[geocentrism] Moon Rotation
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:51:07 -0800 (PST)
1. YES
2. Absolutely Brilliant argumentaion Paul!...I think ...yes......you just may
have this one all wraped up..umm..lets see..... Others have not come to
an agreement on my definition, as such "must therefore be
deprecated".....Kinda like saying since the equivalence principle of relativity
was a privet definition of Einstein’s,….. thus "must therefore be deprecated"
!? ..some one had to agree with it at some point even if most rejected
it......Hey Paul, what defines and constitutes a rotation is the point and
question at hand?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I have no doubt you & others have not agreed to the arguments i put
forward.....But my definition is demonstratable, reproducible and is applicable
to every rotation ever produced...and oh yea..does not depend on counting the
same motion twice or failing to distinguish between various motions...that is
the power of that definition......feel the power yet? Your argument against my
argument thus far is the fact that Google & MS do not disagree but you
feel they do not have a consensus or concur on it either...ummmm???
Yes, Paul that is a definition I coined..make no mistake about where it came
from!...If you don’t like my argument then, demonstrate the flaw......, don’t
just quote the ignorant masses .........we already know they did not make that
"discovery" !?!? I will concede that I and only I did and could have
“performed so such great a wonder" (echo...echo) ...?!
Dealing with the arguments for or against what constitutes rotation and how
that relates to the earth moon system is the task at hand.......There is no
need to tell us that you don’t like it; you don’t agree; Google cant find it;
others may or may not agree….we already know that!!!! Thus, the necessity for
discovery , examinations & argumentation...........ummmm
...............I knew we were here for some reason I just could not put my
finger on it...lol
--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation`
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 11:43 AM
Allen D
I'll look at this tomorrow but in the meantime -- in one word (where that one
word is a subset of 'yes/no') -- are the laws of physics the same at all points
in the universe?
Paul D
PS I Googled "progressive radial oreintaion to a common point" and got zero
hits. After correcting the spelling errors to get "progressive radial
orientation to a common point" I got eight hits -- all at
www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism, the 'snippets' of which all exhibited
spelling errors characteristic of Allen Daves. I believe that I am entitled to
believe that this is a private definition of rotation held by Allen Daves.
I then Googled "define:rotation". After rejecting references to tires on cars,
conduct of card games, games of pool and agricultural practise etc, none of the
definitions on offer agreed with that offered by Allen Daves.
I am therefore forced to the conclusion that "progressive radial orientation to
a common point" is not an agreed definition of 'rotation' and must therefore be
deprecated.
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter Now
Other related posts:
