1. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    26 Aug '17 21:17
    Originally posted by @humy
    by "system" here you mean an arbitrary man-made calendar system, NOT the actual natural lunar cycle, which is NOT 28 days long. So, contrary to your claims, no correlation then between the lunar cycle and the women's menstrual period that would indicate intelligence from a God/gods had something to do with it for a man-made system means just that, man-made as ...[text shortened]... here is no correlation to explain here.

    The rest of your post is stupid irrelevant straw man.
    Take your fingers out of your ears: I'm not pushing anything.
    Instead, I've pointed out something for which you have no answer.
    As proof, your stopping at nothing to remove the occurrence which is irrefutable.
    Can't answer?
    Claim the clearly 28 day lunar cycle--- which has existed since man has written anything down--- simply doesn't exist!
    The denial runs deep!

    So, AGAIN: why did you bring up the theory?
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    27 Aug '17 07:076 edits
    Originally posted by @freakykbh

    Claim the clearly 28 day lunar cycle--- ...-- simply doesn't exist!
    I see you are ineffectively trying desperately to twist my words to try and make it sound like I was saying the lunar cycle doesn't exist. You must be getting desperate.
    The lunar cycle exists and I never claimed/implied it didn't.
    But, as I have repeatedly pointed out, it isn't certainly isn't 28 days long, not even to the nearest whole number and not even merely 'on average';
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase
    "...Moon's phase (synodic) cycle repeats on average every 29.53 days. ..."
    -or, if you are talking about the other type of cycle, about 27.3 Earth days.
    Either way, round off either of those two numbers and you definitely don't get 28. That mathematical fact speaks for itself. No correlation then to explain.

    why did you bring up the theory?

    which theory? I didn't being up one there.

    Oh, and the Earth isn't flat.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    27 Aug '17 08:211 edit
    if two numbers of things being equal proves that there is a god, then two numbers of things being different proves that there is no god;
    -same logic.
    I have two legs but only one head; -proof there is no god! -same logic.
  4. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    27 Aug '17 14:10
    Originally posted by @humy
    I see you are ineffectively trying desperately to twist my words to try and make it sound like I was saying the lunar cycle doesn't exist. You must be getting desperate.
    The lunar cycle exists and I never claimed/implied it didn't.
    But, as I have repeatedly pointed out, it isn't certainly isn't 28 days long, not even to the nearest whole number and not even ...[text shortened]... theory? [/quote]
    which theory? I didn't being up one there.

    Oh, and the Earth isn't flat.
    You've been shown repeatedly that the lunar cycle is calculated as 28 days, and yet you persist in dwelling on other types of lunar cycles.
    Can't wake up a person pretending to be asleep.

    And now you can't remember bringing up the discredited theory that lunar cycles dictated menstrual cycles?

    Do you see the disconnect?
    You're swearing-to-no-God that no 28 day cycle exists for any lunar cycle, and yet you introduce a theory which attempts to explain the correlation between a 28 day lunar cycle and a woman's menstrual cycle.
    Wouldn't that mean that at least someone else thought such things exist?

    So, humy, once again: why did you insert that theory into the conversation, especially in light of the fact that even acknowledging that such a theory exists proves your claims wrong?
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    27 Aug '17 15:124 edits
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    You've been shown repeatedly that the lunar cycle is calculated as 28 days,
    -erroneously by some people yes. So what? The fact remains it definitely isn't physically 28 days. That 28 days is imaginary, not the actual physical lunar cycle period, no matter which type you are talking about.
    and yet you persist in dwelling on other types of lunar cycles.

    you mean 'other' types of lunar cycles other than the none-physical purely-abstract 28 day one that was constructed artificially only in the minds of some people? Would you claiming that a god, not people, 'designed' that? If so, I want to see the evidence of that please...
    and yet you introduce a theory which attempts to explain the correlation between a 28 day lunar cycle and a woman's menstrual cycle.

    and I said it was false and then I noticed there is no correlation anyway! Which confirms it is false! So I was right all along.
    So what is your complaint?
    why did you insert that theory into the conversation,

    in case you thought it was true.
    especially in light of the fact that even acknowledging that such a theory exists proves your claims wrong?

    What "claim" are you referring to here that you say I made and that is such that that the mere existence of that discredited theory "proves" it wrong? Specify...
  6. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    27 Aug '17 19:41
    Originally posted by @humy
    -erroneously by some people yes. So what? The fact remains it definitely isn't physically 28 days. That 28 days is imaginary, not the actual physical lunar cycle period, no matter which type you are talking about.
    and yet you persist in dwelling on other types of lunar cycles.

    you mean 'other' types of lunar cycles other than the none-p ...[text shortened]... at is such that that the mere existence of that discredited theory "proves" it wrong? Specify...
    The fact remains it definitely isn't physically 28 days. That 28 days is imaginary, not the actual physical lunar cycle period, no matter which type you are talking about.
    Is it more than 27 days?
    Yes.
    Is it less than 29 days?
    Yes.

    The facts--- which can be verified by literally anyone on the planet, except, apparently you--- all point to the several lunar months, all factored at 28 days, since they exceed 27 days and--- if my math is correct--- the number next closest to 27 is... 28.
    Anomalistic, sidereal, tropical, draconic and synodic are all considered lunar months.
    They all have just a smidgen more than 27 days and are generally considered a 28 day cycle.
    Well, except for one: the last one is a mix of lunar and solar, as it calls it a cycle dependent upon the relation between the sun and the moon, and it lasts a little more than 29 days.

    and I said it was false and then I noticed there is no correlation anyway! Which confirms it is false! So I was right all along.
    So what is your complaint?

    You have the reasoning of a child.
    You introduced something which assumed that the lunar month is on a 28 day cycle.
    The theory was not discredited because the 28 day cycle doesn't exist; the theory was discredited because the suggested causal aspect fell apart under closer scrutiny.
    Clearly, others have noticed the correlation between a woman's cycle and the lunar cycle, thus the suggestion that one caused the other.
    But when the data doesn't support the claim, one must find a different solution to explain the correlation.
    To date, no explanation has been suggested or accepted.
    Your solution is to eliminate the 28 day cycle.
    Speaking on behalf of half the world's population, I think we all would have preferred for you to have eliminated the woman's menstrual cycle instead.

    Me: why did you insert that theory into the conversation?
    You: in case you thought it was true.

    Again, the reasoning of a child.
    If I thought it was true, I would have answered my own question.
    It would not be a correlation as much as it would be a causal relation, were one to dictate the other.
    Why in God's name would anyone think there is anything unique about one causing another, other than perhaps the sheer fact alone?
    If the moon caused a woman's period, it would explain why they're both the same in length.
    Duh.
    But when they share the same number and then that number is found in the human body, well, one can begin to see there is something else afoot.
    Well, except for your mind.

    What "claim" are you referring to here that you say I made and that is such that that the mere existence of that discredited theory "proves" it wrong? Specify...
    I already did, several times.
    If there was no correlation--- i.e., if you were actually right and the lunar month wasn't a 28 day cycle--- then I would be wrong.
    But others pointed specifically and pointedly to the shared 28 day cycle and suggested the reason for the same: causal.
    By using that same theory in refutation, you are acknowledging that OTHERS in the scientific realm also considered them both as 28 day cycles.
    They must have got that information from somewhere, right?
    Of course they did: references to a 28 day lunar month abound in history, dating back to the earliest of all human communication.
    Clearly, who ever thought that perhaps the lunar cycle prompted the female cycle must have considered there to be a correlation, otherwise they wouldn't have attempted to provide a reason.

    But that's not the end to your childish thinking.
    You suggested it because (according to you) I might think it was true?
    What the hell is that!?!
    That is absurdist and whacko, only deserving of a response in order to level the most emphatic degree of rejection and censure in your direction.

    The bottom line is achingly clear: you have no idea how it is that the moon returns to its spot in the sky in the same amount of time that a woman goes through her menstrual cycle and which both just happen to be the amount of phalanges on the human body.
    No answer at all.
  7. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    28 Aug '17 06:446 edits
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    Is it more than 27 days?
    you mean the ~27.3 one; yes. You must be getting desperate for 27.3 is closer to 27 than 28 no matter how you try and twist that.
    the number next closest to 27 is... 28.

    so, you are saying that if something is about 27.3, we should call that 28 and not 27? Errr, no, even when we round off numbers in mathematics, the normal accepted convention is to round it off to the nearest number to it, which is often not the next highest. And even if that wasn't the case, 27.3 is still closer to 27 than 28.

    So here you TWICE tried and failed to change ~27.3 into 28; Sorry! You fail!

    You have the reasoning of a child.

    be humbled by the reasoning of children far greater than your own.
  8. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    28 Aug '17 07:17
    Originally posted by @humy
    you mean the ~27.3 one; yes. You must be getting desperate for 27.3 is closer to 27 than 28 no matter how you try and twist that.
    the number next closest to 27 is... 28.

    so, you are saying that if something is about 27.3, we should call that 28 and not 27? Errr, no, even when we round off numbers in mathematics, the normal accepted con ...[text shortened]... ning of a child. [/quote]
    be humbled by the reasoning of children far greater than your own.
    Why are you trying to reason with him? His religion is "flat earth", he should go to Spiritual Forum. You cannot treat him with scientific reasoning. It just wont work.

    He loves to win when he is wrong. And you cannot compete with his twisted logic. Just ignore him and he goes away, trying to find someone else to harass.

    Don't feed the troll.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52617
    28 Aug '17 08:08
    Originally posted by @fabianfnas
    Why are you trying to reason with him? His religion is "flat earth", he should go to Spiritual Forum. You cannot treat him with scientific reasoning. It just wont work.

    He loves to win when he is wrong. And you cannot compete with his twisted logic. Just ignore him and he goes away, trying to find someone else to harass.

    Don't feed the troll.
    I second that. And it is wonderful I am invisible to this desperate troll.
  10. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    28 Aug '17 14:34
    Originally posted by @humy
    you mean the ~27.3 one; yes. You must be getting desperate for 27.3 is closer to 27 than 28 no matter how you try and twist that.
    the number next closest to 27 is... 28.

    so, you are saying that if something is about 27.3, we should call that 28 and not 27? Errr, no, even when we round off numbers in mathematics, the normal accepted con ...[text shortened]... ning of a child. [/quote]
    be humbled by the reasoning of children far greater than your own.
    you mean the ~27.3 one; yes. You must be getting desperate for 27.3 is closer to 27 than 28 no matter how you try and twist that.
    Well, don't let history stop you: make sure you focus on my claims of the fact instead of the fact that humanity has called it a 28 day cycle forever.
    Were you to do a modicum of research which is otherwise unmotivated by your desire to force your position through regardless of facts, you would find the actual reason why it is considered a 28 day cycle: the sidereal and the synodic are added together, with the average of the two coming in around 28.43 days.
    The former is related only to the moon and its position in the sky while the latter is related to the full cycle of the sun over the same time period.
    The "mansions" through which the moon passes is from antiquity, not something I made up to manufacture some correlation which otherwise doesn't exist.
    It has existed since man first recorded history.
    You just happen to be on the wrong side of it.

    And you still have no answer for the correlation between the lunar, menstrual and the fingers on your hands.
    And you still have no reason for introducing the suggested causal relation between the lunar, menstrual and the fingers on your hands.

    be humbled by the reasoning of children far greater than your own.
    Sweetie, you couldn't stand in any one of my six children's left shoe when it comes to analyzing data.
    Well, you could talk a better game than my three year old, but other than that?
    From 25 on down to 13, each and every one of them make you look silly.
Back to Top