Science in " NON-Science " forums .

[Kristoffer]

Truth Matters .

Integrity Matters .

And that's why no rational person think your posts have any merit.

 

[wegs]

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.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

 

[river]

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.

See your point .

Thanks for the insight .

I never thought of this perspective .

river

 

[paddoboy]

See your point .

Thanks for the insight .

I never thought of this perspective .

river

Liar, liar, pants on fire!!!

you are banned from posting to our Science sections. You cannot get around that ban by posting science threads in non-science sections. You were given many chances to change the way you posted about science before being banned from posting to those sections of our forum, but you never changed. The only solution to stop your nonsense was to prevent you from posting in those sections.

If you continue to post inappropriately, we will have to remove you from the forum altogether.

No I will not .

I will say what I say wether you like what I say or not .

My right to free-dom of speech , anybodies free-dom of speech seems to be threatend here James R.

 

[river]

Thanks again wegs .

 

[wegs]

No worries, river. It takes a village..er forum.

 

[river]

wegs said: ↑
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.

See your point .

Thanks for the insight .

I never thought of this perspective .

river

No worries, river. It takes a village..er forum.

Indeed , Thank goodness .

 

[exchemist]

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.

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.

 

[river]

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 .

river

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Criticism ; criticise me all you want exchemist .

river

Carte blanche?

Me, I'm too stupid I'd make his brain explode.

 

[river]

exchemist , your thoughts .

 

[paddoboy]

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!

 

[river]

exchemist your thoughts .

 

[Write4U]

This from someone who did not even recognise that the Moon rotates on its axis.

Curious, that statement is disputed yet also confirmed. Read this;

Misconception (About the Moon)
The Moon does not rotate.

Reality
The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every 27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.

https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/

I'm not sure if I can visualize a distinction between "rotate", "spin", and "revolution". What's the difference?

 

[exchemist]

Curious, that statement is disputed yet also confirmed. Read this; https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/

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.

 

[exchemist]

Carte blanche?

Me, I'm too stupid I'd make his brain explode.

You're not stupid, BwS, you just take too many drugs.

 

[Write4U]

There is nothing curious about the statement you quote. "The moon does not rotate" is stated to be a misconception.

Thanks for clarifying. But I was not adressing Paddo's post per se.

paddoboy said: ↑ This from someone who did not even recognise that the Moon rotates on its axis.

Which both agrees and disagrees with the curiously worded explanation in the following NASA quote. This appears to present a conflicting statement.

Misconception (About the Moon)
The Moon does not rotate.
Reality
The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every 27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.

The curious part is that it leaves the reader with the question "does the moon rotate or not"?

 

[exchemist]

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.

 

[Write4U]

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?