[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Uranus
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:06:08 +1000
Allen it seems to me you are a wee bit guilty of argumentum ad hominem!.
Saying this or similar often
"because you are not here to learn, you are hear to espouse ignorance and
nonsense."
Paul asked, "What I need at this moment is for you to explain to me what you
mean by "... progressive radial orientation to a common point ..." and later
you can ""
Note just his simple piece first, Yet we get, 406 words of ...... what could
any one say.... Take this..
"Uranus is making a "daily" progressive radial orientation to geometric center
point also a center of mass point that lay in that axis of rotation ..or any
number of common points the axis lay through, that lay 97.77 degrees from the
annual orbit" The planet as a whole is making a progressive radial
orientation to the earth/sun with epicycles what that axis 90degrees to the
plane of that motion...those two axis lay 97.77 degrees wrt each other......
What part of this do you not understand?!
Perhaps to test your rational, we should invite anybody and everybody else on
this list to explain what you said in straight forward simple English
scientific terms. I cant! Before you attack us for being stupid.
Philip.
argumentum ad hominem
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself, his character, nationality or religion, or by
association, the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person (classic
definition):
1. ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the
argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
2. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion
the author points to the relationship between the person making the
assertion and the person's circumstances.
3. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person
notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.
Defense: Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or
falsity of the proposition being defended.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 3:11 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Fw: Uranus
Paul,
I answered your question specifically ..If you don't get it then i
suggest you reread it!... according to MS Uranus is making a "daily"
progressive radial orientation to geometric center point also a center of mass
point that lay in that axis of rotation ..or any number of common points the
axis lay through, that lay 97.77 degrees from the annual orbit….. We can
identify those axis and they lay 90degrees to the plane of the motion..........
The planet as a whole is making a progressive radial orientation to the
earth/sun with epicycles what that axis 90degrees to the plane of that
motion...those two axis lay 97.77 degrees wrt each other...... What part of
this do you not understand?! Maybe if you would pay attention to the "blizzard
of words" you might get clue!? Each of those motions are independent of the
other..There is nothing scientific about taking a motion and counting it as two
motions...any one of Uranus motions can be isolated and observed if any of the
other motions are stopped....The motion you keep trying to ascribe to the moon
is the orbit, take the orbit away and there is nothing to observer (except the
liberation).... Paul, you are obfuscating all your post are a waste of your
time because you are not here to learn, you are hear to espouse ignorance and
nonsense. Logic observation and experiment clearly show only one demonstrable
motion, no additional second motion or rotation...only one rotation with either
the axis that the common point lay inside or outside the diameter of the
various bodies in question.. Counting the same thing as twice does make two of
them...nor is splitting it in half (in your head) mean you have demonstrated
two synchronous parts!? ..Now you either demonstrate the moons supposed
rotation isolated and separate, not dependent on the orbit or you sir are just
exercising foolishness either willfully or you just don’t have the intellect
for it. Either way I don’t think anyone can help you with your problems. You
demonstrate nothing and even after I do you keep claiming, I’m the problem and
there is logic and science in your post!? Your arguments are utter nonsense and
yet you accuse me of not answering, obfuscating, and dealing with the issues…
Either demonstrate something or concede…or find someone who can debate me on
this issue with some better arguments then the foolishness you keep cling so
dearly to?!
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 9:07 AM
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 6:10 AM
Allen D
From Wikipedia courtesy of Allen Daves 67.131.20.93 we have -
A Rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a
common point. That common point lay within the axis of that motion. The axis is
90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion.
I asked you, with specific reference to Uranus, where is that
common point. You have responded -- your post below -- with a blizzard of words
which addressed everything except the question I asked. Please think of me as
being as stupid and as ignorant as your posts frequently intimate -- where is
the common point? Indeed, what is the common point?
Please note that I am not interested in every single particle
in Uranus, billions of quarks and leptons, individual atoms, stars at night,
Galaxies with billions of individual stars in them or riders on white horses,
or indeed horses of any other colour, with or without riders.
I will also excuse you your intemperate but inaccurate list
of things which it is your conjecture that I need.
What I need at this moment is for you to explain to me what
you mean by "... progressive radial orientation to a common point ..." and
later you can build on that to explain to me how it bears upon the rotation
rate of Uranus and the Moon.
Paul D
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 6 December, 2008 9:46:36 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
My problem is ' ..' common point ...'. Where is it?????
You deny the Moon is rotating on its axis while it
revolves about its primary yet here you talk about Uranus' rotation and its
revolution having separate axes with no common point. Why do you see the Moon
as being different?????
Paul D
Paul,
Dose Uranus have no Geometric center point?!..No center
of mass?!..No center point of EMR ? ..No gravo-inertial center?!. ( MS uses
inertial reference frames..the center point of that frame… to define motion
wrt..I wonder how they do that and if it might apply here as well…ummm) .. Is
every single particle in Uranus moving wrt each other, how do you know that?!
Can we not consder Uranus a whole rather then just billions upon billions of
quarks and leptons..?!...how do they move int he individual attoms?!......Why
not ask about those stars at night that are actually Galaxies with billions of
individual stars in them…do they have a center at all?....Or is it that we
consider them point source lights(EMR)?…..does It matter?.....How would have a
rotation without something going in around something else in progressive and
radial orientation to it? I think that is far more interesting and relevant
question then the obvious obfuscation, you accuse me of, but are in fact now
engaging in.... If you dont know where the common point point is then have no
business arguing geometical conepts that are not dependent upon
dimention......
Admit it …you need the confusion, the anarchy, the
chaos and disorder, the completely random universe, you cant get enough of it,
you eat it like candy.......its siren call is that of the embrace of a sweet
lover for you isn’t it….I mean ....without it….....well that just leaves love
for that Jesus God Guy…
Don’t worry Paul you can go to sleep now, that sword
that proceeds out of the mouth of the rider on the white horse long ago began
its work and has already done its work on you as it has on all the
nations….only a little more killing left to do………
--- On Sat, 12/6/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 1:43 PM
--- On Fri, 12/5/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 10:34 AM
Paul,.
.."I've asked if you would explain what is
meant by "Progressive radial orientation to a common point' with particular
reference to its application to the rotation and revolution of Uranus and the
identification of that common point in that instance"
I'm not sure what the problem is...its
spin/Daily/internal common point lay in the axis that is at 97.77 degrees to
the orbital plane, the orbital plane has its own axis of orbital
motion........one axis for "daily" rotation and one for "annual" orbital
rotation....one axis for each progressive radial orientation to a common
point.......Any and every axis lay 90 degrees to the plane of the motion in
question.....the motions must be independent of each other and isolatable from
each other otherwise you are just counting things more then once and calling
them two.....but every progresive radial orientation to a common point will
have its own axis.......The number of axis for Uranus or any body for that
matter is only limited to the amount of rotational motions present...
"the lengthening list of items which you refuse
to address" I dobut i could ever address all the items you would like me
to...im forced to focus on the most relevant and fundimental ones.....coz i
dont think i will live to be older then a 100 or so years and I have already
used quite a few.....but dont worry too much,.....I don't think it is nessisary
to look at every atom in the universe or vistit every part of the universe
before you and I can both claim victory in the assertion that atoms are very
small and the universe is very large...
--- On Fri, 12/5/08, Paul Deema
<paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 6:04 AM
Allen D
You said --
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……..
'... claiming victory ...' Yes -- it could be
so construed. I however see it as an attempt to contribute to your education in
reality. By contrast, your position is characterised by avoiding admission of
error at any cost. The most demeaning of mental gyrations is not beneath you in
this endeavour.
'... that they are completely wrong ...' Well
I've asked if you would explain what is meant by "Progressive radial
orientation to a common point" with particular reference to its application to
the rotation and revolution of Uranus and the identification of that common
point in that instance. This is only my second request so it may be too early
to add this question to the lengthening list of items which you refuse to
address but I suspect it is none the less destined for that distinction.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony
Bravia TV. Enter now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter
now.
Other related posts:
