"My logic quite logically lead you into a trap that so horrified you," You selected for comment Allen, and bypassed the previous paragraph which had the science, In other words you were looking for personal accreditation, not science . "Well Allen DID NOT show how , at any rpm. at numerically equal rotations and orbits, that the same face would NOT always point to the centre. Even when it doing it in front of his eyes. Allen, you waffled about ....(note there must be some "engine" ....} which has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of the demonstration as can be seen by all. " What you see with the top is definitely what is happening. I don't want an exotic explanation. Just that you agree that what can be seen is happening. i.e. PROVIDING OF COURSE THE ROTATION AND ORBITS ARE IN THE SAME DIRECTION, if they are numerically equal, the orbiter will always face the centre of the orbit. I must remind you that at the start of this dialogue, you claimed that if the same face was presented to the centre of the orbit, then the object WAS NOT ROTATING. with particular reference to the moon. My leaning top has a ball that is presenting the same face to the centre. It is rotating on its bottom bearing. How can you say the ball on the other end of the shaft is not rotating? That is a contradiction of reality. Look again. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: philip madsen To: geocentrism list Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:11 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus Well Allen DID NOT show why, at any rpm. even 500, and 500orbits per minute, that the same face would NOT always point to the centre. Even whilst I can see it doing it in front of my eyes. Allen, you waffled about ....(note there must be some "engine" ....} which has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of the demonstration. My logic quite logically lead you into a trap that so horrified you, that you had to change the subject to the nature of forces, since the nature of forces are what you are not understanding. Yet only two days back I was not allowed to discuss forces, it was MOTIONS remember. "forces aren't motions" you said. I understand what force means... I have to conclude it is not about learning Allen, but your inability or refusal, to admit anything that contradicts your position, even when the evidence is before everybodys eyes. The 2nd drawing quite CLEARLY shows two axis of two separate motions, intersecting at the bearing point. One a rotating top, and the other an orbiting ball.. I do NOT expect you to see, because you refuse to look. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Deema To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:49 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus Philip M Even as you were writing it, you were wondering what that slippery old eel -- eh! Allen -- would dream up this time, weren't you? He's just so 'creative' isn't he? Paul D ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 9 December, 2008 3:20:09 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus Phil, O'deary....i can live with a YES..to everything up to this point..... From here I want you to relook at this demonstration from the beginning and alter the rate of rotation of the top to spin at 100 rpm, and keep the orbits at 100 orbits per minute. They are synchronised. This is the only change we make. Will the ball now present the same face to the centre of the orbit? Difficult for anyone to visualise?. then try it with the spin of the shaft just One rpm and the orbit just one orbit per minute. Of course the answer is yes. And we have two separate motions." NO!......You not going to like this at all and it is sure to keep your (not mine) debate going until either someone intellectually honest from the MS side of the aisle explains it to you, or you start to consider the forces involed........but the short of it is Phil, the only way to get your 100 RPM between your orbit and your spin to “synchronize”…is to continue to reduce the force applied to the spin of the ball until such time as there is a net zero spin force and a net zero spin rate wrt the parent body and the satellite….Phil, I’m sorry but this is fact that is can demonstrated even using your own basic apparatus for your own experiment, no matter what RPM and orbital rate you use....(note there must be some "engine" in both the orbit and the spin of your apparatus to cause thoes motions i will reference that force since the nature of forces are what you are not understanding..) I will attempt to show this to you without going into all the techno jargon….but first I want the “shock” of what I just said to wear off so you will be able to think with a clear mind…..…so…go ahead and get it out all of your system , ..let it all out……I know the things I just said are outrageous to your scientific mind!….. If you can pull yourself from the shock of my outrageous statements, and hold back your fury long enough to tell us,…. no trick question, I will give you my answer first……think about it….Is it possible to have two identical motors (Forces)under identical environmental conditions to produce the same effects with different energy inputs/outputs and rotation rates of the two motors…? I would of course say no and expect anyone one else to say the same since if the RPMs or energy inputs are not the same then either the environmental conditions or the effects and or both are not the same…thus I would say if the effects are the same for two identical motors then the conditions are the same as well…..what say you? If you disagree please tell us how we can have two identical motors under identical conditions have two different effects … If you agree then for the two identical motors to have the same effects they must be in under identical conditions……. --- On Tue, 12/9/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 7:16 AM --- On Mon, 12/8/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 3:49 PM Alan If I am a stupid student, then you are like the incompetent teacher I have often known, who fails to help the student understand. If I fail to understand it is the teachers fault not the stupid students. At least thats how I judged myself when in the business of instructing classes. I am having one last attempt. Pure mechanical rotations no liberations, (am already liberated) what ever that is . So may I take the chalk and in front of the class ask the teacher to answer a sequence of questions over the following diagrams . Please answer in the space provided, so that all the class of varying stupidities may really understand. Class lesson on motion This diagram represents a disc top like kids spin. It is set to spin at 500 rpm This question may sound stupid, but for stupid onlookers will you agree that the Ball at the top is spinning 500rpm as well as the arrow bearing at the bottom. Tick YES or NO Now we have set the top gyrating as happens when it is put off balance. The shaft is still made to spin at 500 rpm but in addition the ball is now moving in An orbit as shown by the arrowed circle above it, at 100 orbits per minute. Do you agree that as the shaft and bearing point is still rotating at 500 rpm the ball likewise is still spinning (rotating) 500 rpm. tick YES NO do you agree then that there are two motions of the ball. One rotating at 500rpm and the other orbiting (translating) at 100 orbits per minute. Tick YES NO So far everybody should have answered yes to all questions. From here I want you to relook at this demonstration from the beginning and alter the rate of rotation of the top to spin at 100 rpm, and keep the orbits at 100 orbits per minute. They are synchronised. This is the only change we make. Will the ball now present the same face to the centre of the orbit? Difficult for anyone to visualise?. then try it with the spin of the shaft just One rpm and the orbit just one orbit per minute. Of course the answer is yes. And we have two separate motions. Please note I have always said motions, not rotations. the ball rotates, once and it orbits or tramslates once. Two separate motions. From here perhaps we can jump from simple mechanics to celestial motions, and consider the moon. Allen if you have an objection and must answer No at any point down this page, please note your reason in the appropriate place. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:21 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus Rotaion: A progressive Radial oreintaion to a common point......?! Gee wiz wiz Phil are you and Paul both having a bout of stupenditis?!…Things move in a direction and way such that way that its effects would follow the spokes on a “wheel” (Perfect circle or not) That is a radial orientation!……That radial motion is defined wrt a common point aka the hub of that same wheel!……… (like the center of mass or geometric center) It is not that hard...in fact you might could even say "it is self evident"!? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now.