[geocentrism] Uranus

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:54:09 -0800 (PST)

Phil, try to focus on :
 
If the disk of parent “1” is rotating or ”spinning” how many axis of rotations 
exist for it?.. If the axis did not exist before you cut it out then why or how 
does it exist after you cut it out?...If it does eixst before you cut it out 
how do you distinquish beteen any number of infinate posible cutouts that are 
posible with parent "1".?...The fundamentals are the exact same after the cut 
out as it was before the cutout……. How are you going to define where the or any 
axis of roation exis in parent "1"?  How is it defined wihotu having to accept 
a "infinatie number of equaly valid axis within parent "1"?…you canont just say 
"here it is" and call it objective...where do the axis stop?.... At the 
molecular level? ..the atomic level?...the quantum level? at what scale?..what 
determins what scale you are using? and how do you define any single axis you 
choose?.......if the disc (parent "1") has one axis of rotation in that 
diagram 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 in parent "1" then any number of 
infinite axis of rotation exist in the disk parent “1”…there is no difference 
between the before and after the cutouts were cut out....…..You are left 
without any meaningfully relationship to anything, the only thing you have 
left  are infinite posible "infinities"!  The definition I use has a objective 
distinction between all motions and avoids in a objectively and demonsratably 
way all those infinities .. your approach does not simplify it 
comlicates....the simple test is stop all other motions individualy and observe 
what is left...if you cannot do that then the motion you are looking for does 
not exist.... 




________________________________
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2009 7:28:45 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus

 
Thanks for confirming me Allen..  I'm just on the outside of this particular 
tempus temper illigitimo!
 
It s not that I do not understand what you are saying, if you said (wrote) 
anything understandable, its just that I cannot even read with any 
comprehension what you write. In theology yes, but in science, you are from 
another world. Phil. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:10 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus

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.... 
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


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.   
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...

Other related posts: