[geocentrism] Axis and winning
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Phil..... 3 axis.... 1 up down libration 1 side to side libration 1 orbital... You claim a 4th one through the moon the lay parallel to the orbital one....lets see.....Each of those three exist exist and move independent of each other. Take any of those 3 i show away and you can still see the other 2 move........ Now.......If you take the orbit of the moon away there is no rotation...because the "rotation" you keep refering to is the orbit!....Take the earth a way and you still have all of the moons librations as well as a moon in orbit around a point that lay where the earth used to be.....but now take the orbit away and you have no motion!.....the sun Phil will still see a orbiting moon if you take the earth away....but if you take the orbit itself away Phil........no motion and no rotation.... ....No distictions between your Rotaion and the moons orbit, then your only counting the same motion twice and calling it two differnt motions...but it is only one motion.......counting your cows twice does not mean you have two differnt cows....even if you can imagine it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "I can still claim it is rotating without an orbit with respect to the sun" The sun, Phil, is irrelevant! Checkmate, ol' mate .This horse is pretty dead, beating more won't make it come back to life......sorry if you and Paul can't see it........but the hell bound lost can't see it either, no matter what you show them....!?! --- On Thu, 12/4/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Axis and winning. To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 4:02 PM Those are three axis each with their own independent relative progressive radial orientations wrt the observer/ earth…. You obviously did not read my whole post.. go back. with respect to the observer on earth, is not relevant. neither is it trustworthy.. About as true as the ball in the moving train.. from that point of view we cannot say the earth turns, instead saying the sun translates.. From outside the earth moon system, if we accept the sun is relatively stationary, as MS does, we will see the moon rotate with respect to the sun every 28 days. We will see it translating around the earth once every 28 days, and we will see the earth spin every 24 hours. Thats from that observation spot. Now from the Moons observation, we will see the sun move across the sky for a 28 earth day period. We will see the eath spin 28 times during a moonday. So that observation is of no use any more than the from the earth. All you have to do Phill is show us how you can produce the moons supposed rotation without the orbit….YOU CANT!!!!! Can too! You can't show us the moon is orbiting without the earth .. You said so .. but I can still claim it is rotating without an orbit with respect to the sun.. the moon and the earth could be orbiting each other. I showed you how I produced the rotation in my post.. You have not read down that far yet.. I know because of the speed of your return, without any thinking process ... clue.. Pauls idea of tipping the moon on its side without giving it any force to spin.. As is just tip it over. Finally I can prove its spin just by direct measurement of the centrepetal stress in the rock.. Ditto for earth.. Geocentrism cannot deny the stress is there, proven conclusively by the geostationary satellite. Now get out of that one using mainstream science you obfuscating obstropolite. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 9:39 AM Subject: [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.