[geocentrism] Moon Rotation
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Philip,
"Allen opens up a rebuttal with, "Synchronous means more then one...OK "
No Allen it does not mean more than one.. HERE IS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED
MEANING".....
Phil.....you can't have a simoltanious anything with just one of them..!?
Paul,
You an't gona get no confession outa me you dirty coper.....I take you all
wits me...
...Like the villan always says on "scooby dooby doo" mysteries....."Ida goten
away with too, if it hadnt been for thoes meddeling kidds".....
There is just one problem with your theory of "who done it".........
1. I never Referenced Wikipedia.......?.
2. I Openly admitted long ago months in fact, that coined that definiton and
again on recently I stated "I and I alone could have created so great a
wonder (echo echo)." ..see even complete with my own sound effects......I even
went ever further and said you dont need to tell us you cant find it .....we
already know that1?.......by George..... Paul you might be on to a very
sinister scheme indeed..LOL....
3. Even If I had been the one to reference Wkipeadea, I would have referenced
this..........
"If a rotation around a point or axis is followed by a second rotation around
the same point/axis, a third rotation results. The reverse (inverse) of a
rotation is also a rotation. Thus, the rotations around a point/axis form a
group. However, a rotation around a point or axis and a rotation around a
different point/axis may result in something other than a rotation, e.g. a
translation."
Note the diagram to the right of it....I did not edit any of that....you cant
have a second without defining the first!...counting the same thing twice dose
not mean you have two of them!?.....(by the way, Phil you can't have a
simoltanious anything with just one of them..!?).........That that object in
the diagram looks suspeciouly like a radial oreintaion around a common
point....ummmmmm..........,I did not say you could find that deffintion
anywhere in fact again i stated you could not becuase I coined it!?............
I stated that you could find the same elements in the one I coined......so why
the nessesity to quote myself to "cover" for myself is yet another mystery it
seems.....well call call that "scooby dooby doo".....episode "the phantom
rotation"...(echo echo)
Ok...just one problem with three faces, just like your one rotation with two
differnt axis.?!
........ummm :-D...
What is you nifty new physics site again....i might be able to find the
elements i disused there as well.....
PS. Phil......you can't have a simoltanious anything with just one of them..!?..
"Alan asks? "WHAT IS & IS NOT A ROTATION.(as it relates to any motion )"...
You don't know! I have always considerd "rotation" as a body's spin around
its own axis."
I defined Rotation on several occations...in fact most of the post are centered
on that very definiton......around its own axis...yes.....and that is
demonstrated as all motion is wrt somthing....you can't count the same thing
twice and call it two of them..!? so what is your rotation wrt?..the observer
at the earth?......no the observer sees the progresive radial oreintaion wrt
and around the earth.........If you could get a spacespip to translate around
the earth above and with the moons orbit tI supose it would see a
rotation......although that would requires additional motion so that realy is
not a rotation in and of itself if it requires addtional motions to see
it...?...ummmm...well we are waiting.....
--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- On Tue, 12/2/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 2:48 PM
I remember my first year into science as a subject, bitterly opposing the fact
that English was an essential component. ... what has poetry to do with atoms
and stuff! I cried. It seems that even in the 40's the decline was
beginning. I was infected. The teacher did half convince me that Science would
fail without the most perfect of communication skills. Yet mob rule seems to
have won, and perfect communication is no more. When University Professors so
easily find nothing wrong with a "Kill-om-eter" science is very low indeed. And
never more so have I been convinced of this , as when we dialogue with Allen.
Phil said, "This is called synchronous rotation.." meaning in normal science
as regards the moons rotation relative to its orbit around the earth.
Allen opens up a rebuttal with, "Synchronous means more then one...OK "
No Allen it does not mean more than one.. HERE IS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED
MEANING
1.
occurring at the same time; coinciding in time; contemporaneous; simultaneous.
2.
going on at the same rate and exactly together; recurring together.
and in science,
3.
Physics, and Electricity. having the same frequency (period) and zero phase
difference.
Hope that helps..
As I used the word rotation, here is another simple detailed restatement. When
the rotational spin of the moon is in the plane of its orbit and has the same
frequency as the orbit, with zero phase difference... It will always present
the same face to the primary.
Alan asks? "WHAT IS & IS NOT A ROTATION.(as it relates to any motion )"...
You don't know! I have always considerd "rotation" as a body's spin around
its own axis. such spin creating centrifugal force.. Rotation of a free body
is not affected by any other motion of that body due to any other forces. ie it
is an independent motion. If there is no centrifugal force , there is no
rotation or spin..
Gerneral dictionaries confuse the issue, and Wiki often has to differentiate
between false common usage, and the real defined technical term... Such is the
sad state of affairs.. And we are all infected. So I am not criticising Allen
if he has a communication problem.
The dictionary says,
Rotation :
1.
the act of rotating; a turning around as on an axis.
2.
Astronomy.
a.
the movement or path of the earth or a heavenly body turning on its axis.
b.
one complete turn of such a body.
Notice the very bad presentation of English usage, where the word "path"
is used. A rotating body is not an orbiting body, and has no path, unless there
is some other movement .Also it is possible to rotate 20% of a turn, so b.
above is incorrect. . The correct term to avoid confusion when speaking of
motion in an orbit, is to "orbit".. An orbit is NOT a rotation.. It is
independent of rotation.
orbit Show phonetics
verb [I or T]
to follow a curved path around a planet or star:
This dictionary fails to state that orbit is a mechanical term, not only
applied to astronomy. We do have orbiting gears.. Cambridge dictionary mentions
nothing of this?
Another confusing term is revolve and revolution. often used interchangeably
with spin (rotation) and orbiting. and gyrate also .. ...
But whilst it is commonly used to say an orbiting body revolves around a
centre, it is often confused with rotation.. Ie I've seen it said that a wheel
revolves.. but this is because the wheel has a rim, which predominates in this
usage. A rotating body should not be said to be revolving., even though it is
quite acceptable to say a rotating body has so many revolutions per given
time.....
I have avoided wiki for definitions because wiki is accessed and modified by
people who most often are not in command of good communication skills such as
the English language. To obtain these definitions one must consult ancient
books printed pre 1950, or thereabouts.
All of the above is an introduction necessary to allow me define the
difference in modern imprecise terms the true position. as regards orbit and
rotation.
Rotation is the angular turning of a body around an axis geometrically central
to itself.
Revolving, gyrating, or orbiting, is the angular turning of a body around an
axis that is displaced from its centre, and which can be within or external to
the body under discussion. Whether these motions are forced or natural has
nothing to do with the definitions exactitude. A body may have both types of
motion simultaneously, synchronised or otherwise.. But they are separate and
independent motions.
Philip.
.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
Phil, ......you are getting lost in your own...exotic experiment(s) and are
completely loosing site of .....WHAT IS & IS NOT A ROTATION.(as it relates to
any motion )...I am I dealing with the issues. ,The problem is you think your
experiments demonstrate something other then a change wrt something else!?
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..
Synchronous means more then one...OK ..that is what we want you to demonstrate
not merely assert exist!.......you are claiming two separate Rotations....we
know what the first(orbit) rotation is wrt the earth..........Now what is
the second rotation wrt?!.........counting the same rotation twice does not
mean you have two different axis..those axis are defined by the relative
positions and motions of all the other bodies......so where in the universe can
you go and show us a body where any point on the moon is making a progressive
radial orientation to another point on the moon....hint take that toy and spin
it....it is in rotation on its on axis wrt you the observer...now where in the
universe can we go and observe that for the moon!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!??! you cant
demonstrate it because it does not exist either in imagination or
reality! Until you can answer that Phil there is nothing for me to address...i
have already answered and demonstrated
objectively that the rotation cannot be claimed or demonstrated based on any
consistent objective criteria!...not as matter of proof but for crying out loud
maybe you should consider that .. EVEN REGENER OUR RESIDENT MS EXPERT DID NOT
AGREE WITH YOU….so i dont know how you are claiming you are looking at it from
the HC perspective?!..........maybe just maybe, I’m not the one who is “out of
his depth”…
--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 3:02 PM
--- On Mon, 12/1/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 2:32 PM
Allen I'd appreciate it if your reply would specifically deal with the points I
made in my experiment, and show me where my conclusons are mechanically unsound
or incorrect. Just coming back with a ramble that has no relationship to my
experiment gets you and me nowhere. Your just being obstropolis.. It is the
usual ploy of people who are out of their depth, Like the tall cedars, who are
so far out in space, they no longer can appreciate the simplicity of the simple
daisy..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 2:48 AM
Subject: [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
#yiv1300410507 #yiv1055898255 #yiv1299975767 #yiv1831187578 #yiv1333830113
#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:
