Is the moon getting nearer ?

[james blunt]

I'm willing to bet that by the end of this thread, nothing will have changed.

Correct , most of you will intentionally remain clueless and continue to try to undermine me . My science undermines science I'm afraid and you'll never be able to make me feel incorrect or stupid . Facts are fact , thermal emissions such as infrared radiation is attracted to the ''cold'' . Hence , higher state energy transition to lower energy states, passive conductance .
Quite clearly your science knowledge lacks that crucial ''bite'', i.e being able to think .

 

[james blunt]

Whoops !

 

[ecco]

... you'll never be able to make me feel incorrect or stupid .

You do some things far more effectively than we ever could.

 

[ecco]

What rubbish, if the moon increased its momentum it would fly off in a straight line . Real escape velocity .

As the Moon has an orbital momentum, it of course would escape the Earth in a radial motion and not in a straight line.

It still would move in an enlarging circular motion. Or in a spiraling motion, if you will.

That's stupid , ridiculous even , 10 + 15 = 25 is correct , the other is made up malarkey . Numberang lmao .

As the Moon has it orbital motions around the Earth, there is NO WAY it can leave the Earth in a straight line.

Yes it can , if it were to accelerate and ''slingshot''

The cause that the Moon has a locked orbit around the Earth, is that the Moon was born out of the then hot molten Earth and "sling shot" away from the Earth and this caused the orbital and "circular" motion in the first place.

I'd say it's a dead heat.

 

[james blunt]

You do some things far more effectively than we ever could.

Which way do I interpret that !

You could be being sarcastic or serious !

Either way I know I'm great !

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 26363

Wrong. Do you not understand what the "-" sign means?

 

[Native]

You can and it would. This is basic Newtonian mechanics. In both cases there is a force pulling the object towards the centre. When you remove that force, in continues in a straight line (Newton's first law) in the direction it was going in at the time - which is a tangent to the circular motion.

The only problem here is that the Moon and Earth actually don´t pull at each other. This is just an assumption based on 350 years old "gravitation mechanic assumptions" which NEVER has been explained dynamically.

So don´t play smart on something which hasn´t been explained.

 

[Native]

Needlessly posting smiling faces in an online discussion is the same as inappropriately smiling during a face to face conversation. It is usually caused by embarrassment due to lying or confusion.

 

[Native]

No, moons were once bodies traversing a linearity that passed to close to a larger mass getting caught in space-time curvature to make an orbiting body .
The bodies velocity not been enough to have escape velocity .

"Caught in Space-Time"? This is pure speculative Einsteinian nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only problem here is that the Moon and Earth actually don´t pull at each other. This is just an assumption based on 350 years old "gravitation mechanic assumptions" which NEVER has been explained dynamically.

So don´t play smart on something which hasn´t been explained.

It has been "explained" far better than any opposing concept. Einstein's General Relativity is a refinement of the concept, not a refutation. It does offer an explanation. But if you can't do the math you can't see the explanation.

 

[Native]

I'd say it's a dead heat.

How could you tell? You apparently don´t understand either.

 

[Native]

It has been "explained" far better than any opposing concept. Einstein's General Relativity is a refinement of the concept, not a refutation. It does offer an explanation. But if you can't do the math you can't see the explanation.

Oh yes? So how is it that the Newtonian mechanics was contradicted by the observation of the galactic rotation curve?
And you can put the Einsteinian "rubber sheet curved space-time" up a place where the Sun doesn´t shine.
Your math is useless in cosmological scales as long as the calculations are based on cosmological misconceptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh yes? So how is it that the Newtonian mechanics was contradicted by the observation of the galactic rotation curve?
And you can put the Einsteinian "rubber sheet curved space-time" up a place where the Sun doesn´t shine.
Your math is useless in cosmological scales as long as the calculations are based on cosmological misconceptions.

Are you complaining about Dark Matter now? You do realize that there is more evidence than just the rate of rotation of the galaxies that support that hypothesis. Dark Matter has been observed in the collisions of galaxies.


And I am sorry that you are threatened by math. Like it or not Einstein's theories have been confirmed countless times. You on the other hand have nothing. You are ranting against reality again.

 

[ratiocinator]

The only problem here is that the Moon and Earth actually don´t pull at each other. This is just an assumption based on 350 years old "gravitation mechanic assumptions" which NEVER has been explained dynamically.

So don´t play smart on something which hasn´t been explained.

If you think the models being used are wrong (Newton, then refined by Einstein - Newton being perfectly good enough for most of the Solar system), why do they match reality so exactly? How come NASA can use them to send spacecraft right across the solar system? Coincidence? How come every experiment and observation we've been able to make, match the theories? Luck?

 

[gnostic]

Again, I’d ask you, what does your calculator say in regarding to below @james blunt ?

10 - (-15)​

What answer does the calculator give you when input it in?

It is a simple question, why are you ignoring it?

If the answer is 25, then it isn’t malarkey; you are just plain wrong. And you are wrong because you don’t know how to treat a single negative number with simple subtraction, because you haven’t been paying attention in basic arithmetic in high school.

 

[james blunt]

"Caught in Space-Time"? This is pure speculative Einsteinian nonsense.

Not quite , the truth is we go back into the past , the original was an aether , then we have a Dirac sea , a Higgs field , then eventually space-time . All these things were actually discussing the same things , a quantum field . This field I have eventually described in intricate detail as the N-field .

 

[james blunt]

Again, I’d ask you, what does your calculator say in regarding to below @james blunt ?

10 - (-15)​

What answer does the calculator give you when input it in?

It is a simple question, why are you ignoring it?

If the answer is 25, then it isn’t malarkey; you are just plain wrong. And you are wrong because you don’t know how to treat a single negative number with simple subtraction, because you haven’t been paying attention in basic arithmetic in high school.

Why in the Universe would I care about such a needless , useless equation ?

It is irrelevant

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why in the Universe would I care about such a needless , useless equation ?

It is irrelevant

It demonstrates that you are faking it. That you cannot do the simplest of work in the sciences. A person that cannot add will not be taken seriously at all.

 

[james blunt]

It demonstrates that you are faking it. That you cannot do the simplest of work in the sciences. A person that cannot add will not be taken seriously at all.

Are you completely mad ?

It demonstrates nothing as such !

You are just filling the thread full of irrelevant things to bury the truths .

Not once have you argued my notions !

Neither will I be baited in saying more !

Go think for yourselves , I'm going go back to painting and decorating and not get used by you plagiarism scientists anymore.

I'm done with science .........

 

[gnostic]

Why in the Universe would I care about such a needless , useless equation ?

It is irrelevant

You are evading the question.

What does your calculator say when type in “10 - (-15)”?

It would take less than 20 seconds to enter this problem, as it is written, verbatim, with the subtraction operator, negative sign and brackets.

Why are you avoiding my simple request for you to use a calculator?

Is it because you know that the calculator wouldn’t give you the “-5”, which is the wrong answer?

That you you won’t do a simple request, a request that I have already repeated over and over and over again.

You did wasted a lot of time and effort with this incorrect graph:

Using a calculator will take far shorter time than drawing this incorrect graph that show your maths incompetence.

I mean, how seriously hard can it be for you to use a basic calculator on a simple basic equation?

The only possible reason for you to evade my simple request, is that you the know calculator will not give you -5, but a 25, is your bloody pride won’t allow you to admit you were wrong.