The Moon does not cause tides: John99 proves science wrong.

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Dywyddyr, Feb 17, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    As far as I can tell, this is a thread started by Dywyddyr in which he challenges John99 to a duel. Grudgingly, John 99 accepts then Dywyddyr publically thrashes him for something that could have been avoided of John99 admitted he was wrong.

    In other words, it's a lover's spat between forum members.

    Can we end this fued now?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Not quite.
    John99 declared he could PROVE his contention. On condition I started the thread.
    There was no "duel".

    Now THAT is a comment I resent.
    John99 is (and I'll say that is my opinion) an uneducated, unprepared-to-learn (or listen) idiot.
    In all my my life I have only ever come across three people with his displayed lack of understanding (on such a wide variety of topics, too) and utter inability to even recognise his inadequacies, let alone remedy them.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    No; however my simple, easy to understand, definition of what a satellite is, is not the same as the more complex one commonly used by professionals, which few non-professionals can even understand and which does cause the moon to be a satellite of sun, Earth, and many other mass centers.

    If you think that not a fair comparison, state your definition of what a satellite is and apply it to the moon.

    I.e. specifically tell what objects the moon is a satellite of or at least tell why the moon is not a satellite of the sun, since the moon follows essentially the same (always less than 1% different in separation from the sun) orbit about the sun as the Earth does.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Do we really have to go over this nonstandard notion of yours again, Billy T?

    Nobody uses the Billy T definition of what constitutes a satellite because it has zero value. People use the gravitationally-bound definition because it has lots of value.

    You have hijacked multiple threads with this crap, Billy. Why do you persist?

    This thread had little value other than to embarrass a member of this forum who is to intransigent to say "oops, I was wrong". This last flurry of posts is yet another hijack on the part of other members who are also too intransigent to admit "oops, I was wrong". I am therefore locking this thread.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page