Why Do We Only See One Side of the Moon?

On Mon, 4 May 2015 06:32:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote
this crap:

On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

I mean, it would be nice if the dream Carl Sagan expressed in "The Demon-
Haunted World" came true, and education in science and in critical thinking in
the public school system advanced to the point where most Americans

and Canadians, Brits and everyone else (I fixed that for you.)

could see
for themselves that modern science is valid, and self-correcting, and so on and
so forth. But we are still very far from that.

No, the liberals do NOT want educated, critical thinkers. If such thinkers
existed in too large a percentage, they would easily see the fallacies
and illogic in the liberal agenda and then vote the liberals out.


Dittos.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

wrote:
On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

I mean, it would be nice if the dream Carl Sagan expressed in "The Demon-
Haunted World" came true, and education in science and in critical thinking in
the public school system advanced to the point where most Americans

and Canadians, Brits and everyone else (I fixed that for you.)

could see
for themselves that modern science is valid, and self-correcting, and so on and
so forth. But we are still very far from that.

No, the liberals do NOT want educated, critical thinkers. If such
thinkers existed in too large a percentage, they would easily see the
fallacies and illogic in the liberal agenda and then vote the liberals out.

Please explain how you know this? Do you actually know any "liberals"?

It might also be convenient to point out that most educated critical
thinkers are "liberal" and that the raving nutters who try to change
everything call themselves "conservative".

Try not to be so gullible. Subject the "evidence" provided by the contras
and their shills to the same level of scrutiny as you devote to attempting
to nitpick the real science.

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 8:13:31 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:

No, the liberals do NOT want educated, critical thinkers. If such
thinkers existed in too large a percentage, they would easily see the
fallacies and illogic in the liberal agenda and then vote the liberals out.

Please explain how you know this? Do you actually know any "liberals"?

Well, he could know what the "liberal agenda" is, and he could see illogic
there.

If he was correct in so doing, of course, he could still be mistaken in
believing that there are some people in leadership positions within liberalism
who know better, but are feeding the ideology to the ignorant masses.

Clearly, though, if there were such people, he would be unlikely to know them
personally.

My feeling on this controversy is that they're both wrong, because they're both
_right_ about the fundamentals of their positions... thus, they're both wrong
in rejecting the validity of the other point of view.

In the case of liberalism, it's easy to see why they're right:

Imagine a child, through no fault of his own, growing up in poverty with all
the attendant problems of that, because his parents were poor.

In the case of conservatism, the example I need to give is slightly more
complicated.

Imagine two families, stranded on a desert island.

One has _one_ child, and they're working hard to build a raft to get off the
island so they can be rescued, so the child can have a future (he is
intelligent, and could do well with the opportunity to get proper schooling).

The other has _five_ children, born on the island, who they are having a hard
time to feed... so they want the two adults of the other family to give them a
hand, and stop wasting time on that raft.

That example makes clear the principle that the feckless don't have a right to the fruits of the labors of the diligent.

Now then, how do you ensure that no child is born into poverty without forcibly transferring wealth from the rich or the poor?

Well, of course _one_ solution is to hope that everyone will get religion and
donate lots of their money to charity of their own free will.

I don't give such solutions the time of day, though. Practical experience has
shown they're not the way to actually get anything done.

Thus, if one limits one's search to things that can be compelled, but we
exclude theft by compulsion, and limit ourselves to prohibiting acts that can
be argued to be violative of another's rights...

Simply have a law prohibiting poor people from having children, because by
begetting a child into poverty, one inflicts an injury on that child.

There! The right- and left- wing constraints are both satisfied!

And of course both sides will scream bloody murder. The right will complain
about the intrusion into privacy, family life, and religion... the left will
complain that the net impact will wind up being genocidal on disadvantaged
ethnic groups.

Conclusion: the ideologies of both the left and right are fatally flawed.

John Savard

On Mon, 4 May 2015 14:12:26 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Please explain how you know this? Do you actually know any "liberals"?

I'm thinking not, since there are scarcely any liberals to be found in
the U.S., and he's certainly never encountered anybody from outside
the U.S.

On Mon, 4 May 2015 14:12:26 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

wrote:
On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

I mean, it would be nice if the dream Carl Sagan expressed in "The Demon-
Haunted World" came true, and education in science and in critical thinking in
the public school system advanced to the point where most Americans

and Canadians, Brits and everyone else (I fixed that for you.)

could see
for themselves that modern science is valid, and self-correcting, and so on and
so forth. But we are still very far from that.

No, the liberals do NOT want educated, critical thinkers. If such
thinkers existed in too large a percentage, they would easily see the
fallacies and illogic in the liberal agenda and then vote the liberals out.

Please explain how you know this? Do you actually know any "liberals"?

I do.

It might also be convenient to point out that most educated critical
thinkers are "liberal" and that the raving nutters who try to change
everything call themselves "conservative".

Bull****. You live in a fantasy world.

Try not to be so gullible. Subject the "evidence" provided by the contras
and their shills to the same level of scrutiny as you devote to attempting
to nitpick the real science.

Real scientists are conservatives. Real scientists question
everything especially authority and the media.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Quadibloc wrote:
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 8:13:31 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:

No, the liberals do NOT want educated, critical thinkers. If such
thinkers existed in too large a percentage, they would easily see the
fallacies and illogic in the liberal agenda and then vote the liberals out.

Please explain how you know this? Do you actually know any "liberals"?

Well, he could know what the "liberal agenda" is, and he could see illogic
there.

If he was correct in so doing, of course, he could still be mistaken in
believing that there are some people in leadership positions within liberalism
who know better, but are feeding the ideology to the ignorant masses.

Clearly, though, if there were such people, he would be unlikely to know them
personally.

My feeling on this controversy is that they're both wrong, because they're both
_right_ about the fundamentals of their positions... thus, they're both wrong
in rejecting the validity of the other point of view.

In the case of liberalism, it's easy to see why they're right:

Imagine a child, through no fault of his own, growing up in poverty with all
the attendant problems of that, because his parents were poor.

In the case of conservatism, the example I need to give is slightly more
complicated.

Imagine two families, stranded on a desert island.

One has _one_ child, and they're working hard to build a raft to get off the
island so they can be rescued, so the child can have a future (he is
intelligent, and could do well with the opportunity to get proper schooling).

The other has _five_ children, born on the island, who they are having a hard
time to feed... so they want the two adults of the other family to give them a
hand, and stop wasting time on that raft.

That example makes clear the principle that the feckless don't have a
right to the fruits of the labors of the diligent.

Now then, how do you ensure that no child is born into poverty without
forcibly transferring wealth from the rich or the poor?

Well, of course _one_ solution is to hope that everyone will get religion and
donate lots of their money to charity of their own free will.

I don't give such solutions the time of day, though. Practical experience has
shown they're not the way to actually get anything done.

Thus, if one limits one's search to things that can be compelled, but we
exclude theft by compulsion, and limit ourselves to prohibiting acts that can
be argued to be violative of another's rights...

Simply have a law prohibiting poor people from having children, because by
begetting a child into poverty, one inflicts an injury on that child.

There! The right- and left- wing constraints are both satisfied!

And of course both sides will scream bloody murder. The right will complain
about the intrusion into privacy, family life, and religion... the left will
complain that the net impact will wind up being genocidal on disadvantaged
ethnic groups.

Conclusion: the ideologies of both the left and right are fatally flawed.

John Savard

You need a couple of British attributes: pragmatism and compromise.
As the Stones sang:


Hey! Think the time is right for a palace revolution
'Cause where I live the game to play is compromise solution


Your desert island families will not survive or escape unless they
compromise .
The rich will never ban the poor from having children because they won't
have any servants.

I come from a post war generation whose parents, rich and poor, were sick
of the inequalities they saw. They were used to working together for a
common cause and as a result the post war compromise (which was later
broken by the Thatcher clique) raised the healthiest, tallest and best
educated generation the country had ever seen with healthcare for all and
more social mobility than has ever been seen in the country.

Ideology is not important. Social cohesion is!

Lord Vath wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2015 14:12:26 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

wrote:
On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

I mean, it would be nice if the dream Carl Sagan expressed in "The Demon-
Haunted World" came true, and education in science and in critical thinking in
the public school system advanced to the point where most Americans

and Canadians, Brits and everyone else (I fixed that for you.)

could see
for themselves that modern science is valid, and self-correcting, and so on and
so forth. But we are still very far from that.

No, the liberals do NOT want educated, critical thinkers. If such
thinkers existed in too large a percentage, they would easily see the
fallacies and illogic in the liberal agenda and then vote the liberals out.

Please explain how you know this? Do you actually know any "liberals"?

I do.

It might also be convenient to point out that most educated critical
thinkers are "liberal" and that the raving nutters who try to change
everything call themselves "conservative".

Bull****. You live in a fantasy world.

Try not to be so gullible. Subject the "evidence" provided by the contras
and their shills to the same level of scrutiny as you devote to attempting
to nitpick the real science.

Real scientists are conservatives. Real scientists question
everything especially authority and the media.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Then why are you so gullible. You know enough science to see through the
propaganda and lies of the contras.

Lord Vath wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2015 14:12:26 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

wrote:
On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

I mean, it would be nice if the dream Carl Sagan expressed in "The Demon-
Haunted World" came true, and education in science and in critical thinking in
the public school system advanced to the point where most Americans

and Canadians, Brits and everyone else (I fixed that for you.)

could see
for themselves that modern science is valid, and self-correcting, and so on and
so forth. But we are still very far from that.

No, the liberals do NOT want educated, critical thinkers. If such
thinkers existed in too large a percentage, they would easily see the
fallacies and illogic in the liberal agenda and then vote the liberals out.

Please explain how you know this? Do you actually know any "liberals"?

I do.

It might also be convenient to point out that most educated critical
thinkers are "liberal" and that the raving nutters who try to change
everything call themselves "conservative".

Bull****. You live in a fantasy world.

Try not to be so gullible. Subject the "evidence" provided by the contras
and their shills to the same level of scrutiny as you devote to attempting
to nitpick the real science.

Real scientists are conservatives. Real scientists question
everything especially authority and the media.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

I have known and worked with lots of scientists and their political views
are just the same as the average covering the full spectrum of views. The
only scientist I knew who actually was a politician became a Labour MP.
All of these scientists were real.

On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 4:47:53 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:
Why Do We Only See One Side of the Moon?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jUpX7J7ySo

To a close approximation we see the same face of the moon as it makes a circuit of the Earth with the phases a signature of its orbital circuit of the Earth -

http://www.ikonet.com/en/visualdicti...oon-118980.jpg

I have already been through the origins of a hideous 'spinning moon' and the phony controversies which made it a heated discussion in the mid 19th century but there is nothing comparable to this era when men have already stood on the moon and yet there is as much silence today as ever.

It tells me nothing other than what I have already known for a few decades and especially today as it is possible to contrast lunar orbital comparisons with planetary orbits and the distinct visible difference with their attendant behavior .

How anyone,and I mean anyone, could conclude the moon spins is an insult to intelligence like none other - not even a flat Earth compares to this tragedy for at least with a round Earth it had to be inferred whereas an orbiting moon without rotation can actually be seen without a telescope.

Talk about unmoved !, how you live with yourselves is more amazing much less consider astronomy as a hobby.

oriel36 wrote:
On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 4:47:53 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:
Why Do We Only See One Side of the Moon?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jUpX7J7ySo

To a close approximation we see the same face of the moon as it makes a
circuit of the Earth with the phases a signature of its orbital circuit of the Earth -

http://www.ikonet.com/en/visualdicti...oon-118980.jpg

I have already been through the origins of a hideous 'spinning moon' and
the phony controversies which made it a heated discussion in the mid 19th
century but there is nothing comparable to this era when men have already
stood on the moon and yet there is as much silence today as ever.

It tells me nothing other than what I have already known for a few
decades and especially today as it is possible to contrast lunar orbital
comparisons with planetary orbits and the distinct visible difference
with their attendant behavior .

How anyone,and I mean anyone, could conclude the moon spins is an insult
to intelligence like none other - not even a flat Earth compares to this
tragedy for at least with a round Earth it had to be inferred whereas an
orbiting moon without rotation can actually be seen without a telescope.

Talk about unmoved !, how you live with yourselves is more amazing much
less consider astronomy as a hobby.

You wrote it yourself - an approximation.

But the measured rotation of the Moon is exact.

Anybody else in the world draws the conclusion that approximate v exact
means the Moon rotates on it's axis relative to the stars and doesn't speed
up and slow down to face the Earth.