[geocentrism] Corrected Goofs

From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Corrected Goofs
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 12:51 PM

The de-energised, non rotating motor IS the condition that existed before it starts to orbit  AND after the orbit is stoped......Thus, the only claim that we can logicaly lay claim to is that its condition  was non energised and non rotating during the orbit.. this is particulaly true since we can know beyond all dout when and when the motor is and is not energised......Note: of the two motors, only in the motor that is energised and in rotation before the orbit can the motions be isolated from each other such that we can in fact demonstrate two separte motions rather then just claiming that two motions exist when only one can be demonstrated....  This is demonstrated by stoping the orbit and observing the motions.....otherwise one can only imagine the motion not demonstrate the motion..This is the key...... --- On Thu, 12/18/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Corrected Goofs To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 12:39 PM OK now this is exactly how I took your meaning originally..   So now one more question before I respond ..  that needs stating.   Is this de-energised, non rotating motor the condition as exists at the very beginning before the bottom disc is made to rotate? ie everything is stationary, and the motor rotor with disc is free to move?  Very important this is answered clearly. Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 3:38 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Corrected Goofs Here are the corrected diagrams.... --- On Thu, 12/18/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Corrected Goofs To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 9:37 AM Here are the corrected diagrams.... --- On Thu, 12/18/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Goofs To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 9:06 AM Yes, should read " It is a fact that this motor will keep the same face to the centre dot at all times.."    I will fix that and the murcury references in the diagrams as well.....     --- On Thu, 12/18/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Goofs To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 7:06 AM Yes, should read " It is a fact that this motor will keep the same face to the centre dot at all times.."    I will fix that and the murcury references in the diagrams as well.....     --- On Wed, 12/17/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Goofs To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 11:37 PM   Allen did you goof or did I? At the time I thought it was a typo mistake, and I must have taken it the wrong way..  So therefore could you please correct the sentence in your diagram to say what you meant.. You said, It is a fact that this motor will it will keep the same face to the centre dot at all time..  Will you please correct the blunder of confusion marked in red, and rewrite below the full sentence as you meant it... I asumed the "will it" bit was somthing your fingers did while your brain was away.and I left it out of the context.  But given your reaction, I must of goofed..  thanks. Phil.