[geocentrism] Moon Rotation

What you keep missing is the fact that every rotation has a single axis on 
which it rotates and that axis is defined by the relative motion between the 
object in rotation or orbit and something else……. If you spin a top(moon) it is 
in rotation on its own axis…wrt you….it is not orbiting you?! ..how do you 
know?.........If the top(moon) is orbiting you it may or may not be in rotation 
on its own axis…….what makes that determination in both cases orbit or spin is 
that the points on the toy top(moon) make a progressive radial orientation wrt 
something.....did you get that?..... the individual atoms molecules or 
something on the toy(moon) must be making a progressive radial orientation wrt 
something else or to each other as defined by something else external of the 
toy such as around each other wrt you the observer........…if there is not 
change wrt to each other as defined by that something else then there can be no 
claim of rotation!…if
 every particle on the toy top(moon) are doing the same things wrt each other 
as defined by all other objects then how do you claim there is more then one 
rotation?…..The fundamental problem you have is how do you make a formal 
distinction between one rotation and two…or even three or more …..how do you 
know how many rotations exist at all period?…resting your laurels on your 
ambiguity and inability to make distinctions is hardly something to be proud 
of, and yet not only do you seem proud of your lack of achievement but you brag 
about it to each other…look how smart you and Paul are, you two can imagine 
things so mixed up that you can’t define or make distinctions about 
anything!?....Einstein talked about that..something to the effect ….Any idiot 
can make things more complicated, it takes real genius to go in the opposite 
direction….....Your definitions will not and are not capable of making these or 
any distinctions, ....….mine
 can... feel the power…hold it in your hands .........become one with the 
force.....give me a break.....


--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 8:42 AM








--- On Sun, 11/30/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 2:34 PM


 
Allen I was so perplexed with this I left it alone, not intending to answer, 
because we seemed to be on two different planets or moons...But in the end, i 
couldn't resist ...  I insert my perplexities in brown below.. with what are I 
hope suitable words common to the lowest common denominator. 
Keep in mind, we are talking and have been through this subject, from the 
heliocentric universe point of view. , for easier comprehension. 









From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 8:46 PM

 
Phil,
 
The key to your whole post and very own experiment is that fact that the 
toothpick changes orientation wrt something.....well gee wiz......This makes my 
case but not yours...If this be true, theny ou are very perplexing 
indeed........There are no particles on the moon changing orientation wrt to 
anything... your example is a valid experiment that demonstrates a change in 
orientation... The moon nor any place or object on the moon is not?
Please let me explain what you seemed to have missed.. The simile of the 
experiment and the moon.  
 
1. The moon floats in space and has no friction with its environment,,
 
2. As much as is possible, the water in the glass floats in the glass and has 
no friction with its environment... Yes there is friction, but for the short 
time of the experiment it is ignored as negligible. 
 
There are no particles on the moon 
3. The moon has a face..  one of the craters representing the nose of the man 
in the moon are the particles on the moon which have orientation . This 
orientation is always pointed at the earth. 
 
4. The toothpick in the water I put there because the water has no face or 
marks ..  This represented the nose of the man in the water. 
 
5. When I swung the bowl of water through 90degres of arc, representing 90 
degrees of orbit, the inertia of the water kept it stationary, ie it did not 
spin.. It would not rotate. After 90 degrees of orbit, he face of the man was 
not still looking at me.. It was still pointing in the original direction. say 
N - S  . 
 
6. But when the moon moves through 90 degrees of orbit, it simultaneously turns 
90degrees to keep its nose facing the centre of the orbit. 
 
This is called synchronous rotation.. 
 
Something the water inthe glass did not have. 
 
I could have tried to stir the glass of water enough to give the tooth pick 
floating  in it a rotation ..Yes?  spinning once per second? yes?  And then 
moved it again around a 90 degree arc or a full circle if I was sober in the 
exact same one second.. 
 
Voiler the toothpick nose will now keep pointing at the centre of the arc, 
throughout the whole circle of orbit.....
 
Why?  Because I gave it a spin, a rotation if you like..  
 
Why you insist in agreeing  that it is spinning in the glass whilst stationary, 
, yet deny that it is spinning because I made it orbit at the same time ,,,,  
is well  hmmm   its perplexing...  
 
In light of this new clarification , perhaps you might like to rewrite the rest 
below,   Forgrt the moon because you are letting cosmology get in the way..  
Lets stick to mechanics..where I'm comfortable.  The mechanical principle will 
still apply to the celestial bodies.  Phil. 
 
The reasons why and the forces involved in producing that change are irrelevant 
to the fact that the change has taken place ...now if you could just show us a 
point on the moon that changes wrt some other point that lay in the moon you 
would have it licked...the problem is motion any kind of motion must be 
relative to something else and in consideration of all other things.......well 
the moon does not change orientation wrt to earth.. only wrt the back ground 
stars the earth is the pivot or common point that those changes ...you cant 
have a rotation if there is no change wrt something else....and how many other 
things and where they are located wrt each other determines where and what the 
common point or axis of any and all relative Rotations are...if you do not have 
a relative rotation you certainly cannot have any real rotation..........as for 
your thoughts at the bottom MS does use the Graviational feilds as frames of 
reference for motion and lack
 thereofe...that is wahy they call them inertial reference frames......you know 
grav and inertia are one and the same in MS.....but all that goes back to the 
acceleration Points I raised a few months ago, and the difference between 
relitive and absolute motion ..is there such a thing we say yes...AC says 
not...experiment and logic are on our side...





 
I Think i shall attempt to break for the holiday weekend :-)    .........Happy 
thanksgiving everyone and for all those who don't celebrate it......happy days 
anyways........

--- On Thu, 11/27/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, November 27, 2008, 6:45 PM







From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 8:46 PM

 
Phil,
 
The key to your whole post and very own experiment is that fact that the 
toothpick changes orientation wrt something.....well gee wiz......This makes my 
case but not yours..........There are no particles on the moon changing 
orientation wrt to anything... your example is a valid experiment that 
demonstrates a change in orientation... The moon nor any place or object on the 
moon is not?
 
The reasons why and the forces involved in producing that change are irrelevant 
to the fact that the change has taken place ...now if you could just show us a 
point on the moon that changes wrt some other point that lay in the moon you 
would have it licked...the problem is motion any kind of motion must be 
relative to something else and in consideration of all other things.......well 
the moon does not change orientation wrt to earth.. only wrt the back ground 
stars the earth is the pivot or common point that those changes ...you cant 
have a rotation if there is no change wrt something else....and how many other 
things and where they are located wrt each other determines where and what the 
common point or axis of any and all relative Rotations are...if you do not have 
a relative rotation you certainly cannot have any real rotation..........as for 
your thoughts at the bottom MS does use the Graviational feilds as frames of 
reference for motion and lack
 thereofe...that is wahy they call them inertial reference frames......you know 
grav and inertia are one and the same in MS.....but all that goes back to the 
acceleration Points I raised a few months ago, and the difference between 
relitive and absolute motion ..is there such a thing we say yes...AC says 
not...experiment and logic are on our side...





 
I Think i shall attempt to break for the holiday weekend :-)    .........Happy 
thanksgiving everyone and for all those who don't celebrate it......happy days 
anyways........
 

--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:








 
I Think i shall attempt to break for the holiday weekend :-)    .........Happy 
thanksgiving everyone and for all those who don't celebrate it......happy days 
anyways........
 
 
 


--- On Wed, 11/26/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 3:26 PM


 
#yiv1839199474 #yiv1952058879 #yiv1873026499 #yiv2019395373 #yiv916325177 DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}


slight correction. 

3.  At normal speeds.    As a body moves in any direction, this motion does not 
alter the position of its centre of gravity..  therefore it must be accepted 
that any rotation around this centre of gravity is un perturbed by any other 
motion of the body. i.e. the centripetal/centrifugal forces, remain unchanged . 
(this centrifugal force is the only indicator of real rotation, as observation 
with our eyes can be an illusion) .

----- Original Message ----- 
From: philip madsen 
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:55 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation


Paul, I have been thinking more on a practical demo for this rotation model for 
the moon. I know Allen calls it imagination, but then that is what all text 
books are, but the graphical representation of imagined theory of operation. I 
know this is basic to you, but with all the complicated mumbo jumbo being 
floated, I need to make it clearer for the layman , who must be absolutely 
confused by now. 
 
Some base principles..  are in order .''  Keep in mind this is standard physics 
as demonstratable in any lab..  It does not include my exotic theories on the 
aether or concern itself with explaining geocentrism, which must fit with 
observable/measurable facts anyway
 
1.    A body rotates around its centre of gravity. Where that is can only be 
presumed based upon calculation which accepts the constituents distribution of 
the mass of the body. It can be confirmed by actual observations of 
perturbations of orbits.  A fairly accurate science as astronomical predictions 
often prove. Pretty good considering nobody but Jules has been to the centre of 
the earth to see what it is made of. 
 
2.  The rotation of the body is a motion experienced by the mass itself, and 
the magnitude of the effects of this rotation , ie the centripetal/centrifugal 
forces it experiences , is independent of any other object or observation. ie  
if there is no rotation there is no centripetal force. 
  
3.  At normal speeds.    As a body moves in any direction, its motion does not 
alter the position of its centre of gravity..  therefore it must be accepted 
that any rotation around this centre of gravity is un perturbed by any motion 
of the body. i.e. the centripetal/centrifugal forces, remain unchanged . (this 
centrifugal force is the only indicator of real rotation, as observation with 
our eyes can be an illusion) .
 
4.    From 3, it must be deduced that if a spherical body is set in motion 
around its axis through its centre of gravity, and kept in motion at exactly 
the same force, and rpm,  and is then moved in an orbital path around a central 
point, it will continue to exhibit the same centrifugal forces due to initial 
rpm imparted to it.  Now the moon needs no motor, as there is negligible  
friction to slow it down. 
 
5.    Further, if the orbital period just happened to be the same number as the 
rotational speed of the Sphere,  then this coincidence will cause the sphere to 
present the same face to the centre of the orbit. This is a true mechanical 
representation .. There is no need for a primary planet if the motions are 
controlled on a bench top model .. In the case of the moon, it is a 
coincidence, ( God Planned) but in our experiment we can plan it to be that 
way. 
 
6.    But most assuredly, the centrifugal forces due to these rpm of the sphere 
will remain measurable and be exactly the same as they were when the sphere was 
revolving stationary before it was set in any motion.
 
Keeping those basics in mind we now need to make a turntable , a record player 
is fine. Next we  need a speherical mass like a marble that is vertically 
attached to a "frictionless " shaft through its central axis at the periphery 
of the turntable. Mark the marble so that any spin can be observed. 
 
Turn the turntable slowly..  You will see that the marble will not turn , but 
keep its face pointed in the direction it had at the beginning..  Of course the 
shaft friction will eventually effect this experiment.   but the effect is 
proven . the marble will not rotate, and it will not present the same face to 
the centre as the turntable turns. 
 
This is not imagination I have done the experiment another way and proved it.. 
As can anyone interested. Hold a glass of water close to your chest . On the 
surface of the water is a floating toothpick pointing at you , just to let you 
see what happens to the water .. The friction between the water and the glass 
is negligible. 
 
Now turn yourself slowly a full circle if you want.. doesn't matter. You will 
see that the water will not rotate in the glass , and the tooth pick will keep 
its orientation..It will not keep pointing at you.   
 
In fact it is difficult to make the water spin this way. 
 
Now this tells you something else. I have long ago considered the forces 
involved here. 
 
Let us seize up the bearing in the marble with glue, so that it cannot keep its 
orientation. When you now turn the turntable, the marble will present the same 
face to the centre..  But what else?  Can you not see the force being made to 
break the glue on the bearing, as the marbles inertia tries to keep its 
original orientation? Extra work is actually being done on the turntable to 
force the marble to spin. 
 
Now I will leave you all with a little thought experiment, which just occurred 
to me and which I havn't considered yet. 
 
How does relativity effect rotations..  keeping in mind the centrifugal forces 
mentioned above. 
 
 
Let us put the marble on the same central shaft of the turntable and spin them 
up to 100 rpm. 
 
The turntable will have a centrifugal force.. and the marble also will have its 
own centrifugal force due to its own mass. 
 
Now free up the marbles shaft and spin it in the opposite direction at exactly 
the same 100rpm.
 
Will the marble appear stationary to us? Will its centrifugal force be any 
different? 
 
I think I got it already.... But then put the marble back on the periphery, and 
spin it up again in the opposite direction....
 
Philip.  
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Paul Deema 
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 2:53 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation





Philip M
Some comments in <colour>
 
From philip madsen Tue Nov 25 12:23:12 2008 Re: Moon Rotation
Thats an ingenious idea Paul..<Ahem! Thank you ... thank you ...>  Something I 
never visualised.. another way of twisting a cable?  Now I know why my hose 
twists up as I walk around the yard watering..  I'll have to learn to retrace 
my steps ..  Have you investigated the bank/money /Government borrowing  scam 
yet?  Your life does depend on it.. <I've read your 'Funny Money' and Open 
Letter to PM. I will try to put something together soon but it is something I'd 
prefer to spend a little time with. A warning though, I cannot support your 
position. I hope my reasoning will satisfy you even if your conversion is not 
complete.|[:-)>
 
From philip madsen Tue Nov 25 14:30:19 2008 Re: Moon Rotation
That actually is another proof I missed paul..  If the moon lost its primary, 
the earth, it would move off tangentally in a straight line, and it would keep 
its same rotation of 28 days for the Helioman and 24 hours for the 
geoman.. <Exactly so. See attachment prepared in advance and here revealed for 
the very first time!> This could be easily done on the kitchen table, by simply 
doubling the orbit diameter on the model, where in the moon would no longer 
show the same face, 
 
Paul D














Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter Now

Other related posts: