[geocentrism] Re: Uranus

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:14:23 +1000

I'm sorry Allen, but I cannot make out a single thing you are saying here..  
Will you simplify by explaining and defining those expressions which I insert 
by changing the color to purple thus ?  question mark near or after. 
I repeat  
But this is besides the matter.  We are not discussing about how the motion 
comes about, which has nothing to do with the geometry of the motion. . You 
said there is only one motion, translation, and no rotation, of any orbiting 
object that is showing the same face to the centre. 

Forget everything else I said about forces, leave energise out of the equation, 
let us treat of pure geometrical form. A simple animated diagram.

I will explain the detail. 

A weightless sphere on a shaft also weightless set at 20 degerees off vertical 
axis spins once per period P.  It is rotating. It will have a mark indicating 
the starting point, pointing at the central vertical axis. 

At the same time in the same period P the sphere attached to the shaft still 
fixed at the bottom to the vertical axis,  performs a single 360 degree orbit 
of the vertical axis . 

During this orbit it will present the same face to the central axis. 

Duriing this orbit the shaft will be seen to be rotating one spin per period P, 
quite easily at the bottom bearing point on the vertical axis.   Do you agree 
with that?

If the bottom end of the shaft is always spinning, why is the top end where the 
sphere is attached , not spinning, simply because it is made to translate in an 
orbit? Are you not making the impossible happen, ie that a solid shaft can spin 
at one end, and not at the other? 

Philip. 




Phil 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:55 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus


        Philp,

        The top & motor that is in sync? with the orbit...is the top and motor 
that is not rotating and not energized.?..!?!.....It is not energized ? nor is 
it in rotation before you start the orbit  and it will not be energised or in 
rotaion when you stop the orbit....thus there can be no claim  to a rotaional 
force or a rotational motion when the only one demonstrated is the orbit...!?! 
How can this be so hard look at the diagram..which top/motor is in sync?...the 
energized motor rotating at 100 rpm or the motor that is not energised and not 
in rotation?!......Phil....The only motor and top that keep the same side to 
the center of the plate(orbit) is the motor and top that is not moving before 
the oribt begins and when you stop the orbit....!?!?!?!?!......... What bases 
are you caliming rotation and or Rotational force exist during the 
orbit....?!.The only force was in the orbit the only rotation is demonstrated 
in the orbit.....the progresive radial orientaion is to a point that lay 
outside the top (orbit) there is no progressive radial orientaion to a point 
that lay within the top, if it did..then phill it would and could not be in 
sync!..the fact it is is in sync demands no force and no rotation 
present!.........Rotational force was your argument not mine!?..i did not 
change the subject i delt with your arguments!?




                --- On Sun, 12/14/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

                  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
                  To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                  Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 1:38 PM


                   
                  "but you cannot have a motion without a force"   said Allen.

                  Maybe I can be corrected here, but last time I thought about 
it, a force is only applied during the acceleration phase. Once a body is in 
motion without anything to slow it , it will move without a force forever. But 
an orbiting object is accelerating.  So a force is constantly applied. In the 
case of the moon, it is falling constantly towards the earth due to the force 
of gravity. 

                  But this is besides the matter.  We are not discussing about 
how the motion comes about, which has nothing to do with the geometry of the 
motion. . You said there is only one motion, translation, and no rotation, of 
any orbiting object that is showing the same face to the centre. 

                  Why are you changing the subject? 
                  Philip. 
                    ----- Original Message ----- 
                    From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
                    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
                    Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:28 AM
                    Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus


                          Phil, 
                          "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"

                          Your argument not mine invokes force as the reason 
there must be a rotational motion in the top!?........Having a force does not 
mean you have a motion..that is what i said and it is till true...... but you 
cannot have a motion without a force, particularly since that is the essence of 
your whole argument here for why there must be a rotation, because...a force is 
present...all Im doing is showing you that no force can be present if they are 
in sync...

                          Phil your agrument falls apart not mine....you have 
no force and thus no claim for motion 
                          .
                          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.

                          I did Phil but here it is again.......because the 
only one showing the same face to the center of the orbit is the motor or top 
that is not energized and not in motion!....




                                --- On Tue, 12/9/08, philip madsen 
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

                                From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                                Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
                                To: "geocentrism list" 
<geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                                Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 2:11 PM


                                 
                                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: