Why wait Allen.. I'm sure you could write your answer now!.. Phil, I have already given my answer you guys cant seem to answer it period, you have not as of yet......... or maybe you just don’t want to…?! Address the baggage you guys so desparitaly do not want anyoone to consider with your definitions, aplications and approach to rotations... Arbitray picking of axis and dismissal of other posibilites even though they are equal to the one you picked...... is only selective tunnel vision not objective science........where is the objective criteria for any rotaional axis in your argument what makes one point in infinate space more valid then any other in your approach to rotation......?! You guys dont even seem to see just how ridiculous your arguments are.... Your approach logicaly leads to all infinities all valid, as of yet you have given us no reason other then you say so that one is more valid then the other.!? ...How is your approach simple or even fundimental?..How is your picking of one axis in your system that is logicaly just as equaly valid as any other infinate number of posible axis in space or "solids" using your criteria not just arbitary cherry picking?..how is that scientific?!..how is that a demonstration of anything objective based on LOE?!....Look at your own use of Rotaion where is the axis and how do you know objectivly not just your arbitray "here it is" ignore the others because "we say so"?!.....What is the objective criteria that eliminates all unessisary physical abserdities athat are just as valid in your approach..?..simply sayihg they are not or picking one above the other and saying "this is the one" is not science it is your attempt at brain washing others to see what and only you want them to see... 1……..If the disk of parent “1” is rotating or ”spinning” how many common points or axis of rotation exist for it?.. If the axis did not exist before you cut it out why or how does it exist after you cut it out?....the fundamentals are the same as long as there is some force or cause to keep it in the same orientation after the cut out as it had before the cutout……. How are you going to define where the or any axis is defined….... At the molecular level? ..the atomic level?...the quantum level?.....if the disc has one axis of rotation then your whole arguments fails to even get off the ground. If on the other hand you claim that there are more then one axis then any number of infinite axis of rotation exist in the disk parent “1”…This is what your argument leads to and you have not addressed it nor can you…..You are left without any meaningfully relationship to anything observed in reality, And the only thing you have left then are imaginary "infinities"! The definition I use has a objective distinction between motions and avoids objectively and demonsratably imaginary infinite infinities .. I''m not the one who is complicating things, I have addressed any and all scales particularly meaningful ones that “imhotep” would have used…your and Paul’s position does not and is not capable of making any distinction between any scale nor can it produce any meaningful and objective definitions without pure cherry picking of what you want us to see and ignore all of the absurdities that your ideas lead to…that is not science that is just you proclaiming look here and now where else….never mind the man behind the curtain…there is nothing to see here…..you don’t see the absurdities that your argument leads to because it is not capable of making any objective distinction other then you want us to look at this axis and igore all the others that are just as valid under your very definitions….that is not consistent ... .......any definition used to create the axis you keep referring to logically demands a axis for every single and infinite ,"infinity" you can imagine. at any "practical scale" you choose imhotep or not :-).....why? ....because what defines one just as equally defines all the others.....The error is that you do not see that your application and definition and use of rotation and its axis applies equally to every infinity you can imagine. you have no way of claiming an objective separation between your axis and infinite axis. The key point is that cannot just arbitrarily pick one axis out of all your possible infinities and call it an objective analysis of anything....cheery picking your observations and results and then calling everything else "error" is simply silly!....If you cannot separate out the motions and still observe the motion then it does not exist......period firmament or no firmament ..as the force examples all show there is and can only be a logical claim to a prevention of a rotation, not a rotation due to any demonsratable force. it always comes down to what you imagine could be vs what you can actually demonstrate......... 2. Parent 1/Cutout A -- is not an accurate analogy for the Moon in its orbit or Uranus in its orbit. An orbital plane has no mass. Though I can't do these calculations, of one thing I'm sure -- the total energy of the system would remain constant. The principle is the same ?! what connects any solid?...force not solid!?....The only question is one of "rigidness" Or elasticity but in all cases these are one and the same things fundamentally….. Why?...…even the atoms and individual molecules in a “solid” are only held together with nothing more then “force”. the electrons are held to the atom via force and yet they make up your "ridgid" bodies. Gravity itself is a force the only difference is that it is a weaker force and the only other difference is the scale of the distance between the molecules verse the distance between the orbital bodies and the scale of the force that holds them together and or permits any elasticity………The fundamental relationships are the identical! You need to fully grasp that fact first....... 3. Parent 1 is assumed to be a disk of negligible thickness and of uniform density). That can be considered true as long as you keep in mind all things are only a matter of scale…..That is not just a “minor point”…that is important to understand not only for simplicity sake but it is a key fundamental point to understand the world around you. A perfectly smooth sphere is only perfectly smooth at your scale, a wheel is only perfectly balanced at a given scale……The orbital plane of the earth moon system can be considered to fully encapsulate all of the earth and all of the moon at scale……… Otherwise, at larger scales we would have to complicated things with individual parallel planes for each molecule atom and quantum state in the body under consideration, this would lead to the infinite axis of rotation for every sigle molecule, then atom then quark and leptons and all the empty space in between as well!???…..This is the physical absurdity and failure of fully understanding these things that you and your arguments keep trying to bring us to…... However I have demonstrated the simplicity and practical applications of Fundamentally concepts. --- On Fri, 1/9/09, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 2:31 PM With eager baited breath, I stand watch.......Allen Why wait Allen.. I'm sure you could write your answer now!.. Heres how it will go. oh wait....I have to ask because in your universe things can both exist and not exist wrt the same things in the same context all simultaneously or are you saying that you realy have demonstrated soemething but it is just not a demonstration as such..??? .......ummm...You are either supporting my position in your last post and conceding the fact that you have not demonstrated anything ..........or,... ...........Oh well,........ you think I'm are seeing and or looking for cluse to your demonstrations that you now admit are not realy demonstrations...?? either way, you and I should both now be able to claim a victory in our agreement that you have in fact not demonstrated anything .....I just wish I could get you to see the same clues Iʼm seeing , but then again a man who buys his own lies is likely to have difficulty in seeing the problems with those lies..... ......I think your right about this.... I'm most certianly "picking up on clues" WOW! Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:23 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Fw: Re: Re: Uranus With eager baited breath, I stand watch....... --- On Fri, 1/9/09, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 8:09 AM --- On Thu, 1/8/09, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 9:56 PM #yiv1471406542 #yiv704539781 #yiv1291509808 #yiv2053645818 DIV { MARGIN:0px;} Allen D You are not in the right book let alone on the right page. No signs of lateral thinking at all. Never mind -- it will all be made plain soon. Probably in the next week or two. When I am ready. Paul D Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look.