of a flat Earth.

You are all amazing people,truly !.

[Will in New Haven]

You are an incredibly stupid person and should have someone else make
all of your life decisions from now on.

--
Will in New Haven

[oriel36]

Get back to me when you can show me a spinning moon and perhaps a flat
Earth also because neither of the two exist.I can show you a spinning
Earth and an orbiting moon looks like but unfortunately your community
has severe difficulties distinguishing a spinning object and an
orbiting object which moves from place to place -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s

Can't say the attempts to insult have any effect,more like a
thumbsucking exercise in the hope that the moon will spin as you look
at it.

[Will in New Haven]

And yet it spins. And I wasn't insulting you; I was describing you.

[The Starmaker]

You've discovered that 'intelligent life' doesn't exist on Earth. It's an illusion...
they are just ants running around the ground, searching for food..

[Quadibloc]

On May 11, 1:56 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Get back to me when you can show me a spinning moon and perhaps a flat
> Earth also because neither of the two exist.

I agree with you that the Moon always keeps the same face turned to
the Earth.

I can show you time-lapse footage on YouTube of the Moon's librations
if you want, but since you reject the Equation of Time as evidence
that the sidereal day is the proper gauge of the Earth's rotation,
that won't prove to you that the Moon's motions can be best understood
if we think of it as rotating in terms of its relation to the fixed
stars, instead of not rotating in terms of its relation to the Earth.

No, we can't show you this in a form which will be obvious to your
eyes; to understand this, you would have to use your mind - in ways
you are unwilling to do, as shown by your comments about
mathematicians.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On May 11, 2:48 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> oriel36 wrote:

> > When people look out at the moon and imagine the same thing it has
> > nothing to do with right/wrong but it sure may be a question of
> > sanity.The chances of showing me time lapse footage of a spinning moon
> > are about the same as showing me images of a flat Earth.
>
> > You are all amazing people,truly !.
>
> You've discovered that 'intelligent life' doesn't exist on Earth. It's an illusion...
> they are just ants running around the ground, searching for food..

Ah, so you're of the opinion that Oriel36 is in the right in this
controversy, are you? Truly, I should not have been surprised.

John Savard

[Wayne Throop]

: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: No, we can't show you this in a form which will be obvious to your eyes;

Of course we can. What we can't do is get him to use the same
terminology everybody else uses. Nor, of course, can we make him
pay attention to what his eyes are seeing. The anti-newtonian-tinted
glasses he always wears prevent it. The tint is just too dark.

[oriel36]

On May 11, 9:48 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> oriel36wrote:
>

> > On May 11, 2:23 pm, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help
> > <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > On 10 May 2013 22:39:59 GMT, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Sun, 05 May 2013 10:15:38 -0600, Greg Goss wrote:
>
> > > >> You keep badmouthing empiricism.  Empiricism is the idea of checking
> > > >> your theories against the real world to make sure that they really work.
> > > >>  Are you sure that this is what you want to be against?
>

> > > >As far as I can tell,oriel36is of the opinion that, if the real world

> > > >doesn't match his theory, this means the real world is wrong.
>
> > > It does, however, make it easier for him to eat his oatmeal in the
> > > shower each morning.
>
> > Here is what a spinning Earth looks like from any point in space while
> > its orbital motion around the Sun is taken as a given -
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s
>
> > When people look out at the moon and imagine the same thing it has
> > nothing to do with right/wrong but it sure may be a question of
> > sanity.The chances of showing me time lapse footage of a spinning moon
> > are about the same as showing me images of a flat Earth.
>
> > You are all amazing people,truly !.
>
> You've discovered that 'intelligent life' doesn't exist on Earth. It's an illusion...
> they are just ants running around the ground, searching for food..

It is a genuine phenomenon rather than an issue of stupidity/
intelligence as a spinning moon is actually beneath a flat Earth
conclusion or a 7 day creationist ideology in the intellectual scheme
of things.It is exceptionally difficult to avoid looking at the moon
as it orbits the Earth and that people actually have convinced
themselves that the moon has a separate 360 degree spinning motion
must require some effort to suspend the normal judgments we all
possess of time,space and motion of any object.

They see this issue as just another challenge among many,that is the
way a cult mind works,I see it as the lowest point at which a human
being can stand their ground before descending into intellectual
oblivion.

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

Go grab a copy of 'Celestia' (free) http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

Plunk your viewpoint somewhere, I suggest the sun for best lighting.
Center and track the moon, zoom in so you can see it clearly, and
speed up time passage by a few orders of magnitude.

OMG. The moon rotates on its axis.

Works with any other planet or moon in the solar system, too.

Denali ain't just a mountain in Alaska.

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

Must be the full moon...

[oriel36]

On May 12, 1:58 pm, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:59:50 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 11, 2:23 pm, The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help
> ><inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 10 May 2013 22:39:59 GMT, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Sun, 05 May 2013 10:15:38 -0600, Greg Goss wrote:
>
> >> >> You keep badmouthing empiricism. Empiricism is the idea of checking
> >> >> your theories against the real world to make sure that they really work.
> >> >> Are you sure that this is what you want to be against?
>
> >> >As far as I can tell, oriel36 is of the opinion that, if the real world
> >> >doesn't match his theory, this means the real world is wrong.
>
> >> It does, however, make it easier for him to eat his oatmeal in the
> >> shower each morning.
>
> >Here is what a spinning Earth looks like from any point in space while
> >its orbital motion around the Sun is taken as a given -
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s
>
> >When people look out at the moon and imagine the same thing it has
> >nothing to do with right/wrong but it sure may be a question of
> >sanity.The chances of showing me time lapse footage of a spinning moon
> >are about the same as showing me images of a flat Earth.
>
> >You are all amazing people,truly !.
>

> Go grab a copy of 'Celestia' (free)http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

>
> Plunk your viewpoint somewhere, I suggest the sun for best lighting.
> Center and track the moon, zoom in so you can see it clearly, and
> speed up time passage by a few orders of magnitude.
>
> OMG.  The moon rotates on its axis.
>

You make the creationists or flat Earthers look like the most
responsible and intelligent people even though they are a tiny
minority but one thing is for certain,no more than any of you can
show what a flat Earth looks like,neither can any of you show time
lapse footage of a spinning moon.

Maybe you should all go back to the voodoo of relativity of time,space
and motion because when it comes to the motion of the moon which can
be seen without the aid of any magnification instrument,you still
conclude the moon spins without the slightest trace of embarrassment.

The spinning moon cult ! - the most backward people ever to set foot
on the planet.

[Quadibloc]

On May 12, 12:55 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is exceptionally difficult to avoid looking at the moon
> as it orbits the Earth

Well, we don't do that. We know perfectly well, just as you do, that
the Moon always keeps one face turned to the Earth.

> and that people actually have convinced
> themselves that the moon has a separate 360 degree spinning motion
> must require some effort to suspend the normal judgments we all
> possess of time,space and motion of any object.

Actually, that's true too. If I'm walking around in a circle, I don't
think of the fact that I keep facing forward as a separate act of
twirling around; instead, facing the way I walk is just part of my
walking motion.

So why isn't the Moon continuing to face the Earth also an intrinsic
part of its orbital motion?

An animation, showing that the Moon, approximately, faces the other
focus of its elliptical orbit rather than the one occupied by the
Earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTlCLgWrws0

A series of actual photographs of the librating Moon (accompanied by
classical music):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoL-9mHldog

A video showing the Moon's libration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bO9j_QwJzw

An animation from NASA, also with classical music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixroBOCm8M8

John Savard