Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by river, May 24, 2020.
And that's why no rational person think your posts have any merit.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I think the issue river is that we aren’t allowed to post pseudo-science as fact even if the topic is posted in the “non-science” forums. The non-science forums are to discuss pet/personal theories or “junk” science theories that fall outside of the hard science forums. But it’s not a place to post non-science “science,” as fact. I think that could be why your posts are targeted.
That is part of it. The trolling aspect is another part of it. When confronted with facts and/or reality, he resorts to trolling, and also resorting to the well worn old cliche/s that those that agree with mainstream cannot think for themselves, and have their heads in the sand, and that he is the sole person on the forum, with enough foresight to see through the mainstream nonsense.
This from someone who did not even recognise that the Moon rotates on its axis.
As I said earlier, the sad part is that river refuses to learn.
See your point .
Thanks for the insight .
I never thought of this perspective .
Liar, liar, pants on fire!!!
Thanks again wegs .
No worries, river. It takes a village..er forum. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Indeed , Thank goodness .Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, that's my understanding.
There is no part of the forum in which one can expect to be immune from criticism. But if one posts nonsense in the science sections, one can expect - in addition to attracting criticism - to run the risk of getting moderated for it and having it removed.
Criticism ; criticise me all you want exchemist .
Me, I'm too stupid I'd make his brain explode.
exchemist , your thoughts .
While I have now decided after much advice to ignore your trolling and pseudoscience nonsense, let me say that I doubt very much that wegs was agreeing with you, rather she being a big softy at heart, was feeling sorry for you, and your psychotic delusions.
Bye rive, have fun!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
exchemist your thoughts .
Curious, that statement is disputed yet also confirmed. Read this;
I'm not sure if I can visualize a distinction between "rotate", "spin", and "revolution". What's the difference?
Rotate is a verb. Spin is both a verb and a noun. Revolution is a noun, the associated verb being "revolve".
The verbs "rotate", "spin" and "revolve" are fairly close to synonyms but not quite. "Spin" often, but not necessarily, has a sense of a rapid motion and tends to imply it is continuous, whereas rotate does not have to imply this (e.g. you can "rotate" an object through only 90 degrees, say). Revolve implies continuous motion but can also be applied to orbital motion, i.e. where the axis of rotation is not within the body revolving, whereas with spin, the axis is within it. So the moon can be said to "revolve" about the Earth, as well as "spinning" on its own axis.
There is nothing curious about the statement you quote. "The moon does not rotate" is stated to be a misconception.
A "misconception" means a wrong idea that some people have. It is mis-conceived, you see.
You're not stupid, BwS, you just take too many drugs. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for clarifying. But I was not adressing Paddo's post per se.
Which both agrees and disagrees with the curiously worded explanation in the following NASA quote. This appears to present a conflicting statement.
The curious part is that it leaves the reader with the question "does the moon rotate or not"?
Not in the least. It's perfectly clear.
Not to me.
Is a rotation caused by rotating or spinning? If the moon completes rotations is it rotating or spinning?
If it's both, then the moon rotates, no?
Where then is the misnomer?
Separate names with a comma.