[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Uranus

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:18:01 +1000

This stuff is too complex for me,

Marc V.


Allen thank you for the explanations on rotation.  I find them very clear and 
much simpler than MS explanations (espoused by Phil & Paul). 
Marc Veilleux 

Then please tell me Marc, if it is "very clear", what you understood from what 
Allen said in simple language as you understand it. Tell us in your own words 
what "a progressive radial orientation to a common point." means using Main 
stream science principles. Please, not as the Bible or the church has stated 
things.  . Keep in mind Allen is not talking about the aether here. Allen has 
been claiming to espouse MS principles in discussing  a simple mechanical 
problem not as complex really as the orbiting gears in a car differential. 

Philip. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:27 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Uranus


  Allen, thank you for the explanations on rotation.  I find them very clear 
and much simpler than MS explanations (espoused by Phil & Paul).  The Moon is 
unique in the Word of God; so it seems reasonable to believe it shares some of 
the fixedness of the Earth (i.e. it doesn't rotate around another axis than 
(near) the center of the Earth - but it is really the aether that rotate around 
that axis carrying the Moon with it - and the aether cannot rotate on a 
different axis than the one around the Earth!).   

  With Uranus there is (at least) two scenarios: 

  1- If it orbits around the Earth : it is the aether that carries (in 
rotation) Uranus around the axis (near) the center of the Earth and Uranus has 
another axis (undetermined) that makes it do what it does.

  2- If it orbits around the Sun: the aether cause Uranus to rotate around the 
axis (near) the center of the Earth and it seems to have 2 more axis of 
rotation.

  This stuff is too complex for me,

  Marc V.


  Christus Imperat, 

  Marc Veilleux 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From:  allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Reply-To:  geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    To:  geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Subject:  [geocentrism] Fw: Uranus
    Date:  Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:11:25 -0800 (PST)


            
          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: