[EyesWideOpen]

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[rerevisionist]

[1] This isn't the impressive fact you seem to think it is. From the earth's point of view, the moon does circle the earth. If they move together, the near-circle is stretched out into a curve of the sort the diagram on your link shows. (This is hidden by the usual diagrams of various types of cycloid; the actual shape is similar to a sine curve). To see how obvious this is, consider the earth going round the sun: the sun for convenience is assumed static. But if the sun is moving, as it is believed to be, the earth's path round the sun is also interwined, as the diagram shows.

[2] The expanding earth theory is interesting. And it's a fact that Wegener's moving continents idea, and plate tectonics, took some time to be accepted. So a new paradigm is perfectly possible. But the main problem is where the extra material comes from. Meteors and dust don't seem to provide anything like enough. And the moon seems to show geological features of great age, maybe with some dust and meteors added, but not much of them - since the mountains and peaks are clearly visible. Somewhere you state that the earth 'like a plant' gets bigger - but a plant takes in nutrition, and also CO2 and water, so its growth is explained by that.

[3] All this is not relevant to nuclear issues!

[FirstClassSkeptic]

N Parubets in his article in NCGT #11 (Jun 99) (https://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php) indicates that earth like crustal rocks were found by Mars Landers, and the moon rocks returned to earth appear to be similar to those found on the earth.

Not surprising.

[EyesWideOpen]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[rerevisionist]

Actually you are wrong on each count.

1. The Moon NEVER Circles the Earth. Never. You dont seem to understand this simple fact. I told you some may not be able to wrap their minds around this basic truth (brainwashing is very powerful).

2. The Sun throws off all sorts of Energy that is absorbed by the Earth, the same energy that causes other things to grow. The ocean floor is constantly growing and expanding; why do you think the ocean floors are the NEWEST material on Earth?

3. All LIES and DECEPTIONS are relevant to the nuclear issue (besides I put this in the folder titled OFF TOPIC). I "assumed" those on this website had an active interest in uncovering ALL lies/deceptions rather than just closing one's eyes/mind to some lies/deceptions; thereby, remaining ignorant to the World around them.

[1] From the earth's viewpoint, the moon circles the earth. You don't seem to have understood my point about the sun in motion around the Milky Way or to some remote point. Another example is the satellites of Jupiter. As Jupiter moves, its satellites also interweave in a more or less sunusoidal motion, as they have to in order to keep up with Jupiter. But any observer can see them circling Jupiter. That's relative to a static picture of the solar system.

Here's another example: think of one of the wheels on a car. With say a white dot on it. If you're at the hub, when the car moves you'll see the white dot move round you at a pretty constant distance. But anyone watching the car pass would see the white dot move in a path intervweaving with the hub.

You seem to have changed your meaning of 'brainwashed'.

[2] Plants grow by absorbing light, and combining CO2 and H20 by photosynthesis. The energy isn't converted into matter; without CO2 and water, and other materials obtained from their roots, plants couldn't grow. That's one reason why you don't get plants growing in outer space, although there's energy. The ocean floors are [alleged to be] expanding. But at the same time parts of the earth, subduction zones, are disappearing slowly, so there's no net growth.

[3] I agree all deceptions have things in common, but that doesn't mean they have relevance to nuclear issues, which have their own empirical and theoretical and historical bases. Shakespeare authorship issues involve deception, but there's no other relevance to nuclear issues.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

The moon or the earth, or both, would have to be speeding up, and slowing down, alternatively, and constantly, for the orbits to be like in that diagram.

[EyesWideOpen]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[rerevisionist]

Let me try again re the moon and earth. I think you're hung up on this, and it's damaging your case.

There's a comment somewhere about WIlliam James, the philosopher. Someone was discussing two people, holding hands, and dancing round in a circle together. The question is, is one of them 'going round' the other? Argument in favour: each person does a complete 360 degree circuit, so one must 'go round' the other. Argument against: they remain the same distance apart, and go in the same orbit, so one can't possibly 'go round' the other. William James' reply: "It depends what you mean by 'go round'". And that's my reply too. Normally, the central point is fixed, so there's no problem deciding what 'goes round'. But if it moves, it needs a new special vocabulary which doesn't exist in everyday English. From the earth's point of view, the sun, moon, stars and planets all 'go round' the earth. It's just simpler to draw a diagram with the sun in the middle, and the reason it's simpler is because gravity naturally arranges objects in sequence, with the sun, by far the most influential, as the most important.

From the sun's viewpoint, all the planets circle it, and all their satellites interweave. With something like Jupiter, with a large number of satellites, the resulting motion is incredibly complicated from the sun's point of view, and, as any observer of Jupiter can tell you, it's easiest just to consider them rotating round a static Jupiter.

[rerevisionist]

Subduction zones:- We're talking of very very slow processes. Thus the region of Greece and the Mediterranean shows signs of moving downwards - the islands are slowly disappearing. There could be other areas - under Antarctica, for example, where land is disappearing as India moves into the Himalayas. I don't think you can just dismiss it. However I have a lot of sympathy for revisionism applied to the earth, mainly because there's such a lot that isn't known. For example Gold thought that oil wasn't a breakdown product of plants, but was formed when the earth formed. And the earth's magnetic field doesn't seem to be understood, especially as the core is meant to be liquid metal. And a problem with plate tectonics is how lateral thrust can be generated. And there's the 23.5 degree axis slope. And the question of how minerals and ores collect together, when the earth was supposed to have been formed more or less uniformly.

Relevance:- I agree of course that we must include all facets of 'nuclear weapons'. And this includes the psychology of deception, lies, interest groups, etc. But there must be a point where the detail of some other issue becomes irrelevant. For example, there's a question mark over whether Marco Polo went to China. This is a revisionist issue, and therefore general points are relevant to this group. But intricate detail of e.g. Chinese travellers in Italy, and records revealing where Marco Polo lived, and the story of printed books in Italy, I'd say are irrelevant. But I admit it's a tricky point. As I said somewhere else, CODOH the Holocaust group refused to post my email on nuke lies, even though I pled the Jewish connection. They're more severe than we are.

[EyesWideOpen]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[rerevisionist]

Your argument would apply to any other planet with satellites. If you were on Mars, you'd see two tiny satellites circling, but they too interweave with Mars's orbit if you believe that Mars moves round the sun. If you were on Jupiter, ditto.

It occurs to me, because you mention the size of the moon, that you may be mixing in the idea that the earth and moon rotate round their common centre of gravity, which is outside the earth.

But I don't want to discuss the point any more. It's too remote from nuclear issues.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

This same sort of action could be demonstrated mechanically with a set of gears. Which has been done, I'm sure.