[geocentrism] Axis and winning.

Allen its not about winning. Its about truth.. And truth has to be within 
universally accepted definitions.  Discussion is invalid if you or I make up 
our own definition.   

Unless you can prove me otherwise, it is accepted universally in geometry that 
an axis is the centre line of any rotation, and that this line has no 
dimension. It is not an axel.  

From your most recent, you have used a plate or disc to imply that it is not 
possible to have two axis' in parallel---  ie you say that these are the same 
rotation and axis..  You thus are insisting an axis has dimension like an axel. 
But I guess what you are trying to say is that a molecule on the edge of the 
plate cannot have a separate rotation.  May we leave that aside, because I have 
another experiment on board coming soon which will elaborate on this.  

But our discussion concerned the orbit of the moon, which cannot be compared to 
a particle on the edge of a plate. 

It appears that you accept the moon has a separate axis at n degrees off from 
that of the earth when you said,
Yes, Phil that is two. One axis for each progresie radial oreintaion . 
Therefore you do accept that the moon is rotating.  I easily saw how the 
progression of a radian vector fixed within an object represented angular 
rotation of that object. 

You seem to accept that translation and rotation are separate motions. So I am 
puzzeled why you deny there is any rotation of the moon around its axis, the 
moment it begins to translate in an orbit around the world....

Can you consider the question this way.  Let us take Pauls imaginary moon, 
where instead of just 10 degrees off the vertical, it is rolled over so that 
its rotation is horizontal to its orbital plane. rolling sideways so to speak 
at just one roll per orbital period. .   You will accept that this rotation 
continues as it translates around the earth.. NO?    YES?  then why do you 
refuse to accept that there is still a separate rotation if this same rpm  
rotation is 15 degrees off the vertical or even vertical and parallel to the 
earths axis? 

Neville has hinted that you were considering the aether firmament as rotating 
with the moon imbedded within it. But you denied this stating clearly that you 
were debating from MS science point of view.  

Phil is right about this…” From what I believed, Allen has been postulating MS 
science unrelated to geocentrism..”…at least exclusivley, I have been adressing 
both systems....The two systems must be geometrically equivalent, 

I see contradiction and conflict  in those words.
 
Yet your reference to a plate example seems to indicate your mind is at this 
geocentric principle, and if it were, then within mine and maybe yours we are 
in agreement concerning the rotation. We have been for some time. 

I stated elsewhere a long time ago, that rotation was a motion relative to the 
aether.  If the aether moved around the world at a set speed, and the moon was 
appearing to move in the same direction at the same speed, then there was no 
relative motion---no rotation. 

The two systems must be geometrically equivalent,,  Yes, but geometry is only a 
paper science dealing with appearances..  not reality.  and that has been where 
you and I have been wasting our time here, in not separating the difference. 
Remember long ago how I argued with regner, concerning the ball dropped to the 
floor in a moving train? Geometrically to me in the train it dropped in a 
straight line...but but but..  

Philip. 




  ----- Original Message -----
  From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 5:19 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation


        "Allen the moons axis is several degrees off that of the earth!..does 
that make two LOL..  Phil" 

         

         

        Yes, Phil that is two. One axis for each progresie radial oreintaion 
wrt somthing else..note the things that are in progressive radial oreintaion do 
not have that wrt the same things.......That axis Phil Librates back and fourth 
there is another that librates up and down...that is three axis..only 9 
trillion trillion more to go...that is if you take your approach with every 
particle of the moon..ummmm....none of those axis even run through the same 
plane.......That motion is not the same motion as the/ any motion of the orbit, 
and that is the point….. How do we know?..because there is a change and 
progressive radial back and forth wrt to a common point that lay through the 
moon itself…that is not difficult to see or confuse, That common point lay 
within the moon  the other common point  lay outside the moon…they are both wrt 
the observer within the earth moon frame of reference…. ..One is a progressive 
and regressive radial orientation to a common point that lay on the moon itself 
and the other is a common progressive radial orientation to a point that lay at 
the earth itself…The observer never has a problem making that distinction and 
apparently you do not either… …The distinction can be clearly made within the 
frame of reference under consideration (earth moon system). We cannot go 
outside our frame of reference to give ourselves a reference frame (remember me 
saying that). ….. The observer sees the moon make a progressive radial 
orientation wrt the observer, he can also see An ADDITIONAL MOTION in the moons 
libration. There is a difference between two different motions verse just one 
motion that is called two,…. by now you should see the difference………well maybe 
not you and Paul, but anyone else examining these post should have no problem 
seeing two different motions that are defined independently of each other, not 
just a single motion that you keep trying to “cut in half” like cutting that 
car in half I mentioned earlier…seeing a car does not make it two halves of a 
car simply because you can imagine it cut in half….there is one car and one 
motion that motion as is any motion is defined by the relative changes wrt the 
observer and or any 3rd bodies. However, the same changes wrt those same bodies 
and or observer  cannot be called two different changes simply because you 
count those same relative changes wrt the same observer once and then again wrt 
the 3rd bodies twice even thought they are the same exact change for both the 
observer and the 3rd body….The same relative changes wrt the same observer or 
bodies is not two different changes…. .…counting the money you have twice does 
not mean you have twice as much as you did when you counted it the first 
time…..one plus itself is not two…..the relative changes can only be counted 
once not twice wrt the same observer or 3rd bodies.......motion any motion to 
be observed must be relative to something else…..That something else is called 
the observer or other bodies that the observer sees, wrt each other, all within 
the same frame of reference under consideration. 

         

        Paul, The curt remarks I referred to are made by me. My post are at 
some times more disciplined then others but don’t let that bother you.  I’m not 
playing dumb, not at all. I am just giving you and others ample opportunity to 
say “less then brilliant” things of which you and Phil have not disappointed me 
with…I then remark in very, perhaps extreme sarcastic manner. I’m sorry you 
can’t see beyond your own logical contradictions, …. but then again you never 
did get the whole gravity= inertia thingy either…..Note I did not start out 
that way but I keep coming to the same conclusion about most not all but 
certainly most  of your arguments, they are focused on “claiming victory”  not 
on evaluating the possibility that they are completely wrong.  ….. As I said 
before this thread will just go in circles. It will most certainly not progress 
your learning at all because ..well we all know why…….but my point is not so 
much for me to convince you of your error. You truly believe in your own folly 
and will not be shown otherwise! It is to offer others a chance to understand 
and evaluate the real world and the kinds of people that live in it…….. 

         

        Phil again..... "Rotation needs no observer. It s a self evident truth 
as defined"  The fact i am the king is self evident too....!?..do you hear 
yourself...what is that self evidence based on?......... Rotation is a motion 
motion must be relitive to something, a observer or some other body otherwise 
it is not a motion ............further, if it is it not observed one would have 
to question how is it then being discussed since otherwise, we would have not 
way of knowing that it was relitive to anything..... ....ummm



                 


                --- On Wed, 12/3/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:


                  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
                  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                  Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 6:22 PM


                   
                  Allen the moons axis is several degrees off that of the 
earth!..does that make two LOL..  Phil
                    ----- Original Message ----- 
                    From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
                    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
                    Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:52 AM
                    Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation




                          Phil,
                          "But you can see the difficulty in English expression 
you present"
                          NO! I said it means more then one……. you stated no it 
does not mean that……...Phil the fact there is more then one is inherent, 
intrinsic, integral part of the meaning of synonymous!? You cannot separate 
that fact any more then you can separate the fact that a living human has water 
in them!? if they are alive ..then Phil that means water is present!?

                          Come to the table with some reason........ you are 
just attempting "linguistic acrobatics" now... If you have a plate dill a hole 
in the center and put it on a drill there is only one axis of rotation...you 
may consider that axis to be a mathematical line (having no dimension) or you 
can also consider that axis to have the same diameter of the plate itself...the 
net effect is the same....one axis of rotation..not billions of axis for each 
molecule in the plate.....one axis not many….Counting the same thing twice does 
not mean you have two of them!?



                           



                                --- On Wed, 12/3/08, philip madsen 
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

                                From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                                Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
                                To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                                Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 12:22 PM


                                 
                                Philip,
                                  
                                "Allen opens up a rebuttal with, "Synchronous 
means more then one...OK "

                                 No Allen  it does not mean more than one..  
HERE IS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED MEANING"..... 


                                Phil.....you can't have a simoltanious anything 
with just one of them..!? 



                                Allen, Oh!  now I get what you were trying to 
say, but please don't say sorry for getting it wrong..  You said "synchronous"  
means more than one..     I said it doesn't mean that at all ... two or many is 
more than one..  I don't recall a single word for that meaning..  But you can 
see the difficulty in English expression you present. Even this is out of this 
world for sense..  "you can't have a simoltanious anything with just one of 
them..!? "  

                                Perhaps you may now understand my reasons, when 
I referred to English as being essential for science...  Philip.

Other related posts: