[geocentrism] Moon Rotation
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:19:51 -0800 (PST)
"Allen the moons axis is several degrees off that of the earth!..does that make
two LOL.. Phil"
Yes, Phil that is two. One axis for each progresie radial oreintaion wrt
somthing else..note the things that are in progressive radial oreintaion do not
have that wrt the same things.......That axis Phil Librates back and fourth
there is another that librates up and down...that is three axis..only 9
trillion trillion more to go...that is if you take your approach with every
particle of the moon..ummmm....none of those axis even run through the same
plane.......That motion is not the same motion as the/ any motion of the orbit,
and that is the point….. How do we know?..because there is a change and
progressive radial back and forth wrt to a common point that lay through the
moon itself…that is not difficult to see or confuse, That common point lay
within the moon the other common point lay outside the moon…they are both wrt
the observer within the earth moon frame of reference…. ..One is a progressive
and regressive radial orientation to
a common point that lay on the moon itself and the other is a common
progressive radial orientation to a point that lay at the earth itself…The
observer never has a problem making that distinction and apparently you do not
either… …The distinction can be clearly made within the frame of reference
under consideration (earth moon system). We cannot go outside our frame of
reference to give ourselves a reference frame (remember me saying that). …..
The observer sees the moon make a progressive radial orientation wrt the
observer, he can also see An ADDITIONAL MOTION in the moons libration. There is
a difference between two different motions verse just one motion that is called
two,…. by now you should see the difference………well maybe not you and Paul, but
anyone else examining these post should have no problem seeing two different
motions that are defined independently of each other, not just a single motion
that you keep trying to “cut in
half” like cutting that car in half I mentioned earlier…seeing a car does not
make it two halves of a car simply because you can imagine it cut in
half….there is one car and one motion that motion as is any motion is defined
by the relative changes wrt the observer and or any 3rd bodies. However, the
same changes wrt those same bodies and or observer cannot be called two
different changes simply because you count those same relative changes wrt the
same observer once and then again wrt the 3rd bodies twice even thought they
are the same exact change for both the observer and the 3rd body….The same
relative changes wrt the same observer or bodies is not two different changes….
.…counting the money you have twice does not mean you have twice as much as you
did when you counted it the first time…..one plus itself is not two…..the
relative changes can only be counted once not twice wrt the same observer or
3rd bodies.......motion any
motion to be observed must be relative to something else…..That something else
is called the observer or other bodies that the observer sees, wrt each other,
all within the same frame of reference under consideration.
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……..
Phil again..... "Rotation needs no observer. It s a self evident truth as
defined" The fact i am the king is self evident too....!?..do you hear
yourself...what is that self evidence based on?......... Rotation is a motion
motion must be relitive to something, a observer or some other body otherwise
it is not a motion ............further, if it is it not observed one would have
to question how is it then being discussed since otherwise, we would have not
way of knowing that it was relitive to anything..... ....ummm
--- On Wed, 12/3/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 6:22 PM
Allen the moons axis is several degrees off that of the earth!..does that make
two LOL.. Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:52 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
Phil,
"But you can see the difficulty in English expression you present"
NO! I said it means more then one……. you stated no it does not mean
that……...Phil the fact there is more then one is inherent, intrinsic, integral
part of the meaning of synonymous!? You cannot separate that fact any more then
you can separate the fact that a living human has water in them!? if they are
alive ..then Phil that means water is present!?
Come to the table with some reason........ you are just attempting "linguistic
acrobatics" now... If you have a plate dill a hole in the center and put it on
a drill there is only one axis of rotation...you may consider that axis to be a
mathematical line (having no dimension) or you can also consider that axis to
have the same diameter of the plate itself...the net effect is the same....one
axis of rotation..not billions of axis for each molecule in the plate.....one
axis not many….Counting the same thing twice does not mean you have two of
them!?
--- On Wed, 12/3/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 12:22 PM
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..!?
Allen, Oh! now I get what you were trying to say, but please don't say sorry
for getting it wrong.. You said "synchronous" means more than one.. I
said it doesn't mean that at all ... two or many is more than one.. I don't
recall a single word for that meaning.. But you can see the difficulty in
English expression you present. Even this is out of this world for sense..
"you can't have a simoltanious anything with just one of them..!? "
Perhaps you may now understand my reasons, when I referred to English as being
essential for science... Philip.
Other related posts:
