Does the Moon Exist When I'm Not Looking?

[The Starmaker]

The moon exist only when I look at it.

Do you really believe that?

[Poutnik]

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

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

Do you exist only if I look at you ?

Do you have independent existance mode
for every single person ?

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

--
Poutnik

[Lonnie Clay]

On Saturday, April 13, 2013 11:58:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
>
>
> Do you really believe that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[HunterdonX]

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

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

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

[Ashton Crusher]

The moon exists. End of story.

[Shawn Wilson]

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

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

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

[benj]

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

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

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

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

idiot.

[RichA]

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

Yes.

[thinbluemime]

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

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

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

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

[alie...@gmail.com]

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

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

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

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

Do any of them exist?


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

[David DeLaney]

nu...@bid.nes <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >The moon exist only when I look at it.
>>
>> >Do you really believe that?
>>
>> Dude. �It doesn't even exist when you ~are~ looking at it.

Alas, Starfnarrer still manages to exist even when many of us are trying our
best not to look at him. And trying NOT TO CROSSPOST TO FIVE DIFFERENT
NEWSGROUPS ALL OF WHICH ARE SICK OF HIM.

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

...So you're astigmatic as well. Pure nearsighted just gets you the blurring of
the edges and details, without a concentration at any one point that produces
a secondary fuzzy image - it's all one smeared fuzzy image.

> Do any of them exist?

All of them do, but all of them aren't where you're seeing it. ("All but one!"
No, there's that 1.25-second delay to account for too.)

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

Dave, can you think? This test not apparently applicable to Starsmasher
--
\/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.

[waldofj]

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

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

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

[Mahipal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Mahipal

[The Starmaker]

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

You're wrong about that.


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


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


The Starmaker


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


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



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

[Lonnie Clay]

A lasso.

Lonnie Courtney Clay

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

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

[oriel36]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 13 April 2013 19:58:33 UTC+1, The Starmaker wrote:
> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> Do you really believe that?

I live in a world where everything isn't about you.

And I mean, /everything/.

And that suits me fine.

[Howard Brazee]

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

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

Observations disagree with you.


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

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: They are spooky for other reasons relating to the moon,for
: instance,Isaac Newton decided

No "decision". Simple observation.

: that not only does the moon orbit the Earth each month,it actually

: spins as well!.These guys have trained themselves

to use logic and observation instead of prejudice. For example, one might
have a prejudice that spin is always related to some specific object,
and decide before do ing any observations what those specific objects
are. Actual observation and logic reveal the flaw in that prejudice.
Of course, if you don't apply the logic, well, you get oriel36.

to believe it spins

Again with this "believe" hogwash. To *conclude* it spins,
you just have to open your eyes and observe, find the logical
consequences of what you observe.

: even when any person walking around an object with an outstretched arm

: pointing at the central object (Earth) will come to understand why we
: always see the same face of the moon.

Rightl. Because it spins at the same rate it orbits. Simple.
Even simple to figure *why* it spins at the same rate it orbits.
But if you let prejudice carry you away, you end up supposing that
the tides cause the moon, or some such gibberish.

[William December Starr]

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

-- wds

[Alen]

The idiot remark is unwarranted discourtesy, imo.

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

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

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

Alen

[Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk]

No. Things that only exist when you are looking at them is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one! Things that only exist when YOU are looking at them is a nonexistent concept, not a liberal media one!

[Robert Carnegie]

If it doesn't exist when I'm not looking at it, how does it
know to start existing when I do look? This is rubbish, mate.

Philip K. Dick said according to,
<http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/787.html>
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

And apparently he had considerable experience in this field.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick#Paranormal_experiences>

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, April 15, 2013 4:01:03 PM UTC+1, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <6c19077d-3f1e-4733...@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> said:
> > A better question you should have asked - Does the moon spin when
> > you look at it ?, a sane person would answer no.
>
> Hey look, Period-of-Rotation-Obsessed Kookboy is back!

Is the event worthy of a libration?

On the other hand, have we just fallen for it once again>?

[The Starmaker]

How do you make "Observations" without looking?

[oriel36]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wayne Throop]

: Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
: If it doesn't exist when I'm not looking at it, how does it know to

: start existing when I do look? This is rubbish, mate.

It's also a common misconception that quantum mechanics requires such
a thing, based on horrid popularizations of the notion of "observers"
in QM, and vaguely related to the "wave collapse" model. Just the kind
of thing the starry one would be drawn to in Yet Another attempt to
"blame science" for stuff actual scientists don't actually say.

[Wayne Throop]

:: William December Starr
:: Hey look, Period-of-Rotation-Obsessed Kookboy is back!

: Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
: Is the event worthy of a libration?

: On the other hand, have we just fallen for it once again>?

My conclusion is that PoROK is a sincere crackpot.
FWIW; newgroup function wise, it makes little difference
whether he's sincere or, like the starry one, intentionally malicious.

"I don't know which of you is using malice magic.
I do know which of you is the most malicious."

--- Fawn Bluefield to Dar Redwing Hickory

[William December Starr]

In article <13660...@sheol.org>,

thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:

> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com>
>
>> Is the event worthy of a libration?
>> On the other hand, have we just fallen for it once again?
>
> My conclusion is that PoROK is a sincere crackpot.

Me too. I wouldn't kick at him if he wasn't such an _arrogant_
sincere crackpot.

-- wds

[Wayne Throop]

::: Is the event worthy of a libration?

::: On the other hand, have we just fallen for it once again?

:: My conclusion is that PoROK is a sincere crackpot.

: wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
: Me too. I wouldn't kick at him if he wasn't such an _arrogant_
: sincere crackpot.

He drinks a Whiskey drink, he drinks a Vodka drink
He drinks a Lager drink, he drinks a Cider drink
He sings the songs that remind him of the good times
He sings the songs that remind him of the better times

--- once placed at number 12 in Rolling Stone's
list of the 20 Most Annoying Songs

What? The "r" was a typo, shirley?
Anyways, yes, he'd rather believe the moon oscillates back and forth in
a somewhat complex manner, rather than the much simpler (and, in the end,
more accurate) model that it rotates at a constant rate. Just like he'd
rather suppose the earth speeds up and slows down it's rotation during
it's not-quite-ragular-regular orbit, rather than the much simpler model
that it rotates at a constant rate during it's not-quite-regular orbit.

Hey, there's no accounting for where the crack in a given pot manifests.

[Thomas Heger]

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

NO! You are way too irrelevant!

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

TH

[Joseph Nebus]

Joke that my Dearly Beloved, the professional philosopher,
says is shared at least among philosophy grad students:

``Did you hear Bishop Berkeley passed away?''

``No! What happened?''

``His girlfriend stopped seeing him.''

--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: Looking to Euler http://wp.me/p1RYhY-rJ
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------

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

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

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

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

[oriel36]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, April 13, 2013 2:58:33 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
>
>

> Do you really believe that?

Which side are you talking about? The light side or the dark side?

[Anthony Nance]

"There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."
- Gerry O'Driscoll

[Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk]

On Tuesday, 16 April 2013 01:39:39 UTC+1, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@...>

Too right.

If I were to Ascend To Power, one of my first laws would be that scientists had to have a translator present whenever they talk to journalists.

[James Silverton]

I'm reminded of the limerick:

There once was a man who said: "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."
Langford Reed, The Complete Limerick Book (1924)

And also various replies to this, see Wiki.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:24:45 +0000 (UTC), na...@math.ohio-state.edu
(Anthony Nance) wrote:

>> Which side are you talking about? The light side or the dark side?
>
>"There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."
>- Gerry O'Driscoll

Especially the inside.

[Anthony Nance]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:24:45 +0000 (UTC), na...@math.ohio-state.edu
> (Anthony Nance) wrote:
>
>>> Which side are you talking about? The light side or the dark side?
>>
>>"There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."
>>- Gerry O'Driscoll
>
> Especially the inside.
>

...where it's too dark to read.

[Wayne Throop]

: The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help <inv...@invalid.invalid>
: There is a serious deficit of reference frames in which the moon
: ~doesn't~ rotate, eh?

Oh *heavens* no. There is one. Of course, that frame is itself rotating,
but hey, you didn't say it had to be an inertial frame. Of also course,
in that one, earth does not remain stationary in the moon's sky. So,
see, origel36's position that the only frame that matters to the moon is
the frame in which the earth-center-to-moon-center line is motionless,
requires that the moon *does* rotate... just back and forth and with
various ficticious forces required to do physics, not steady-like and
F=dp/dt, as God intended.

( Admitedly... "there is *one*" does sort of seem like a shortage,
when there's an infinitude of inertial frames in which is *is*
rotating... along with an infinitude of non-inertial frames
in which it is. Though, if we count all the frames in uniform
translatory motion wrt the one I expect origel36 means, which is
the frame in which earth is motionless (adding more complications,
but origel36 looooooves those complications), that's an infinitude.
Prolly the set of such frames is even the same cardinality as the
set of frames where it does rotate. So there's that. )

( Note that, whole point of the inertial view of physics (and astrophysics,
and planetary dynamics) is that it is *vastly* simpler and more
straightforward than the one origel36 favors. Just F=dp/dt, and all
that that implies. He sneers at Newton and claims cult or cult-like
status for anybody who prefers newtonian mechanics' simplicity to
origel36's myriad of ad-hoc, non-uniform, hindsight-rich rules of
thumb. Plus too also, newtonian physics applied to planetary dynamics
is *accurate*, whereas origel36's preference isn't even useful enough
to *rate* its accuracy in meaningful terms. )


YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Son, we love in a world that has laws,
and those laws are derived by men with mathematics. Who's gonna
do it. You? I have a greater responsiblity than you could possibly
fathom, and my existance, while grotesque and incomprehensible to
you, *finds* *facts*. You don't want the truth because deep down
in places you don't talk about at parties, you *want* me at that
telescope, you *need* me deriving those equations. We use words like
"inertia" and "force" and "lagrangian" as the backbone of a life spent
understanding the universe. You use them as objects of derision.
I would prefer you just say thank you, and went on your way.

--- Colonel Newton, in "A Few Good Equations"

[oriel36]

On Apr 16, 4:42 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help <inva...@invalid.invalid>

The 'cult' business is accurate if regrettable however the mentality
which Newton spawned in his followers is so dominant and so pervasive
that even when presented with the expanded passages which show the
arguments for a 'spinning moon' become intractable due to
untrustworthiness,the ability to filter out the other errors is a sure
sign of a dysfunctional mind.

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

Venus does not turn once in 23 hours Throop no more than the moon
spins and that people can look out an imagine the moon spins is far
worse than imagining that it doesn't exist at all - truly!.

There is no fictional sci-fi/horror story out there comparable in
nightmarish terms to what actually exists as the vicious strain of
empiricism which created a Universe inside the heads of its followers
like you.The late 17th century equivalent of nuking the discipline of
astronomy was also the destruction of the basis of Western
astronomical methods and insights so a few mathematicians could
pretend to speak for the celestial arena and terrestrial sciences and
the greatest horror Throop is the complete indifference to the
dilution and distortion of everything that was good about scientific
discovery when it comes to astronomy and terrestrial sciences.

With all the trillions of dollars/euro worldwide covering research and
equipment,all the educational institutions and IT companies,and people
still insists the moon spins is quite a sight to behold along with the
assault on every other basic fact in astronomy.I would say that is
true poverty and all the chair throwing you see in the relativity
forum masks what and where the real problem exists.

[David DeLaney]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:42:27 GMT, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>( Admitedly... "there is *one*" does sort of seem like a shortage,
> when there's an infinitude of inertial frames in which is *is*
> rotating... along with an infinitude of non-inertial frames
> in which it is. Though, if we count all the frames in uniform
> translatory motion wrt the one I expect origel36 means, which is
> the frame in which earth is motionless (adding more complications,
> but origel36 looooooves those complications), that's an infinitude.
> Prolly the set of such frames is even the same cardinality as the
> set of frames where it does rotate. So there's that. )

So you set up equivalence classes among all reference frames modulo
translations, and you're left with one class where that line is stationary,
contaning the infinitude of frames that are that stationary frame with some
translation or other applied.

And let's not get into composition of translations in a curved-space
universe...

>( Note that, whole point of the inertial view of physics (and astrophysics,
> and planetary dynamics) is that it is *vastly* simpler and more
> straightforward than the one origel36 favors. Just F=dp/dt, and all
> that that implies. He sneers at Newton and claims cult or cult-like
> status for anybody who prefers newtonian mechanics' simplicity to
> origel36's myriad of ad-hoc, non-uniform, hindsight-rich rules of
> thumb. Plus too also, newtonian physics applied to planetary dynamics
> is *accurate*, whereas origel36's preference isn't even useful enough
> to *rate* its accuracy in meaningful terms. )

Plusandwhich, oriel isn't even NEAR being able to do the MATH involved in his
choice of frame, or even the math involved in the inertial-equivalence-class
of frames. He can't do it because he can't stand the answers that would show
up, one of which is "the moon rotates once with respect to the fixed-stars
background for each time it goes around the Earth, approximately".

> YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Son, we love in a world that has laws,
> and those laws are derived by men with mathematics. Who's gonna
> do it. You? I have a greater responsiblity than you could possibly
> fathom, and my existance, while grotesque and incomprehensible to
> you, *finds* *facts*. You don't want the truth because deep down
> in places you don't talk about at parties, you *want* me at that
> telescope, you *need* me deriving those equations. We use words like
> "inertia" and "force" and "lagrangian" as the backbone of a life spent
> understanding the universe. You use them as objects of derision.
> I would prefer you just say thank you, and went on your way.
>
> --- Colonel Newton, in "A Few Good Equations"

See, Newton also did crackpottery - he was big on various types of alchemy -
but he knew HOW TO DO THE MATH. He _invented_ ways to do the math, in fact. So
he gets remembered for the stuff he did RIGHT, and his potterings around in
alchemy and angels are trivia questions. THAT'S how you do it.

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.

[David DeLaney]

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

[ignoring everything Wayne just replied to him about, it's like he can't
visually process it or something]

>The 'cult' business is accurate if regrettable

Nope. Argument by assertion doesn't wash. Show your work. Cite your sources.
Do the math. Don't just say "It's a cult. Because it's a cult, a, B, and III
follow. Therefore, because it's a cult.".

>Venus does not turn once in 23 hours Throop

Nope. It turns, relative to the stars, about once every 243 _days_. This is
fairly odd because that's LONGER than it takes to go around the sun (224.7
days); it's not tide-locked. Furthermore, it's rotating backwards - so from
its perspective, the Sun rises in the west, sets in the east, and does so just
under twice each year.

>There is no fictional sci-fi/horror story out there comparable in
>nightmarish terms to what actually exists as the vicious strain of
>empiricism which created a Universe inside the heads of its followers
>like you.

... he hasn't read John C. Wright, check.

Dave, and it's stll funny that he thinks he's the only one who could possibly
see this issue and that it's a GREAT and REAL and TRUE and DISTURBING issue
and that the entire rest of the scientific community (which I'm fairly sure
he has NO idea how many people are in) is blinded to it by False Maths which
have hyp-mo-tized them and that somehow if one LOOKS at the Moon one can
immediately See The Truth

[oriel36]

On Apr 16, 5:47 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> Plusandwhich, oriel isn't even NEAR being able to do the MATH involved in his
> choice of frame, or even the math involved in the inertial-equivalence-class
> of frames. He can't do it because he can't stand the answers that would show
> up, one of which is "the moon rotates once with respect to the fixed-stars
> background for each time it goes around the Earth, approximately".

> 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.

A spinning round object has a maximum equatorial speed and zero polar
speed (Earth for example) while the moon does not spin as it orbits
the Earth which takes care of your half baked attempt to use a lunar
orbit to force through the mindnumbing idea of a spinning motion.I
could ask you to spin a ball on its spot to affirm the difference
between an orbiting object and a spinning object but the chances are
that these things don't penetrate a mind set on what it is
indoctrinated into believing hence you are excused.

It is not that you are failing with a spinning moon,you are successful
in ignoring that Isaac has the Earth turn once in 24 hours to stellar
circumpolar motion and Venus in 23 hours but then again you are very
'special' people in this respect.

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

[Wayne Throop]

: d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
: See, Newton also did crackpottery - he was big on various types of

: alchemy - but he knew HOW TO DO THE MATH. He _invented_ ways to do
: the math, in fact. So he gets remembered for the stuff he did RIGHT,
: and his potterings around in alchemy and angels are trivia questions.
: THAT'S how you do it.

Indeed... and to see what he did right, you look at how useful
and accurate it is. Newtonian mechanics, *very* useful, and *very*
accurate, in the exact circumstances ori sneers at.

Lookit them yoyos, that's the way you do it
You play the gee-tar on the Em Tee Vee

--- Dire Straits, Money for Nothing

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Venus does not turn once in 23 hours Throop

Everytime you think he's exhausted the crazy, he tops himself.
He actually seems to believe this is some sort of rebuttal to
newtonian mechanics used for plantary dynamics.

: people still insists the moon spins

largely because it's possible to detect physical consequences
of its spin. Of which, ori steadvastly maintains total ignorance.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: A spinning round object has a maximum equatorial speed and zero polar

: speed (Earth for example) while the moon does not spin as it orbits
: the Earth

There are physical consequences to the equatorial speed of a rotating
object. And the moon shows the same kind of physical consequences that
the earth has due to it's equatorial speed (though smaller consequences
because the speed is lower). Slight oblateness to the spheroid, the most
obvious. So the claim that the earth has an equatorial speed and the moon
doesn't is inconsistent, since both exhibit the effects of centrifugal
force (if you're over 35 or went to a private school; if you're under
35 or went to a public school, you say "centripetal acceleration",
or possibly "centrifugal pseudoforce").

: It is not that you are failing with a spinning moon,you are successful

: in ignoring that Isaac has the Earth turn once in 24 hours to stellar
: circumpolar motion and Venus in 23 hours

Neither Newton nor anybody else claimed that Venus turn once in 23 hours.
You seem to have made that up.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:11:08 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

>Everytime you think he's exhausted the crazy, he tops himself.
>He actually seems to believe this is some sort of rebuttal to
>newtonian mechanics used for plantary dynamics.

At least if he's crazy or an idiot, he's avoiding the much worse label
of a troll.

[J. Clarke]

In article <slrnkmr0g...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com says...

>
> oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ignoring everything Wayne just replied to him about, it's like he can't
> visually process it or something]
>
> >The 'cult' business is accurate if regrettable
>
> Nope. Argument by assertion doesn't wash. Show your work. Cite your sources.
> Do the math. Don't just say "It's a cult. Because it's a cult, a, B, and III
> follow. Therefore, because it's a cult.".
>
> >Venus does not turn once in 23 hours Throop
>
> Nope. It turns, relative to the stars, about once every 243 _days_. This is
> fairly odd because that's LONGER than it takes to go around the sun (224.7
> days); it's not tide-locked. Furthermore, it's rotating backwards - so from
> its perspective, the Sun rises in the west, sets in the east, and does so just
> under twice each year.
>
> >There is no fictional sci-fi/horror story out there comparable in
> >nightmarish terms to what actually exists as the vicious strain of
> >empiricism which created a Universe inside the heads of its followers
> >like you.
>
> ... he hasn't read John C. Wright, check.
>
> Dave, and it's stll funny that he thinks he's the only one who could possibly
> see this issue and that it's a GREAT and REAL and TRUE and DISTURBING issue
> and that the entire rest of the scientific community (which I'm fairly sure
> he has NO idea how many people are in) is blinded to it by False Maths which
> have hyp-mo-tized them and that somehow if one LOOKS at the Moon one can
> immediately See The Truth

The crackpots as a group crack me up. On the one hand there's the group
that wants to "disprove Newton" without being aware that that ship
sailed on the two seas of Relativity and Quantum Theory, and on the
other the ones that want to "disprove Einstein" and go back to Newtonian
mechanics. I don't recall encountering any who want to disprove quantum
theory, perhaps trying made their heads explode.

[oriel36]

On Apr 16, 6:25 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

> : It is not that you are failing with a spinning moon,you are successful
> : in ignoring that Isaac has the Earth turn once in 24 hours to stellar
> : circumpolar motion and Venus in 23 hours
>
> Neither Newton nor anybody else claimed that Venus turn once in 23 hours.
> You seem to have made that up.

Fascinating !

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

And people think it is about relativity.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

if you see Moon twinkle, don't just stand *there*

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 16 April 2013 13:00:54 UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:
>
> There is a temptation to see how far readers will go to
> believe that the moon spins even in an era when men have
> landed on the moon and can look out at the Earth constantly
> without having to budge or not look at the Earth at all -
> the reason being that the moon doesn't spin.

I don't remember if we've discussed this before -
but, if the Earth doesn't move or rotate, then
obviously the Moon passes thr‰ough the sky over all
lands showing /mostly/ the same face, and therefore
it is rotating to do so. If you don't like this
and you don't like Newton's version either then
please prove to me that the Earth is not stationary.

I don't think that astronauts were on the Moon for
long enough to tell by sight whether it is rotating
as Newton thought it was, or not.

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Apr 16, 9:11 am, James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
wrote:

> On 4/16/2013 8:17 AM, art...@yahoo.com wrote:> On Saturday, April 13, 2013 2:58:33 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> The moon exist only when I look at it.
>
> >> Do you really believe that?
>
> > Which side are you talking about? The light side or the dark side?
>
> I'm reminded of the limerick:
>
> There once was a man who said: "God
> Must think it exceedingly odd
> If he finds that this tree
> Continues to be
> When there's no one about in the Quad."
> Langford Reed, The Complete Limerick Book (1924)
>
> And also various replies to this, see Wiki.

There was someone going up the stairs in the Quad, but he wasn't there
for 2 days in a row.

[ppint. at pplay]

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

- emwltk(&allthat)

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

[The Starmaker]

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


Anyone can 'invent new math....


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


Anyone.

[Taki Kogoma]

On 2013-04-16, Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu>
allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:

Well, if you ask Dahak to turn on the lights...

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.

[Wayne Throop]

:: Neither Newton nor anybody else claimed that Venus turn once in 23
:: hours.

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Fascinating !
: http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&pg=PA579&dq=newton+moon+=
: rotates&hl=en&ei=SQJ5TJP1FYTKswadoL2yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=re=
: sult&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Indeed it is. For several reasons. Eg, first, it illuminates the
cognitive deficits of crackpottery, which seems to treat improved findings
as a Bad Thing.

Second, Newton died before even the fact that venus had an atmosphere
was known, let alone before radar and other measures could meaningfully
measure anything beneath it. And there's nothing in newtonian mechanics
that would allow him to determine what the rotation rate *should* be.
The other numbers he quotes are from observatons. Is newtonian mechanics
to blame if somebody published bogus observatons of venus before anything
substantial was known about it? No. Or rather, not to any reasonable
person.

Of course, it *is* incorrect that *nobody* ever claimed such a rotation
rate. I've seen two references to people in the 1700s and earlier that
did so. And it's a safe bet that their observations were just as
solid as the observations of the Martian canals.

However, it remains correct that nobody ever claimed such a rotation rate
was made necessary by newtonian mechanics.

So. The crackpot would insist that people mis-estimating a rotation rate
before they even knew that planet had an almost-blank atmosphere somehow
invalidates studies after the atmosphere was known of, and radar used
to penetrate it. And that Newton using an estimate made by somebody
most likely in good faith but bad data, somehow taints F=dp/dt and all
it implies. Any doubts what ori will do?

If you wonder, just note that ori deleted the physical proof that
the moon is, in fact, rotating just as the earth is (if a bit slower).
SOMEhow, that part of the post managed to sail over his head.
Here it is again:

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

::: A spinning round object has a maximum equatorial speed and zero
::: polar speed (Earth for example) while the moon does not spin as it
::: orbits the Earth

:: thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
:: There are physical consequences to the equatorial speed of a rotating

:: object. And the moon shows the same kind of physical consequences
:: that the earth has due to it's equatorial speed (though smaller
:: consequences because the speed is lower). Slight oblateness to the
:: spheroid, the most obvious. So the claim that the earth has an
:: equatorial speed and the moon doesn't is inconsistent, since both
:: exhibit the effects of centrifugal force (if you're over 35 or went
:: to a private school; if you're under 35 or went to a public school,
:: you say "centripetal acceleration", or possibly "centrifugal
:: pseudoforce").

Again, any doubts what ori's going to do with this fairly direct
observation of the results of the moon's rotation?

And how about libration, which is a direct observation of an equatorial
speed of the moon wrt an observer on earth, fastest at full moon every
month, more or less. Moon doesn't rotate? Just look at it with timelapse
photography; it rotates back and forth and up and down and everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.gif

It's why we can see more than half of its surface. If it didn't
rotate back and forth wrt the earth, we couldn't. Of course, unlike
libration, it rotates *smoothly* wrt any inertial frame, irregularly
wrt to most anything else including earth. But ori would rather build
his ... assertions on shifting sand, rather than admit that the odious
Newton was onto something. I suppose one must be reassured that at
least he doesn't go about claiming that planets actually reverse their
direction of orbit, and Copernicus was pernicious.

Or... does he? Hard to tell, since he's so coy about precisely which parts
of what one sees through the devils-tube-with-lenses he rejects.

[The Starmaker]

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

The universe is not mathematical.

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

Math is an invention of Man.

That is why 13 x 28 = 27.

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


Is the universe mathematical, of course not!

Where is the manual?

The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Sureeee it's accurate...when you *invent* -the math-, to fit the theory.

So, expressing a theory in math rather than prose somehow makes
it accurately model real observations in the real world?

Sureeeee it does.

Point is, both theory and math were fit to observations of the real world.
Unlike what the starry one wants to con you to suppose.

[oriel36]

On Apr 16, 8:59 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...@somewhere.no> wrote:
> On 16.04.2013 19:25, Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> > : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

>
> > : It is not that you are failing with a spinning moon,you are successful
> > : in ignoring that Isaac has the Earth turn once in 24 hours to stellar
> > : circumpolar motion and Venus in 23 hours
>

> Newton had the Earth turn once in 23h 56'.
>

Try this -

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

You are looking at this -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&pg=PA423&dq=newton+moon+rotates&hl=en&ei=SQJ5TJP1FYTKswadoL2yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false


Rather than reach for an excuse for Newton,stay with the point for a
moment as they started to run into difficulties with this in the mid
19th century in try to mesh the lunar orbital circuit with the orbital
circuit of the Earth.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=MfU3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA27&dq=moon+does+not+rotate&hl=en&ei=Ywt5TPu7DJDGswbJ58SyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

What you are looking at is a new version of a problem that is very old
and has never been resolved properly.It is as thrilling a challenge as
any generation has faced in that the clockwork solar system and the
predictive convenience from which it emerged cannot be used to prove
the Earth's daily and orbital motions which in turn affect the
observations of all other motions in the celestial arena.999,999 out
of a million would run from that challenge but all it takes is one
person to dwell on the matter just a little longer and they will see
things that will delight them as much as it will shock them.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 4/16/2013 4:27 PM, Taki Kogoma wrote:
> On 2013-04-16, Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu>
> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:24:45 +0000 (UTC), na...@math.ohio-state.edu
>>> (Anthony Nance) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Which side are you talking about? The light side or the dark side?
>>>>
>>>> "There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."
>>>> - Gerry O'Driscoll
>>>
>>> Especially the inside.
>>
>> ...where it's too dark to read.
>
> Well, if you ask Dahak to turn on the lights...

I'm not going to tell you again, stay out
of the dadgum transport tunnels! Those
little buggies really fly.

Lynn

[David DeLaney]

oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 16, 5:47�pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> Plusandwhich, oriel isn't even NEAR being able to do the MATH involved in his
>> choice of frame, or even the math involved in the inertial-equivalence-class
>> of frames. He can't do it because he can't stand the answers that would show
>> up, one of which is "the moon rotates once with respect to the fixed-stars
>> background for each time it goes around the Earth, approximately".
>

>A spinning round object has a maximum equatorial speed and zero polar
>speed (Earth for example)

Certainly, given you're looking at it in an inertial reference frame. If not,
you could spin the frame to give it ANY equatorial spin speed, or to spin
around a different axis.

>while the moon does not spin as it orbits the Earth

And this right here is wrong. It's been wrong since before you started posting
here; you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the many many
people who are trying to help you see you're wrong.

"Always has the same face pointed towards Earth as it goes around it" is VERY
VERY DIFFERENT FROM "does not spin as it orbits the Earth". If the latter were
the case, we'd see all around the Moon, once, as it went around the Earth;
each night (or day) we'd see the side that was currently facing us, and that
side would change as though we were seeing the Moon spin about 12 degrees or
so each day. (360 degrees around the Earth divided by about 30 days.)

We don't see that.

Instead, we see the same side pointed towards us. That side is pointed east
when the Moon is to the west of the Earth; it's pointed away from the Sun (and
we have New Moon) when the Moon is between the Sun and Earth; it's pointed
towards the Sun when the Moon's on the other side of the Earth from the Sun
(and we have full Moon). About every 15 days, that side is pointed in the
_opposite direction_ from the direction it was pointing 15 days before. This
is a very very weird definition of "does not spin"; in fact, a totally non-
functional one.

>could ask you to spin a ball on its spot to affirm the difference
>between an orbiting object and a spinning object but the chances are
>that these things don't penetrate a mind set on what it is
>indoctrinated into believing hence you are excused.

I could ask you to actually LOOK at what's happening with a ball and a bigger
ball and a flashlight, but we've shown long ago that you totally refuse to
actually do the experiment and see what happens. Or even just two balls, one
of which has a mark on its equator.

>It is not that you are failing with a spinning moon,you are successful
>in ignoring that Isaac has the Earth turn once in 24 hours to stellar
>circumpolar motion and Venus in 23 hours but then again you are very
>'special' people in this respect.

Venus doesn't rotate in 23 hours. Venus rotates in... lemme go look again,
I don't have this memorized ... every 243 _days_ or so, and backwards to boot.
During the course of its year, its face turns towards, then away from, the Sun
a little under twice. This would probably serve to illustrate to you the
vast difference between "sidereal rotation" and "days in a year", if you
weren't obsessed and deluded enough to ignore actual measured numbers and math.

>http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&

...No, I'm not gonna go look at some self-published ranting pamphlet you
found on google, gods know how. Come back when you can actually do some
celestial mechanics without curling into a whimpering ball of denial.

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.

[David DeLaney]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>But ori would rather build his ... assertions on shifting cheese,

I've fixed your takedown for you.

>I suppose one must be reassured that at
>least he doesn't go about claiming that planets actually reverse their
>direction of orbit, and Copernicus was pernicious.

EPICYCLES! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! THEN TURN AROUND AND RUN THE OTHER WAY FOR
A LITTLE BIT! OKAY, NOW BACK THE WAY YOU WERE GOING!

>Or... does he? Hard to tell, since he's so coy about precisely which parts
>of what one sees through the devils-tube-with-lenses he rejects.

I don't think he's ever managed to read enough about astronomy to find OUT
what the paths of the planets look like from Earth.

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.

[David DeLaney]

Taki Kogoma <qu...@tenma.swcp.com> wrote:
>On 2013-04-16, Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu>

>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:24:45 +0000 (UTC), na...@math.ohio-state.edu
>>> (Anthony Nance) wrote:
>>>>> Which side are you talking about? The light side or the dark side?
>>>>
>>>>"There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."
>>>>- Gerry O'Driscoll
>>>
>>> Especially the inside.
>>
>> ...where it's too dark to read.
>
>Well, if you ask Dahak to turn on the lights...

Clearly we need to hurry up and get that Nicoll-Dyson laser installed.

Dave, baked lunar alaska

[The Starmaker]

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

[oriel36]

On Apr 16, 11:25 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> >http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&
>
> ...No, I'm not gonna go look at some self-published ranting pamphlet you
> found on google, gods know how. Come back when you can actually do some
> celestial mechanics without curling into a whimpering ball of denial.
>
> Dave
> --

You cannot know how funny your statement is - truly !.

> \/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.

[William December Starr]

In article <d25e6bbd-298b-48ca...@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

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

> There is no fictional sci-fi/horror story out there comparable in
> nightmarish terms to what actually exists as the vicious strain of
> empiricism which created a Universe inside the heads of its

> followers like you.The late 17th century equivalent of nuking the
> discipline of astronomy was also the destruction of the basis of
> Western astronomical methods and insights so a few mathematicians
> could pretend to speak for the celestial arena and terrestrial
> sciences and the greatest horror Throop is the complete
> indifference to the dilution and distortion of everything that was
> good about scientific discovery when it comes to astronomy and
> terrestrial sciences.

Keep sounding that alarm, Ger. Maybe someday somebody will listen
to you.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <650b6c95-8959-48b5...@cm2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

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

> A spinning round object has a maximum equatorial speed and zero
> polar speed (Earth for example) while the moon does not spin as
> it orbits the Earth which takes care of your half baked attempt
> to use a lunar orbit to force through the mindnumbing idea of a
> spinning motion.

I love Oriel. Nobody else could write a sentence like that.

-- wds

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kkkp1r$i7u$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

If the Moon doesn't spin, then why does it have gravity? Huh? HUH!?!?

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[The Starmaker]

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

[oriel36]

On Apr 17, 1:03 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <d25e6bbd-298b-48ca-8fbe-074dd4024...@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

Maybe I should give the sci-fi fans here the " I have seen things you
people wouldn't believe" speech but the truth is that common sense is
perhaps the best route to restore some sort of stable astronomical
narrative after the mathematical 'magicians' of the late 17th century
made interpretative astronomy disappear for a few centuries so they
could turn the celestial arena into a theoretical dumping ground.

Probably the oldest graphical interpretation in the world is the 5200
year old decorated stone at the neolithic site of Knowth where the
moon disappears in the glare of the Sun (spiral) for a few days and
just goes to show how switched on these people were compared to the
poverty of today for all our technological innovations.

http://www.knowth.com/stooke/knowth4.gif

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1994JHA....25...39S/0000053.000.html

Don't worry William,people do listen and do adapt so I salute the
spinning moon cult here as it was one helluva innings as they fade
into intellectual oblivion !.As for Newton's many followers in these
forums,they make their salaries and their reputations from not knowing
what he was trying to do and that is why the other guy got himself
into trouble by not clicking on the link provided as he was only doing
what everyone else does.

[Wayne Throop]

: d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
: "Always has the same face pointed towards Earth as it goes around it"

: is VERY VERY DIFFERENT FROM "does not spin as it orbits the Earth".
: If the latter were the case, we'd see all around the Moon, once, as it
: went around the Earth; each night (or day) we'd see the side that was
: currently facing us, and that side would change as though we were
: seeing the Moon spin about 12 degrees or so each day. (360 degrees
: around the Earth divided by about 30 days.)
:
: We don't see that.

Oh he's impervious to that argument. He contends that since the moon
is orbiting the earth, the only frame that matters is the earth-centered
moon-facing non-inertial frame. Of course, since the orbital motion is
not steady, that gets complicated, but then, he hasn't really dealt with
anything that shows the flaws in his position due to said complication,
eg, hasn't dealt with libration in any realistic fashion. I expect if
he ever un-coys enough to state what he thinks causes libration, it'll
be moon pixies of some sort.

And of course he very carefully avoids thinking about the fact that
the moon is slightly oblate, which shows it's equipotential surface is
subject to centrifugal pseudoforce, which shows it's spinning. He very
VERY carefully doesn't think about, or acknowledge that one. I expect
he's feverishly googling spurrious references to try to weasel out of it,
and may come up with something by and by. Probably some variant
on "experimental error", much the same rationale as to why nine
is not a prime number, even though all odd numbers should be prime.

Yea verily, the crack in his pot runs deep and wide.

I see a bad moon rising
I see trouble on the way
I see earthquakes and lightnin'
I see bad times today

--- CCR

[oriel36]

On Apr 17, 1:06 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <650b6c95-8959-48b5-924f-703410f3e...@cm2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > A spinning round object has a maximum equatorial speed and zero
> > polar speed (Earth for example) while the moon does not spin as
> > it orbits the Earth which takes care of your half baked attempt
> > to use a lunar orbit to force through the mindnumbing idea of a
> > spinning motion.
>
> I love Oriel.  Nobody else could write a sentence like that.
>
> -- wds

Simple analogy - walk (orbit) a central object (Earth) with one
outstretched arm pointing at the central object and the other arm
pointing on the opposite direction imitating the moon's orbital motion
of the Earth,the outstretched arm pointing in the opposite direction
to the object (Earth) scribes a complete circle to all external points
hence an astronaut on the far side of the moon sees the stars change
by virtue of the moon's lunar circuit of the Earth.

This is not relativity where you are expected to throw chairs
around,scream and carry on - if companies like google or microsoft
were really IT companies and truly geared towards helping students
understand things,a few simple graphics would explain these things to
students rather than deal with overgrown schoolboys who refuse to be
adults or who live in a cult environment.No doubt you fail to
appreciate the argument which counters the absurdity of trying to
force the monthly lunar cycle into supporting a spinning moon but that
is expected.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: http://books.google.ie/books?id=MfU3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA27&dq=moon+does+not=
: +rotate&hl=en&ei=Ywt5TPu7DJDGswbJ58SyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=re=
: sult&resnum=10&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
: What you are looking at is a new version of a problem that is very old

: and has never been resolved properly.

It's been resolved properly by anybody who has a lick of sense.
The frame in which earth's rotation is refered to the sun has one
less sunrise per year than the sun-centered inertial frame.
This is obvious to anybody who has thought about it (you know,
actually thinking instead of looking to reiforce a prejudice)
for more than about thirty seconds. Or until they're driven to
draw it all out on paper, which might mean 90 seconds or so.

If you have trouble making your own diagrams, many are googlable.
Most of them go over the entire shebang, including why the length
of the sidereal day doesn't change, but the solar day does, etc.

If you sill suppose it hasn't been "resolved properly", then you're
either deluding yourself, or are clinging white-knuckled to a prejudice.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Ohhhh puleeease...a theory is not a real world.

That's why I didn't say it was.
You made that up all by yourself.

[Quadibloc]

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

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

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

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

John Savard

[Wayne Throop]

::: A spinning round object has a maximum equatorial speed and zero

::: polar speed (Earth for example) while the moon does not spin as it
::: orbits the Earth which takes care of your half baked attempt to use
::: a lunar orbit to force through the mindnumbing idea of a spinning
::: motion.

:: I love Oriel. Nobody else could write a sentence like that.

: If the Moon doesn't spin, then why does it have gravity? Huh? HUH!?!?

Heavy boots, duh.

[oriel36]

If you can see the moon spin 360 degrees once in a month then you have
bigger problems than I can deal with.When the moon is between the
Earth and the Sun,a new moon from our point of view,an astronaut on
the moon can look out at the gorgeous planet he is orbiting and see
what a spinning object looks like -

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

Perhaps I have got the wrong crowd.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: You cannot come up with a theory that comes from imagination,

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

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

[Quadibloc]

On Apr 16, 1:31 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
> I don't recall encountering any who want to disprove quantum
> theory, perhaps trying made their heads explode.

Presumably, quantum theory is so weird that it doesn't even _need_ to
be disproved; they can just ignore it and claim that it's false!

John Savard

[John Gogo]

If the moon were considered but just a part of the Earth- the fact
that only one side is shown to us of the moon- then its rotation would
be just like Earths' viewpoint- just an extended version.

[John Gogo]

Same science with a larger wheel.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: If you can see the moon spin 360 degrees once in a month then you have

: bigger problems than I can deal with.

But you agree that it spins one way, and then the other, every month?
Or are you still balking at looking through the devil's tube with lenses
and a time lapse camera?

It's obvious that an observer on, say, mars, would see exactly that.
It's only your twisted prejudices that force you to claim only
the earth-centered non-inertial moon-facing frame counts.
And you do this by carefully ignoring all the physical evidence
that shows it's actually inertial frames that count.

: Perhaps I have got the wrong crowd.

Have you ever found the right crowd?

[Quadibloc]

On Apr 16, 5:20 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You cannot know how funny your statement is - truly !.

OK, so this time it was a modern edition of the Principia, not a book
by a kook claiming the Moon didn't rotate. But his criticism that you
can't do celestial mechanics is valid.

John Savard

[John Gogo]

How much slippage does the moon contain?

[John Gogo]

The moon is just an evolved piece of rock that has "locked onto us"
and does not turn its' face away from us. It gives up any sort of
independent rotation- so that it revolves in correspondence with the
Earth.

[John Gogo]

The path of the moon as it crosses our sky can be most meaningful.

[oriel36]

On Apr 17, 1:59 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : If you can see the moon spin 360 degrees once in a month then you have
> : bigger problems than I can deal with.
>
> But you agree that it spins one way, and then the other, every month?
> Or are you still balking at looking through the devil's tube with lenses
> and a time lapse camera?
>

From experience I now know Galileo was being honest rather than
boastful -

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable
stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the
principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the
stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets,
the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately
offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp
stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light
of truth." Galileo

> It's obvious that an observer on, say, mars, would see exactly that.
> It's only your twisted prejudices that force you to claim only
> the earth-centered non-inertial moon-facing frame counts.
> And you do this by carefully ignoring all the physical evidence
> that shows it's actually inertial frames that count.
>
> : Perhaps I have got the wrong crowd.
>
> Have you ever found the right crowd?

You are fine,don't get upset about these things if it is not possible
to appreciate what a spinning celestial object looks like and there
are some amazing time lapse footage out there of the other planets as
they turn from a maximum equatorial speed down to nothing at the polar
latitudes -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlD9ULiMz80

If you have to strain your imagination to get a celestial object to
rotate when it doesn't,the moon for instance,then don't bother as it
mocks what contemporary imaging can do.

[GogoJF]

The moon is a special case because it is the only object which
revolves around the Earth. Observing other moons will only contain
physical meaning if and only if it is referenced in terms of the
planet holding it.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:55:45 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If you can see the moon spin 360 degrees once in a month then you have
>bigger problems than I can deal with.

It's very easy to see that the moon spins approximately 360 degrees
*relative to the sun* in a month.

--
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.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I wonder if it could be said,
that both Eaaarth and Moon both revolve & rotate
about their common barycenter?

[John Gogo]

On Apr 16, 9:49 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I wonder that myself.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

*mathematica* is for subjects,
a.k.a. *quadrivium*;
the *trivium* is taught to kids before puberty,
thus causing learning dysabilities in most.

[John Gogo]

We need to go to the moon. If the Chinese do it- so be it. It needs
to be taken over by humans- as a common-sense first step to exploring
the rest of the solar system.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <13661...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

Oh, yeah, I forgot.

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: If you have to strain your imagination to get a celestial object to

: rotate when it doesn't,the moon for instance

I don't have to strain anything. Do you have to strain your
denial to get the moon not to rotate, when it obviously does?
I doubt it. Most likely you've gotten very good at denial,
and can believe hundreds of things contrary to observation
before breakfast.

Your denial that some/any/every object (including the moon)
could or should be considered from an inertial viewpoint is
probably your most impressive act of self-deception.