Does the Moon Exist When I'm Not Looking?

The Starmaker

unread,

Apr 13, 2013, 2:58:33 PM4/13/13

to

The moon exist only when I look at it.

Do you really believe that?

Poutnik

unread,

Apr 13, 2013, 3:24:44 PM4/13/13

to

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

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

Do you exist only if I look at you ?

Do you have independent existance mode
for every single person ?

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

--
Poutnik

HunterdonX

unread,

Apr 13, 2013, 6:25:02 PM4/13/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 13, 2013, 6:39:31 PM4/13/13

to

The moon exists. End of story.

Shawn Wilson

unread,

Apr 13, 2013, 7:23:02 PM4/13/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 12:12:42 AM4/14/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 12:19:52 AM4/14/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 12:22:57 AM4/14/13

to

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

The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 2:18:29 AM4/14/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 5:05:41 AM4/14/13

to

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

Message has been deleted

waldofj

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 5:51:17 PM4/14/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 6:40:21 PM4/14/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 2:32:42 AM4/15/13

to

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

You're wrong about that.

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

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

The Starmaker

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

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

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

The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 7:04:04 AM4/15/13

to

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

oriel36

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 8:42:26 AM4/15/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

Howard Brazee

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 9:29:08 AM4/15/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 10:40:11 AM4/15/13

to

: 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

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 11:01:03 AM4/15/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 11:16:57 AM4/15/13

to

The idiot remark is unwarranted discourtesy, imo.

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

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

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

Alen

The Starmaker

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 3:38:41 PM4/15/13

to

How do you make "Observations" without looking?

oriel36

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 4:09:01 PM4/15/13

to

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.

space...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 6:02:16 PM4/15/13

to star...@ix.netcom.com

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?

do you disappear when the Moon stops Mooning you?

Mitchell Raemsch

Thomas Heger

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 12:38:54 AM4/16/13

to

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

NO! You are way too irrelevant!

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

TH

The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 5:04:37 AM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:00:54 AM4/16/13

to

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.

Wayne Throop

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 11:42:27 AM4/16/13

to

: 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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 12:34:01 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 1:31:09 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 1:39:41 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 1:00:12 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 1:02:32 PM4/16/13

to

: 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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 1:11:08 PM4/16/13

to

: 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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 1:25:21 PM4/16/13

to

: 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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 2:24:13 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 3:31:14 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 3:44:28 PM4/16/13

to

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.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 3:59:54 PM4/16/13

to

On 16.04.2013 19:25, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : oriel36 <kellehe...@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'.

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

Newton did.

From principia:
<<
Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9 56',
mars horis 24 39', venus horis 23 circiter, terra horis 23 56',
sol diebus 25� & luna diebus 27 hor. 7 43'.
>>

He got the rotation period of Jupiter (equatorial),
Mars, Earth, Sun (equatorial) and the Moon almost spot on,
but got it very wrong for Venus. (approximately 23h)

But all reasonably knowledgeable persons know that it
is impossible to measure the rotation period of Venus
with an optical telescope, so it is quite idiotic
to blame Newton for his wrong estimate.
With his primitive telescope there is no way he
could know that he was looking at clouds.

The rotation period of Venus wasn't known before
1967, when radar measurements were used.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967aj.....72..351d

And even then they got it a couple of days wrong.
(but just inside the error bars)

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:17:06 PM4/16/13

to

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

ppint. at pplay

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 3:47:53 PM4/16/13

to

- 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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 5:01:24 PM4/16/13

to

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.

Wayne Throop

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:42:07 PM4/16/13

to

:: 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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 5:38:38 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 5:42:46 PM4/16/13

to

: 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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 6:03:33 PM4/16/13

to

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.

David DeLaney

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 7:09:30 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 7:12:08 PM4/16/13

to

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.

The Starmaker

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 6:47:45 PM4/16/13

to

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

oriel36

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 7:20:02 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:03:02 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:06:19 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:24:10 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:28:36 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:52:23 PM4/16/13

to

: 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.

Wayne Throop

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:54:23 PM4/16/13

to

::: 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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:55:45 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:56:13 PM4/16/13

to

: 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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:59:36 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 9:02:03 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 9:03:37 PM4/16/13

to

Same science with a larger wheel.

Wayne Throop

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:59:42 PM4/16/13

to

: 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?

John Gogo

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 9:24:31 PM4/16/13

to

How much slippage does the moon contain?

John Gogo

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 9:31:55 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 9:36:14 PM4/16/13

to

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

oriel36

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 9:45:15 PM4/16/13

to

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 11:15:04 PM4/16/13

to

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

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 11:31:50 PM4/16/13

to

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

Oh, yeah, I forgot.

Wayne Throop

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 11:47:12 PM4/16/13

to

: 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.

The Starmaker

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 12:05:22 AM4/17/13

to

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

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

It's a con!

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

Any bird brain can recognize a pattern.

The Starmaker

oriel36

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 3:40:38 AM4/17/13

to

On Apr 17, 4:47 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

The imperative for everyone here is also the worst possible insult -
'Grow up !'

We can not only look out at a non spinning moon,we have the technology
to send people to that non spinning moon who can look out at a
spinning Earth -

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

Unlike Delaney you should click on that link and look at it long
enough to snap out of a late 17th century dictate of the spinning
moon.That is all.

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 4:14:01 AM4/17/13

to

"oriel36" wrote in message
news:c3b20d15-9cc6-4852...@y2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

The imperative for everyone here is also the worst possible insult -
'Grow up !'

We can not only look out at a non spinning moon,we have the technology
to send people to that non spinning moon who can look out at a
spinning Earth -

==============================================
What causes the phases, new moon to full moon, you stupid useless
ignorant worthless fuckwit?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

1,945 murdered in Obama's organized communities

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 4:24:09 AM4/17/13

to

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

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

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

The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 4:29:47 AM4/17/13

to

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:42:27 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

>: 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"

And how does origel36 explain lunar libration?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010218.html

The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 4:32:06 AM4/17/13

to

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:24:13 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:

>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.

>--
>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.

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 4:57:37 AM4/17/13

to

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.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.

Yeah, that must be it.

The 'Brightness' control still doesn't help

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 5:01:43 AM4/17/13

to

What would you see if you were on Mars and trained your telescope back
at the moon and took careful notes for a month or so?

Think about it.

Paul Colquhoun

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 5:13:57 AM4/17/13

to

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:42:18 GMT, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
|: 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.

He doesn't even need to draw it out himself. I made an animated gif for
him last time he showed up, which I doubt he even bothered to look at.

It's still up at http://andor.dropbear.id.au/solar-day/

| 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.

--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 7:54:42 AM4/17/13

to

You are fascinating if very 'special' people,a normal person who knew
nothing above the fact that the moon orbits the Earth would look at
the time lapse footage of the distant rotating Earth and watch the
moon swing around the planet,know that the moon keeps the same side to
us as it does so and draw the only conclusion possible even if it
doesn't beg one in the first place -

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

I have a soft spot for sci-fi and went to see a movie on the weekend
about a planet devoid of human inhabitants bar a few riff-raff who
turn out to be heroes but fiction aside,it is quite an experience to
encounter a global group of people who can force themselves to turn
basic astronomical and terrestrial facts on their head for no other
reason than the guys with late 17th century data demand it.In this
respect we all like to visit the cinema every now and again and enjoy
the fictional stories played out on the screen but we wouldn't want to
live there so the parallel with the fictional agenda of Newtonian
empiricists shouldn't be lost on readers as they live out fiction and
are terrified of facts least they lose their stupidity which they
themselves wrong believe is intellectually superiority over the rest
of humanity.

The spinning moon indeed !.

John F. Eldredge

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 10:58:37 AM4/17/13

to

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:59:42 +0000, Wayne Throop wrote:

> : 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?

Perhaps the voices in his head constitute the right crowd. "My name is
Legion, for we are many."

--
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

Wayne Throop

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 12:31:39 PM4/17/13

to

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: We can not only look out at a non spinning moon

which is of course an optical illusion, much like the sun "rising" and
"setting". The illusion is due to the rotation of the moon, just as
the illusion of the sun moving is due to the rotation of the earth.
From the moon, the sun also appears to move... for the same reason it
appears to move on earth.

Further, and really quite conclusive, the moon is flattened with
centrifugal pseudoforce to exactly the extent it should be if it's
spinning at one revolution per orbit.

All these observations rather trump your "proof by you're all in a cult"
line of so-called reasoning. The facts of the matter are greatly against
you. But it is still true that nobody can beat you at denial.

Your bizarre halucination that the moon's spin (or lack of) must only be
considered relative to the earth (more specifically, the earth-centered
mon-facing non-inertial frame, since the moon spins in the earth-centered
inertial frame of course) is near the root of your mania.

Search your feelings, Luke. You know it to be true.

: we have the technology to send people to that non spinning moon who

: can look out at a spinning Earth -

Tsk tsk. You know the earth's spin can only be judged from the
sun-centered earth-facing non-inertial frame. If you look at the earth
from the moon, you'll get the wrong number for the length of one
revolution of the spin; it isn't 24 hours.

But hey, if you're allowing people on other celestial bodies to look at
objects not orbiting them to check for spin, any of the myriad cameras on
geosynchronous satellites can clearly see that the earth does not spin.
And then there's the martians. They see a spinning earth's-moon. Soon as
we get there, there'll be footage of it, no doubt.

Further, there are more planets and asteroids and such from which the
moon is clearly seen to spin, and there is only *one* place where this
is not seen, the sane conclusion is that the spin (which everybody else
sees) is synchronized to the orbital motion. And indeed, the martians
watching see clearly that there is one spin per orbit.

Further still, since the moon's motion wrt the sun is everywhere concave,
it's entirely reasonable to suppose the moon is actually just co-orbiting
the sun *with* earth rather than orbiting the earth. So the proper
frame for the moon is the sun-centered moon-facing non-inertial frame.
In that frame, clearly the moon rotates. Clear because of the phases,
you understand. You *have* heard that the moon has them, right?

Wayne Throop

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 1:03:19 PM4/17/13

to

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: I don't have to think about it

Yes. Exactly. Indeed, you *have* to *not* think about it,
or your preconceived notions get holes shot in th em.

David DeLaney

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 2:52:32 PM4/17/13

to

oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 17, 1:21�am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>> : 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. [...]

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

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

But we do see that. At one time in the month, the side facing us is pointing
towards the constellation of Aries in the zodiac (which is then on the other
side of the Earth from the Moon). About half a month later, that same side,
still facing us, is pointing towards the constellation of Libra, halfway around
the ecliptic from Aries (and which is THEN on the other side of Earth from the
Moon, since the Moon's gone halfway around the Earth in the meantime). And
half a month later, that SAME side is pointing back at Aries again. Standing
anywhere on the Moon's equator, or anywhere sort of near it, and ignoring
that the Earth is standing mostly-still in the sky and the Sun is moving a
little with respect to the stars, you see the entire sky sloooowly turning,
completing one revolution around you every 27 and a third Earth-days. This
means that:

the Moon is TURNING, spinning, inside the Universe. Once every 27.32 Earth
days. If it were NOT SPINNING, then standing at a particular point on it you
would always be facing the EXACT SAME STARS. This does not happen; you see
the stars go around you every 27.32 days, instead, meaning that's the time
it takes for the Moon to spin once on its axis. Since the Moon is tide-locked
in its orbit, this is ALSO the time it takes to go once around the Earth.
[To come back to the same _phase_ exactly takes it 29.53 days, because in
the meantime the Earth's going around the Sun too.]

>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 -

And behind the Earth he can see a particular background of stars.

Over the course of the next month, as he sees the Sun slowly go around once or
so in the sky, the stars he sees behind the Earth -change-. They move, at a
slightly different speed from the Sun, so that over the course of 27.32 Earth
days he sees the entire journey round the sky, behind the Earth. This means
that while the Moon is always facing the Earth, at that point on its surface,
it's SPINNING with respect to the Universe, which is what counts.

>Perhaps I have got the wrong crowd.

Perhaps. I'd think your screeds would go better to a crowd that had no idea
what-so-ever how things outside the Earth's atmosphere worked; perhaps some
people who still thought the Earth was flat and that the Moon and Sun were
just big lamps floating a few hundred miles up? Because for anyone who DOES
know how circles and balls and ellipses work, your mistake is REALLY REALLY
OBVIOUS, way more obvious than what you think the obviousness factor should
be that every other scientist is overlooking, yet you totally refuse to hear
that you're the one that has the mistake, and totally refuse to think about
any of the simple ways to see why your mistake is messing you way up.

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

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 2:56:25 PM4/17/13

to

William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:

>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.

yes, Oriel's pottery is clearly FULLY baked.

Dave, maybe even somewhat overdone