Is the moon getting nearer ?

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously you think I´m that stupid to ask others of some expertise which I haven´t studied myself.

This just said it all about your self.

What I think of you is only caused by your posts and obvious lack of education. Whether you are "stupid" or not is determined by whether you can learn or not. If you don't let yourself learn no matter how bright you may be you will not look very intelligent. You keep demonstrating that you have no clue as to what evidence is or even what "speculation" or else you are lying. I prefer to think that you simply won't let yourself learn rather than to think that you lack the ability or worse yet to think that you are purposefully lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dear oh dear! Are you just arguing for having an empty arguing going on for ever?

What happened with your concrete evidences of "dark matter". Do you dare to post it or what?

I dislike it when people make false claims about others as you continually have in this thread. You have yet to ask for evidence for dark matter. Remember the rule, if you deny obvious evidence you lose. Are you going to ask or are you just playing games?

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

I see you still need to hide your embarrassment behind smiles. Maybe, someday...​

The last resort in a ridicules debate are SMILEYS

If you believe the conversation is ridiculous, don't respond.

When you post a bunch of smilies, it is evident that you are embarrassed by your own comments.

For individuals with inappropriate affect, emotions expressed do not always represent the reality of event, situation, or thought. It is not always easy to differentiate between conditions that display the symptoms of inappropriate affect; sometimes it is a combination of problems that produce inappropriate affect.​

 

[ecco]

Scientists don't feel threatened when an internet poster claims, with no supporting evidence, that the ancients knew more than today's science. They just dismiss the guy as another fruitcake.

That´s the most funny - and tragic - part of modern science. In the ancient times, the entire cosmological and human knowledge was just ONE UNIFIED KNOWLEDGE OF EVERYTHING.

Yep, just ONE UNIFIED KNOWLEDGE OF EVERYTHING, based on ignorance.

That's acceptable and understandable for people 6000 years ago who didn't have modern instruments.

It's nonsensical and willfully ignorant of anyone who dismisses science and believes the same way today.

 

[Native]

What I think of you is only caused by your posts and obvious lack of education. Whether you are "stupid" or not is determined by whether you can learn or not. If you don't let yourself learn no matter how bright you may be you will not look very intelligent. You keep demonstrating that you have no clue as to what evidence is or even what "speculation" or else you are lying. I prefer to think that you simply won't let yourself learn rather than to think that you lack the ability or worse yet to think that you are purposefully lying.

This is just a bunch of emotional besserwissen crap which I refute to answer at all.
This debate on the lunar affairs has NOTHING to do with personal matters so put yourself together, please.

 

[Native]

I dislike it when people make false claims about others as you continually have in this thread. You have yet to ask for evidence for dark matter. Remember the rule, if you deny obvious evidence you lose. Are you going to ask or are you just playing games?

I´ve asked you several times now for you to come up with firm and DIRECT EVIDENCE for "dark matter", so just get going. Remember to describe the cause of hypothesizing "dark matter" in the first place.

 

[Native]

For individuals with inappropriate affect, emotions expressed do not always represent the reality of event, situation, or thought. It is not always easy to differentiate between conditions that display the symptoms of inappropriate affect; sometimes it is a combination of problems that produce inappropriate affect.

I don´t care the least about your personal texts analysis here. Find som factual parts in the discussions and come up with some reasonable arguments.

 

[Native]

Yep, just ONE UNIFIED KNOWLEDGE OF EVERYTHING, based on ignorance.
That's acceptable and understandable for people 6000 years ago who didn't have modern instruments.
It's nonsensical and willfully ignorant of anyone who dismisses science and believes the same way today.

How sad it is to read of a human who have forgotten the natural ways of getting knowledge. Underestimating the natural human skills is in fact directly self destructive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is just a bunch of emotional besserwissen crap which I refute to answer at all.
This debate on the lunar affairs has NOTHING to do with personal matters so put yourself together, please.

LOL, massive projection. You cook yourself to keep repeating your errors.

Oh wait! You did correct your German, though you still used the term incorrectly. Perhaps there is hope for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I´ve asked you several times now for you to come up with firm and DIRECT EVIDENCE for "dark matter", so just get going. Remember to describe the cause of hypothesizing "dark matter" in the first place.

No you asked for evidence. Now you are adding false qualifiers as an excuse to reject it.No

and you still have not asked properly.

 

[exchemist]

I can concur that is so true of most science forums. They don't see it as you're trying to advance things , they see it as a threat for no just reason .

No, they ban you for being a perishing nuisance, who wastes everybody's time with interminable nonsense, just as you are doing on this forum. You were banned less than 24hrs ago, yet again, from The Science Forum, this time under the name Tictoc.

It is astonishing that you evidently think it is OK to lie, brazenly, about your identity and expertise on public forums, e.g. your absurd claim, on The Science Forum, to be giving private lectures about "bioelectricity": The Science Forum. ,
while whining that your genius is unrecognised and that these forums see your "ideas" as a threat. The only threat you pose is gumming up a forum with rubbish, abusing the patience and good faith of scientists who try to explain and correct misunderstandings, and thus degrading its reputation as a place were real science can be discussed. You only get away with it here because this is not a science forum.

I had you on Ignore under your previous name here, Sustainer, but you chose - for some reason - to change it to James Blunt, thereby exposing me once more to your nonsensical posts. Well at least I was able to turn that to some advantage - resulting in your latest ban.

 

[Native]

LOL, massive projection. You cook yourself to keep repeating your errors.
Oh wait! You did correct your German, though you still used the term incorrectly. Perhaps there is hope for you.

Personal nonsense comments.

 

[Native]

No you asked for evidence. Now you are adding false qualifiers as an excuse to reject it.No
and you still have not asked properly.

I just thought it was important to know WHY the scientists added this hypothetical and metaphysical substance.
Well, I don´t give a daim if you post it or not.

 

[Native]

My conclusive comment on the subject of "Is the Moon getting nearer"

No it is not. It moves annually away from the Earth by 3.8 cm and the idea of Earth getting heavier does obviously not influence on the increasing distance between the Moon and the Earth.

Well away from the Earth atmosphere there is no "Newtonian gravity draw" at all between the Earth and the Moon and the tidal rhythms is just caused by the rotation of the firm continental structures of the American and European continents, pushing the seas in front of the continents, much like what happens in a rotating washing mashine.

Thanks for know.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well away from the Earth atmosphere there is no draw at all between the Earth and the Moon and the tidal rhythms is just caused by the rotation firm continental structures of the American and European continents pushing the seas in front of the continents, much like what happens in a rotating washing mashine.

That will be why they are synchronised with the positions of the sun and moon, then...

"Tides change in height – low water level and high water level vary throughout the month. The tides build up to a maximum and fall to a minimum twice a month. The tides with the biggest difference between high and low water are called springs and those with the smallest are called neaps.

Spring tides happen just after every full and new moon, when the sun, moon and earth are in line. That's when lunar and solar tides line up and reinforce each other, making a bigger total tide. Neap tides occur when the moon is in the first or third quarter - when the sun, earth and moon form a right angle. The lunar high tide coincides with the solar low tide and they partly cancel out, giving a small total tide.

The regular motion of the sun, moon and earth cause spring tides to occur roughly 36 to 48 hours after the full or new moon, and for any given location, always at roughly the same time of day. For example at Liverpool, the spring tides are generally around midnight and midday."

-- All about tides​

You are still totally ignoring the fact that scientific theories work (they make accurate numerical predictions) and your hand-waving nonsense doesn't.

 

[Native]

You are still totally ignoring the fact that scientific theories work (they make accurate numerical predictions) and your hand-waving nonsense doesn't.

No, I´m not ignoring the factual scientific observations. I´m just questioning the consensus causal explanations.

I was well aware that my former conclusive comment was simplistic. Of course there is much more to it than the continental pushing on the seas as for instants atmospheric pressure and wind.

But the most interesting is in fact what you quote here:

Tides change in height – low water level and high water level vary throughout the month. The tides build up to a maximum and fall to a minimum twice a month. The tides with the biggest difference between high and low water are called springs and those with the smallest are called neaps.

Spring tides happen just after every full and new moon, when the sun, moon and earth are in line. That's when lunar and solar tides line up and reinforce each other, making a bigger total tide. Neap tides occur when the moon is in the first or third quarter - when the sun, earth and moon form a right angle. The lunar high tide coincides with the solar low tide and they partly cancel out, giving a small total tide.

The regular motion of the sun, moon and earth cause spring tides to occur roughly 36 to 48 hours after the full or new moon, and for any given location, always at roughly the same time of day. For example at Liverpool, the spring tides are generally around midnight and midday."

Of course there are concrete tidal connections between the Earth and the Moon and the Earth and the Sun, but not for the dogmatic consensus reasons of "gravity", which obviously has lost it´s assumed influences right outside the Earth atmosphere.

The Earth was once formed out from the Sun and the Moon was once formed out of the Earth, but not as "cosmic bits from a Solar explosion" which assumingly should have formed the planets afterwards via the assumed "gravitational forces.

The formation of planets out of the Sun took place when minor spheres was centrifugally dispersed away from the rotating Sun and the same was the cases with the planetary Moons born out of their mother planets. (This is the real cause for the still increasing distances between the Earth and the Sun and between the Earth and the Moon)

The mentioned formations took place when the rotating and initial Solar Sphere was molten hot for some 4.6 bill. years ago, and this formation STILL is "ringing" on the Earth´orbital and rotational rhythms of the seas.

BTW: I give you this: For several reasons, mostly because of personal and emotional continues mud casting and nitpicking comments from some debaters, (not from you), I lost the track of your former questions, sorry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personal nonsense comments.

Wrong, all correct. If you don't understand something then the proper way to act is to ask questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just thought it was important to know WHY the scientists added this hypothetical and metaphysical substance.
Well, I don´t give a daim if you post it or not.

So you have no clue? At least you admitted that. The first observation, and the first piece of evidence for Dark Matter was that galaxies rotate faster than the observed made would indicate. You still did not ask properly, but since you admitted to not having a clue I decided to help you a bit.

By the way; hypothetical, yes; metaphysical, no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I´m not ignoring the factual scientific observations. I´m just questioning the consensus causal explanations.

I was well aware that my former conclusive comment was simplistic. Of course there is much more to it than the continental pushing on the seas as for instants atmospheric pressure and wind.

But the most interesting is in fact what you quote here:



Of course there are concrete tidal connections between the Earth and the Moon and the Earth and the Sun, but not for the dogmatic consensus reasons of "gravity", which obviously has lost it´s assumed influences right outside the Earth atmosphere.

The Earth was once formed out from the Sun and the Moon was once formed out of the Earth, but not as "cosmic bits from a Solar explosion" which assumingly should have formed the planets afterwards via the assumed "gravitational forces.

The formation of planets out of the Sun took place when minor spheres was centrifugally dispersed away from the rotating Sun and the same was the cases with the planetary Moons born out of their mother planets. (This is the real cause for the still increasing distances between the Earth and the Sun and between the Earth and the Moon)

The mentioned formations took place when the rotating and initial Solar Sphere was molten hot for some 4.6 bill. years ago, and this formation STILL is "ringing" on the Earth´orbital and rotational rhythms of the seas.

BTW: I give you this: For several reasons, mostly because of personal and emotional continues mud casting and nitpicking comments from some debaters, (not from you), I lost the track of your former questions, sorry.

Remember when I claimed you could not do the math? You just confirmed that. The atmosphere does not carry gravity. Gravity is due to the mass of the Earth (for us at any rate) and goes down at an inverse square rate as the radius to the center of the Earth increases. And it is not "dogma". It is an observation that can be tested in many ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, they ban you for being a perishing nuisance, who wastes everybody's time with interminable nonsense, just as you are doing on this forum. You were banned less than 24hrs ago, yet again, from The Science Forum, this time under the name Tictoc.

It is astonishing that you evidently think it is OK to lie, brazenly, about your identity and expertise on public forums, e.g. your absurd claim, on The Science Forum, to be giving private lectures about "bioelectricity": The Science Forum. ,
while whining that your genius is unrecognised and that these forums see your "ideas" as a threat. The only threat you pose is gumming up a forum with rubbish, abusing the patience and good faith of scientists who try to explain and correct misunderstandings, and thus degrading its reputation as a place were real science can be discussed. You only get away with it here because this is not a science forum.

I had you on Ignore under your previous name here, Sustainer, but you chose - for some reason - to change it to James Blunt, thereby exposing me once more to your nonsensical posts. Well at least I was able to turn that to some advantage - resulting in your latest ban.

Nice work. I could not place the old.identity here.