Allen D
To my question regarding the universality of the laws of physics, you have
answered "1. YES". Thank you. I do so applaud forthrightness.
We have a problem when you choose to make up your own private definitions. The
definitions which have been in use for hundreds of years when discussing
Newtonian physics have proven durable and useful. To make things easier for
your long suffering readers, you would be well advised to use those. Because
you do not (at least in this particular matter) I have attempted to explore
this problem with visual representations (you know -- drawing pictures?) and I
commend to you for your response the attached file -- ThreeObjects.png.
I'm not going to get bogged down attending to all the minutia in your recent
posts on this subject. However I will make a few observations. To make this
easier, I have extracted all the text from recent posts and comments are in
<colour>.
Paul D
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Paul,
See attached:
1. The fact that a rotation of some kind exist does not itself tell you whether
the axis of that rotation is around a point that lay inside or outside ( orbit)
the body in question.... The ruber band twisting only tells us that something
is going around somthing else .... ....it does not tell you where the axis
is...nor is it even capable of tell you that.....
2. No one is questioning that some kind of rotation exist somwhere out there
wrt these two bodies …..The point of contention is what is rotatiing around
what; <Right here is the nub of the problem. A discrete body rotates around
*its own centre of gravity*. Where two or more bodies are involved, the bodies
*revolve* around one or more barycentres. The participating bodies may or may
not be rotating about an axis of any orientation.> where does the common point
on that axis of rotation lay? <There is no common point.>…A orbit is a rotation
but it is a rotation who’s axis lay outside the body in question v a typical
rotation where the axis of the rotation lay inside the body in question…
…internal to the moon rotation on the moons axis or rotation around a common
point that lay outside the moon…..orbit around a axis at the earth.. <It's that
problem again -- your private definition is hindering understanding. You're
trying to force the
problem into a mould not designed to receive it.>
3. Counting the same motion twice does not mean there are two motions.. There
is only one motion and only one can be objectively demonstratied and defined.
your argument is nothing more then taking the same motion and counting it as
two different motions...sure you can do that...but just becuse you count all
the money in your wallet twice does mean you have twice as much......?!
<Specious.>
Allen
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Paul,
1. Im not assuming anything , only poinint out that you cant rest your evidence
on assumptions....that was a argument of your postion not mine...I did not
attempt to use what the moon would or would not do if it were sudenly released
from its orbit...only pointing out that niether can you..<My illustration
'BallOffRing' did not identify any object as 'moon'>
2. ....I chose that defining because it sucintly captures the essence of a
rotaion...but merely having a rotaion does not tell you what is in rotataion
around what and there in lies your problem..<No -- the problem lies with your
insistance upon redefining a phenomenon which does not need redefining. What
follows then, is irrelevant.>..the rotation exist internal or external to the
body in question or both simoltaniously...i can objectively define and
demonstrate them ...you resort to counding a motion twice and calling it two
motions....otherwise you have to demonstrate the distinqution between the
motion...it is that to which you have not done nor can you using your
approach...I have proven my affermation by demonstrating the converse of it to
be in error...that is a indirect proof but logicaly valid untill shown
otherwise. I'm sure if you pick up several dictionaries you can find any number
of deffintions....that does not mean the deffintions are not
relevant or valid..A progressive radial oreintaion to a common point is a
rotation by nature..I have already affirmed and demonstrated that every
rotation has thoes common elements........no your problem is demonstrating how
that particular deffintion is not valid or relevant or somehow in error. Some
things are self evident....If you dont agree that this is ...ok, fine...now
demonstrate the folly here...They say answeres are easy to find, asking the
right questions is the real difficulty.......maybe it is because you don't
properly define your terms <Oh! Come on Allen! That's rich coming from you!>
first as one the reason you can't seem to objectivley show the "real truth" you
are trying to demonstrate.
All motion is relative to Something other then itself …..the discussion is the
rotation of the moon..with respect to what does it rotate if it rotates?.<No --
rotations are readily detected without outside reference.>.the earth?!..NO it
has not change in orientation wrt the earth…thus it cannot be said to have a
relative motion wrt earth!? .no relitive motion, no real rotation!? <No real
sense can be made of this statement.>…Paul and Phil, Imagining that you are a
omnipotent god looking down from the heavens over earth is not science, nor is
that objective nor is that a objective definition and demonstration of the
existance of a real motion. Merely counting the sacred cows twice does not me
you have twice as many sacred cows as before…Motion is only motion relative to
other REAL bodies not imaginary ones!?…..….. without the reality of another
body to have relative motion wrt, then there can be no logical or valid claim
for a motion that is
dependent on something that does not exist!? This is the difference between
reality and imagination….creating imaginary frames of reference and moving them
around using imaginary physics does not constitute a motion in reality……You are
confused and confusing demonstratable reality with pure imaginations of
nonsense. <None of this makes sense either.>
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
1. YES <As remarked above. The one really bright point in all this verbiage.>
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
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=taglineAttachment:
ThreeObjects.PNG
Description: PNG image
