[geocentrism] Re: Uranus

"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.

GIF image

GIF image

Other related posts: