# [geocentrism] Axis and winning.

• To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:09:45 +1000

```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.

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:

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:

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.

```