Why Is The Moon Not Spinning Then?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
I'm not trying to impress you. My scientific mind is a good one, if a little unconventional. Most physicists at the top of their profession welcome alternative thinking. It's how most of history's great scientific discoveries were made.
AL
Your blatantly obvious attempts to avoid answering direct questions brands you, without a doubt, as a mere child.
Either ask questions (people here will be happy to answer) so that you may learn something - or just go away.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
It's kind of sad in a way. It's like watching someone trying to bluff in poker while wearing mirrored sunglasses.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Common_sense_seeker, give yourself and the rest of us a break. Poking fun at you is not much of a pleasure. We are doing it for two reasons, one honourable, the other dishonourable.
The dishonourable reason is that we are frustrated by your attempt to project yourself as something you are not and we are striking out. It is quite common for people on forums to pretent to be someon other than they are - and that's fine in many instances. But here, who you are, or rather what you claim to know is central to the discussion.
Rest assured we know that you know bugger all about orbital mechanics and simulation. You may have played Civilisation, but you didn't write the code. Stop pretending.
The honourable reason is that we are trying to get you to openly admit your lack of knowledge. There is no shame in that. We are all hugely ignorant of most things, but toegether we know quite a lot. We can learn from each other, but only if we are honest about the levels of our knowledge. Everyone who has been interacting with you here and on the other thread would genuinely welcome that.
At the moment we all think you are a bit of an immature prat. If you come clean I for one would be well impressed by your maturity and I am pretty sure the others would be too.
Your choice, prat or professional? Antagonist or ally? Well?
The dishonourable reason is that we are frustrated by your attempt to project yourself as something you are not and we are striking out. It is quite common for people on forums to pretent to be someon other than they are - and that's fine in many instances. But here, who you are, or rather what you claim to know is central to the discussion.
Rest assured we know that you know bugger all about orbital mechanics and simulation. You may have played Civilisation, but you didn't write the code. Stop pretending.
The honourable reason is that we are trying to get you to openly admit your lack of knowledge. There is no shame in that. We are all hugely ignorant of most things, but toegether we know quite a lot. We can learn from each other, but only if we are honest about the levels of our knowledge. Everyone who has been interacting with you here and on the other thread would genuinely welcome that.
At the moment we all think you are a bit of an immature prat. If you come clean I for one would be well impressed by your maturity and I am pretty sure the others would be too.
Your choice, prat or professional? Antagonist or ally? Well?
In a day, whether it be 24 hours, 1 year or 24 years, both sides face the sun. Otherwise, it is not a day.
You are referring to the synodic day - the time from sunrise to sunrise. AlphaNumeric, on the other hand, was referring to the sidereal day - the time from star-rise to star-rise. The Earth's sidereal day is about 3 minutes and 55.9 seconds shorter than the 24 hour long synodic day (actually, 24 hours plus 2 milliseconds; the synodic day 24 hours long back in 1820).
I imagine it sounds like a lot of waffle to a lot of people. My background is genuine. I haven't been in high-tech employment for over 12 years, and I probably sounded like a clueless idiot then too. I'm happy to continue with the thread 'Are Galaxies Expanding?' with people who are interested in toying with cosmological new ideas, which is my main area of interest.
I'm quite proud of being childish, that's just me.
AL
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I don't give a damn about your background. Your ideas will stand or fall on their merit not upon your background. But so far you haven't given us any ideas, just a few lightweight juvenile speculations. Ante up.
If the Moon is supposed to gain angular momentum via the rotating Earth's gravitational field, why can't this effect be replicated in the laboratory via experiment?
I propose that this is because the theory is complete BS. If you're a mathematician who disagrees, the onus is on you to prove it in the lab, is it not?
AL
If the Moon is supposed to gain angular momentum via the rotating Earth's gravitational field, why can't this effect be replicated in the laboratory via experiment?
I propose that this is because the theory is complete BS. If you're a mathematician who disagrees, the onus is on you to prove it in the lab, is it not?
AL
Same answer I gave you in the other thread - when someone comes along with a claim, it's up to THEM (in this case, YOU) to prove it!
It's not our job to try and disprove a negative. (Hopefully, your smart enough to realize that attempting to prove a negative is a stupid exercise anyway.):bugeye:
If the entire scientific consensus of humanity claims that the Moon is moving away due to induced momentum via gravity, surely it should replicate the effect in the laboratory to confirm this new 'law' of physics?
I'm not say that you personally should conduct the experiment. All I've done is highlight how preposterous the situation is, and given an alternative suggestion of why the Moon is receding from us.
And what precisely do you think is happening at New Moon when the near side of the moon is in shadow.
Or during a solar eclipse?
If there is a side facing us, there must be a side facing away from us.
If the side facing us is in shadow, then the side facing away from us must be in sunlight.
Simple deductive logic.
Or do you think that during a new moon - when the moon lies between the sun and the earth, that both sides are in shadow?
The only things preposterous here is your silly suggestion/idea.
Get over it.
Newton's law of universal gravitation is just that, a universal law i.e. on the scale of the planets or the lab. Claiming "gravity is too weak" is the kind of response from a mathematician.