[geocentrism] Axis and winning.

 
Phil…. 
   
“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.. “ 
  
No, You most certainly can have axis that run parallel ..but in order to claim 
two motions you have to have two sets of relative changes wrt something  ..how 
do you know when you have such a thing.?.....Phil, the up down  motion of the 
moons libration on that axis can be shown without having any of the other 
motions of the other axis and calling it two!?…..it must be a independent 
motion, otherwise you are only taking one motion that cannot be isolated or 
distinguished from the other and calling it two motions!?…. Phil the back of 
fourth of the moons libration can be isolated and not dependent on the up and 
down axis nor is it dependent on the moons orbital motion…Those are three axis 
each with their own independent relative progressive radial orientations wrt 
the observer/ earth…. 
  
Succinctly: All you have to do Phill is show us how you can produce the moons 
supposed rotation without the orbit….YOU CANT!!!!! without the orbit there is 
no motion or Rotation!!!!...what you are calling two motions cannot be isolated 
or distinguished from each other you cannot show the moon to rotate on the same 
axis that is orbits without having the orbit. …..counting the same thing twice 
does not mean you have two of them……there is only a progressive radial 
orientation to a common point that lay in a axis that runs through the earth..  
the orbital axis and the two axis of the moons libration are all clear and 
distinct from each other, your rotation does not exist without the orbit….IT IS 
THE ORBIT!.....if the moon were rotation on a parallel axis to the orbital axis 
that motion could  be demonstrated without the orbit….but it cannot…..because 
only one motion exist!..counting one cow twice does not make two 
cows…..counting one
 rotation twice does not make two rotations…motion is relative to something 
else…but a motion that uses the same identical changes wrt the same identical 
bodies is just the same motion…NOT TWO! 
  
  
PS You see contradiction and conflict  in my words because you are so accustom 
to accepting contradiction in your reasoning that when given clarity, ……all you 
can see is a contradiction….. You are so entrenched into utter confusion that 
clarity appears to you as confusion and confusion as some sort of 
enlightenment!? 


 






  
 

--- On Thu, 12/4/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Axis and winning.
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 3:09 PM


 
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: