Crypto-Climate Watch List

Xadoman wrote:It seems that Solana has made about 2x at 22.60 ( was under 10 not so long time ago).

Xadoman wrote:
I did not bought any Solana. I just made a comment that those who bought the dip under 10 made a noice 2x.

duncan61 wrote:The figures I posted were a copy and paste. Somehow you have become an even bigger miserable cunt than you were before

IBdaMann wrote:
The long-running (10 years) crypto exchange, LocalBitCoins, has milked compulsive gamblers of about all they're going to get, so they are pulling chocks and just walking away (shutting down permanently).

Their officially announced rationale for shutting down: "The ongoing very cold crypto winter."

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The long-running (10 years) crypto exchange, LocalBitCoins, has milked compulsive gamblers of about all they're going to get, so they are pulling chocks and just walking away (shutting down permanently).

Their officially announced rationale for shutting down: "The ongoing very cold crypto winter."

How does that effect the finches?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The long-running (10 years) crypto exchange, LocalBitCoins, has milked compulsive gamblers of about all they're going to get, so they are pulling chocks and just walking away (shutting down permanently).

Their officially announced rationale for shutting down: "The ongoing very cold crypto winter."

How does that effect the finches?

It affects the crypto-finches. They absolutely love a long, cold crypto winter. And don't even get me started about the crypto-puffins.

It seems that Solana has made about 2x at 22.60 ( was under 10 not so long time ago).

Xadoman wrote:Looks like the price is moving up - 25.81. It was under 10 a couple of months back.

Xadoman wrote:It still is a crypto winter

Xadoman wrote:therefore I am not interested to jump into the shitcoins at the moment.

Xadoman wrote:What do you guys think about forex trading.

Xadoman wrote:I am quite bad at math but this video gives me some confidence that I could pull it off.

duncan61 wrote:I closed too early. I had my close margin at 24.5 for $700 plus. It would of matured. Maybe next time

I recommend dropping your winnings/gains/earnings into an actual investment, e.g. real estate

Xadoman wrote:
Here is another good video about property:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75tRMST78XI&ab_channel=SmartMoneyClub

Do you enjoy a good dog wonton soup?

Xadoman wrote:You are the one who belives that moon has rotational energy.

"The unfailing test of the spinning of a mass is, however, the existence of energy of motion. The moon is not posest of such vis viva." By this I meant that "axial rotation" is not simply "rotation upon an axis nonchalantly defined in dictionaries, but is a circular motion in the true physical sense — that is, one in which half the product of the mass with the square of velocity is a definite and positive quantity. The moon is a nearly spherical body, of a radius of about 1,087.5 miles, from which I calculate its volume to be approximately 5,300,216,300 cubic miles. Since its mean density is 3.27, one cubic foot of material composing it weighs close on 205 lbs. Accordingly, the total weight of the satellite is about 79,969,000,000,000,000,000, and its mass 2,483,500,000,000,000,000 terrestrial short tons. Assuming that the moon does physically rotate upon its axis, it performs one revolution in 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes and 11 seconds, or 2,360,591 seconds. If, in conformity with mathematical principles, we imagine the entire mass concentrated at a distance from the center equal to two-fifths of the radius, then the calculated rotational velocity is 3.04 feet per second, at which the globe would contain 11,474,000,000,000,000,000 short foot tons of energy sufficient to run 1,000,000,000 horsepower for a period of 1,323 years. Now, I say, that there is not enough of that energy in the moon to run a delicate watch."

Xadoman wrote:
[quote]"The unfailing test of the spinning of a mass is, however, the existence of energy of motion. The moon is not posest of such vis viva." By this I meant that "axial rotation" is not simply "rotation upon an axis nonchalantly defined in dictionaries, but is a circular motion in the true physical sense — that is, one in which half the product of the mass with the square of velocity is a definite and positive quantity. The moon is a nearly spherical body, of a radius of about 1,087.5 miles, from which I calculate its volume to be approximately 5,300,216,300 cubic miles. Since its mean density is 3.27, one cubic foot of material composing it weighs close on 205 lbs. Accordingly, the total weight of the satellite is about 79,969,000,000,000,000,000, and its mass 2,483,500,000,000,000,000 terrestrial short tons. Assuming that the moon does physically rotate upon its axis, it performs one revolution in 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes and 11 seconds, or 2,360,591 seconds. If, in conformity with mathematical principles, we imagine the entire mass concentrated at a distance from the center equal to two-fifths of the radius, then the calculated rotational velocity is 3.04 feet per second, at which the globe would contain 11,474,000,000,000,000,000 short foot tons of energy sufficient to run 1,000,000,000 horsepower for a period of 1,323 years. Now, I say, that there is not enough of that energy in the moon to run a delicate watch."

- N. Tesla

Xadoman, your rationale above for the moon "not rotating" actually eplains that the moon rotates, very slowly, just like everyone else told you, in 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes and 11 seconds, or 2,360,591 seconds. The concern above is not that the moon does not rotate, but that there is very little energy, i.e. "Now, I say, that there is not enough of that energy in the moon to run a delicate watch."

So I ask you, do you accept this?

Xadoman wrote:

Xadoman, your rationale above for the moon "not rotating" actually eplains that the moon rotates, very slowly, just like everyone else told you, in 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes and 11 seconds, or 2,360,591 seconds. The concern above is not that the moon does not rotate, but that there is very little energy, i.e. "Now, I say, that there is not enough of that energy in the moon to run a delicate watch."

So I ask you, do you accept this?

Nope. As Tesla said, there is not enough energy to run even a delicate watch. Rotational energy is zero.

There is a big difference between two energy levels: between zero( ziltch , null, nada , nothing) and "1,000,000,000 horsepower for a period of 1,323 years. Do not you agree?

Xadoman wrote:

Do you enjoy a good dog wonton soup?

You are the one who belives that moon has rotational energy. Tell me, what are you enjoying?

Swan wrote:The moon's rotation around the Earth

Now, I say, that there is not enough of that energy in the moon to run a delicate watch."

Xadoman wrote:Zero IS "not enough energy" to run a delicate watch.

Nikola Tesla was born in modern-day Croatia in 1856

Xadoman wrote:

Nikola Tesla was born in modern-day Croatia in 1856

English was not the first language for Tesla. The context should be understandable for you( as a math wizard).

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:The moon's rotation around the Earth

The moon's revolution around the earth. The moon's rotation is about its axis.

Tesla was a different person. You reveal errors in your English proficiency. You also need to be told that you are not Tesla.

"The unfailing test of the spinning of a mass is, however, the existence of energy of motion. The moon is not posest of such vis viva." By this I meant that "axial rotation" is not simply "rotation upon an axis nonchalantly defined in dictionaries, but is a circular motion in the true physical sense — that is, one in which half the product of the mass with the square of velocity is a definite and positive quantity. The moon is a nearly spherical body, of a radius of about 1,087.5 miles, from which I calculate its volume to be approximately 5,300,216,300 cubic miles. Since its mean density is 3.27, one cubic foot of material composing it weighs close on 205 lbs. Accordingly, the total weight of the satellite is about 79,969,000,000,000,000,000, and its mass 2,483,500,000,000,000,000 terrestrial short tons. Assuming that the moon does physically rotate upon its axis, it performs one revolution in 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes and 11 seconds, or 2,360,591 seconds. If, in conformity with mathematical principles, we imagine the entire mass concentrated at a distance from the center equal to two-fifths of the radius, then the calculated rotational velocity is 3.04 feet per second, at which the globe would contain 11,474,000,000,000,000,000 short foot tons of energy sufficient to run 1,000,000,000 horsepower for a period of 1,323 years. Now, I say, that there is not enough of that energy in the moon to run a delicate watch."

An enduring myth about the Moon is that it doesn't rotate. While it's true that the Moon keeps the same face to us, this only happens because the Moon rotates at the same rate as its orbital motion, a special case of tidal locking called synchronous rotation.

How long is a day on Venus, and how does its slow rotation contribute to the planet's extreme temperatures?
#1 – Venus's slow backwards (CW) rotation has nothing to do with its harsh climate!

As for the length of Venus's day, that is often reported as being shorter than its year by many people who don't understand the sidereal perspective, which is simply viewing an astronomical body from the theoretical OUTSIDE perspective, which is an ancient carryover from early astronomers who had attempted to view our solar system (and universe) from the perspective of God.

How could God's View be wrong?

Frankly, the only practical purpose for the sidereal perspective is when aiming Earth-bound telescopes, but other than that, the sidereal perspective merely confuses many people who illogically believe that this theoretical outside perspective shows the true reality of a rotating body, which is false.

All the sidereal perspective does is it aggregates together a body's 360° REVOLUTION (orbit) in with the body's 360° polar axial ROTATIONS (if any), which is why their sidereal rotations and actual polar axial rotations will always differ by one (1) rotation, as explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Sidereal_days_compared_to_solar_days_on_other_planets

Using the above rule, Earth has 366 sidereal rotations:

366 - 1 = 365 solar days per year.

Our moon has 1 sidereal rotation:

1 - 1 = 0 actual polar axial rotations per orbit, as viewed from Earth.

Planet Mercury likewise confuses many people with its 3:2 sidereal spin rate.

NO, Mercury doesn't have 3 solar days per two orbits, Mercury instead has one (1) solar day per two complete orbits since due to its eccentric orbit Mercury does a 180° flip each orbit.

Since 3:2 is essentially the same as 1.5:1, the math is simple:

1.5 - 1 = .5 (so, there's your 180° flip).

If our moon spun down like this:

4 ~ 3 ~ 2 ~ 1

Then, where's the dang ZERO?

The sidereal perspective does have a zero when a body spins down, but you need to look at Venus to find it, which brings us to answering your question.

Since Venus rotates slowly backwards (CW), the sidereal perspective gets really interesting when applying the Sidereal RULE to Venus, since we instead need to add one (1) to Venus's sidereal rotations instead of subtracting one (1), as we did for the CCW rotating bodies:

* A day on the surface of Venus (solar day) would appear to take 117 Earth days

* A year on Venus takes 225 Earth days.

Thus, a Venusian solar day lasts 117 Earth days, versus 225 Earth days to complete an orbit, so there's your 1.92 ratio.

Curiously, since Venus is now at 1.92 CW polar axial rotations per orbit, Venus has recently passed thru a rate of two (2) solar days per orbit, and after Venus loses 0.92 CW rotations of its remaining 1.92 CW polar rotations, Venus will then have a sidereal rotation rate of zero (0:1).

SO, there's your sidereal ZERO!

Since Venus actually has 1.92 solar days left today, at zero sidereal rotations (0:1) Venus will still have one final CW polar axial rotation left to lose before stopping at a final 1:1 sidereal spin rate.

As Venus proves, an astronomical body with a 0:1 sidereal rotation rate is possible, it just doesn't last for very long since a 0:1 rotation rate is transitory as it spins down to 1:1.

In short, the sidereal perspective is not some *God's Eye* view of reality since the sidereal perspective has its obvious quirks, which are more readily apparent with Venus due to Venus's retrograde CW rotations!

Using the convention that astronomers prefer to use (of sidereal rotations / orbit), Venus is slowing down like this (starting arbitrarily with 3 solar days left to lose):

2:1 (3 solar days) –– 1:1 (2 solar days left) –– 0:1 (1 solar day left) –– 1:1 (one long solar day on one side, perpetual darkness on the other side).

2 ~ 1 ~ 0 ~ 1

NOTE how Venus will have two 1:1 sidereal spin rates as Venus is fully despun!

Of course, from the sun's center-point perspective, Venus will spin down like this:

3 ~ 2 ~ 1 ~ 0

Remember, the center-point and sidereal (outside) perspectives will always differ by one (1), and as Venus proves, the sidereal perspective has its obvious quirks!

Clearly, the sidereal perspective does not reflect reality as many early astronomers had thought!

Our moon takes 29.5 days to fully orbit Earth, and the sidereal perspective has nothing to do with it, other than to confuse the kajeebers out of most folks!

Xadoman wrote:

An enduring myth about the Moon is that it doesn't rotate. While it's true that the Moon keeps the same face to us, this only happens because the Moon rotates at the same rate as its orbital motion, a special case of tidal locking called synchronous rotation.

An explanation from Ken Dine:

How long is a day on Venus, and how does its slow rotation contribute to the planet's extreme temperatures?
#1 – Venus's slow backwards (CW) rotation has nothing to do with its harsh climate!

As for the length of Venus's day, that is often reported as being shorter than its year by many people who don't understand the sidereal perspective, which is simply viewing an astronomical body from the theoretical OUTSIDE perspective, which is an ancient carryover from early astronomers who had attempted to view our solar system (and universe) from the perspective of God.

How could God's View be wrong?

Frankly, the only practical purpose for the sidereal perspective is when aiming Earth-bound telescopes, but other than that, the sidereal perspective merely confuses many people who illogically believe that this theoretical outside perspective shows the true reality of a rotating body, which is false.

All the sidereal perspective does is it aggregates together a body's 360° REVOLUTION (orbit) in with the body's 360° polar axial ROTATIONS (if any), which is why their sidereal rotations and actual polar axial rotations will always differ by one (1) rotation, as explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#Sidereal_days_compared_to_solar_days_on_other_planets

Using the above rule, Earth has 366 sidereal rotations:

366 - 1 = 365 solar days per year.

Our moon has 1 sidereal rotation:

1 - 1 = 0 actual polar axial rotations per orbit, as viewed from Earth.

Planet Mercury likewise confuses many people with its 3:2 sidereal spin rate.

NO, Mercury doesn't have 3 solar days per two orbits, Mercury instead has one (1) solar day per two complete orbits since due to its eccentric orbit Mercury does a 180° flip each orbit.

Since 3:2 is essentially the same as 1.5:1, the math is simple:

1.5 - 1 = .5 (so, there's your 180° flip).

If our moon spun down like this:

4 ~ 3 ~ 2 ~ 1

Then, where's the dang ZERO?

The sidereal perspective does have a zero when a body spins down, but you need to look at Venus to find it, which brings us to answering your question.

Since Venus rotates slowly backwards (CW), the sidereal perspective gets really interesting when applying the Sidereal RULE to Venus, since we instead need to add one (1) to Venus's sidereal rotations instead of subtracting one (1), as we did for the CCW rotating bodies:

* A day on the surface of Venus (solar day) would appear to take 117 Earth days

* A year on Venus takes 225 Earth days.

Thus, a Venusian solar day lasts 117 Earth days, versus 225 Earth days to complete an orbit, so there's your 1.92 ratio.

Curiously, since Venus is now at 1.92 CW polar axial rotations per orbit, Venus has recently passed thru a rate of two (2) solar days per orbit, and after Venus loses 0.92 CW rotations of its remaining 1.92 CW polar rotations, Venus will then have a sidereal rotation rate of zero (0:1).

SO, there's your sidereal ZERO!

Since Venus actually has 1.92 solar days left today, at zero sidereal rotations (0:1) Venus will still have one final CW polar axial rotation left to lose before stopping at a final 1:1 sidereal spin rate.

As Venus proves, an astronomical body with a 0:1 sidereal rotation rate is possible, it just doesn't last for very long since a 0:1 rotation rate is transitory as it spins down to 1:1.

In short, the sidereal perspective is not some *God's Eye* view of reality since the sidereal perspective has its obvious quirks, which are more readily apparent with Venus due to Venus's retrograde CW rotations!

Using the convention that astronomers prefer to use (of sidereal rotations / orbit), Venus is slowing down like this (starting arbitrarily with 3 solar days left to lose):

2:1 (3 solar days) –– 1:1 (2 solar days left) –– 0:1 (1 solar day left) –– 1:1 (one long solar day on one side, perpetual darkness on the other side).

2 ~ 1 ~ 0 ~ 1

NOTE how Venus will have two 1:1 sidereal spin rates as Venus is fully despun!

Of course, from the sun's center-point perspective, Venus will spin down like this:

3 ~ 2 ~ 1 ~ 0

Remember, the center-point and sidereal (outside) perspectives will always differ by one (1), and as Venus proves, the sidereal perspective has its obvious quirks!

Clearly, the sidereal perspective does not reflect reality as many early astronomers had thought!

Our moon takes 29.5 days to fully orbit Earth, and the sidereal perspective has nothing to do with it, other than to confuse the kajeebers out of most folks!

Xadoman wrote:Now that the banks are collapsing left and right, what do you think, IBdaMann, about buying some bitcoin now?

Question: Can SafeMoon V2 reach $1 dollar?
Expert Analysis: As per our long-term Safemoon V2 price prediction, SFM Coin may reach the target of $1 target in 2030-35.
Safemoon Price (21 December 2021): $0.001654
Safemoon Price (05 September 2023): $0.00012522 [loss of 93%]

Question: Will the Arctic be ice-free?
IPCC Analysis: We assess the Arctic is projected to be on average practically ice-free in September near mid-century under intermediate and high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios.
Arctic Sea Ice (16 August 2021): 5.77 million km^2 (2.23 million miles^2)
Arctic Sea Ice (15 August 2023): 5.74 million km^2 (2.22 million miles^2)