won four out of five stages. Anyway, how about my coordinate system?

Regards
Krill

__________________
To give a satisfactory decision as to the truth it is necessary to be rather an arbitrator than a party to the dispute.
- Aristotle

Sorry,
I have to retire
Grant out

I ran this through my convalution parser and I think you meant that the graphic makes it plain for all to see. As has been mentioned previously even little children don't have a problem with that graphic however in your eyes the logic is insurmountable. The implication of this is clear to us all.

Its difficult to see how you could be any more obtuse yet clearly you exceed yourself in this regard with each succeeding post. I don't think you should bandy the pronoun "we" around to loosely. You clearly are in a group of one and it is clear on whose doorstep any claim of delusion can be laid.

My, my, how conveient! =D>

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I'm still waiting to for him to explain why manual observations taken with the already mentioned ancient instruments are not valid as opposed to his "observations" made with a "sighting scope" (make/model unknown) & trigonometry to arrive at his data (shouldn't that have been geometry?)What formula did you use to calculate elevation Grant? & what frame of reference did you use for this calculation...BTW, a quick trip to a museum to look at an Armillary sphere would instantly show you you are wrong, no graphics needed. It is much better tool for showing the celestial spheres & planetary orbits. They have only been in use since before Tycho Brahe... (one day I will have the time to build one...)

__________________
Sermo datur cunctis: animi sapentia paucis

So was that your personal site, Ravenwood? I am still going slowly through, admiring all the wonderful instruments.

Just for Grant.

I've added an X/Y graph onto this image. We could say it's an X/Y/Z one if you want, and we're looking directly down the Z axis to the X/Y one. (And yes I know that I'm using the face of the moon not the top, but if you want me to use the top, get me eight images of the North Pole with the sun at the right angles.)

As you can see in figure 1, while the red dot always points at the earth, in respect to the X/Y/Z graph it very obviously rotates about the Z-axis, the Axis of the Moon.



Now if we look at Figure 2, we can plainly see that Grant is again wrong, the red dot DOESN'T move it always points at the LEFT side of the image. It never moves in respect to the X/Y/Z graph, but stay exactly in the same place through out the entire orbit.



Grant you have the images totally around the round way, Image 1 shows the situation where the moon rotates about its axis and shows that it will face the Earth all the time, the second figure shows exactly what would happen if the Moon DOESN'T rotate about its axis.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I predict that Grant STILL won't understand.

Here's a simple summary sans terminology:

The Moon doesn't turn relative to the Earth.
The Moon does turn relative to the sun, taking roughly 29.5 days, hence that period between successive full moons and so on.
The Moon also turns relative to distant objects such as stars, taking roughly 27.3 days to do so.

The third of these "turns" is the most meaningful because it's absolute.

Pages and pages of this thread have been devoted to explaining this to an obtuse Grant. It's like arguing Roman history with someone who refuses to accept that the country currently known as Italy is the boot-shaped peninsula in the Mediterranean. I doubt any lurkers are going to be taken in by Grant's... well, I was going to say "claims", but honestly, what is being claimed?

I await the next sign without holding my breath,

:roll:

Who here actually believes Grant is either "too slow" or "too dogmatically entrenched"? I doubt, at this point, anyone believes he is the former, but all doubts reagrding the latter for me have vanished with this Pushmi-Pullyu trick or treat exchange. It's not my place as a junior varsity poster to call for bannings or lockdowns, and I do enjoy the actual learning that goes on (the thought experiments alone are worth the price of admission), but why engage in any sort of dialogue with an obvious agent provocateur?

Beardsley was a hoot, though. hee-hee.

__________________
"Never tell me the odds!" -JayUtah

I don't think your trying to get to any truth. If you were you would not be so evasive and obtuse. Continuing to push an idea that runs counter to all observations is not a hallmark of truthseeking.

Don't be so dramatic. This little exercise in futility is hardly garnering worldwide attention.

No one here, except you, seems to have any trouble with concepts or terminology. Quit trying to divert the argument and answer the questions that have been put to you.

-- "More matter, with less art."

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

Grant has been banned and his threads locked.

Here's why.