[geocentrism] Uranus

My problem is ' ..' common point ...'. Where is it?????
You deny the Moon is rotating on its axis while it revolves about its primary 
yet here you talk about Uranus' rotation and its revolution having separate 
axes with no common point. Why do you see the Moon as being different?????
Paul D
 
Paul,
 
Dose Uranus have no Geometric center point?!..No center of mass?!..No center 
point of EMR ? ..No gravo-inertial center?!. ( MS uses inertial reference 
frames..the center point of that frame… to define motion wrt..I wonder how they 
do that and if it might apply here as well…ummm) ..  Is every single particle 
in Uranus moving wrt each other, how do you know that?! Can we not consder 
Uranus a whole rather then just billions upon billions of quarks and 
leptons..?!...how do they move int he individual attoms?!......Why not ask 
about those stars at night that are actually Galaxies with billions of 
individual stars in them…do they have a center at all?....Or is it that we 
consider them point source lights(EMR)?…..does It matter?.....How would have a 
rotation without something going in around something else in progressive and 
radial orientation to it? I think that is far more interesting and relevant 
question then the obvious obfuscation, you accuse me
 of, but are in fact now engaging in.... If you dont know where the common 
point point is then have no business arguing  geometical conepts that are not 
dependent upon dimention...... 
  
Admit it …you need the confusion, the anarchy, the chaos and disorder, the 
completely random universe, you cant get enough of it, you eat it like 
candy.......its siren call is that of the embrace of a sweet lover for you 
isn’t it….I mean ....without it….....well that just leaves love for that Jesus 
God Guy… 
  
Don’t worry Paul you can go to sleep now, that sword that proceeds out of the 
mouth of the rider on the white horse long ago began its work and has already 
done its work on you as it has on all the nations….only a little more killing 
left to do……… 

--- On Sat, 12/6/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 1:43 PM










 
  
 
 
 


--- On Fri, 12/5/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 10:34 AM











 
Paul,.
 
.."I've asked if you would explain what is meant by "Progressive radial 
orientation to a common point' with particular reference to its application to 
the rotation and revolution of Uranus and the identification of that common 
point in that instance"
 
I'm not sure what the problem is...its spin/Daily/internal common point lay in 
the axis that is at 97.77 degrees to the orbital plane, the orbital plane has 
its own axis of orbital motion........one axis for "daily" rotation and one for 
"annual" orbital rotation....one axis for each progressive radial orientation 
to a common point.......Any and every axis lay 90 degrees to the plane of the 
motion in question.....the motions must be independent of each other and 
isolatable from each other otherwise you are just counting things more then 
once and calling them two.....but every progresive radial orientation to a 
common point will have its own axis.......The number of axis for Uranus or any 
body for that matter is only limited to the amount of rotational motions 
present...
 
"the lengthening list of items which you refuse to address" I dobut i could 
ever address all the items you would like me to...im forced to focus on the 
most relevant and fundimental ones.....coz i dont think i will live to be older 
then a 100 or so years and I have already used quite a few.....but dont worry 
too much,.....I don't think it is nessisary to look at every atom in the 
universe or vistit every part of the universe before you and I can both claim 
victory in the assertion that atoms are very small and the universe is very 
large...











--- On Fri, 12/5/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 6:04 AM







Allen D
 
You said -- 

Paul, The curt remarks I referred to are made by me. My post are at some times 
more disciplined then others but don’t let that bother you. I’m not playing 
dumb, not at all. I am just giving you and others ample opportunity to say 
"less then brilliant" things of which you and Phil have not disappointed me 
with…I then remark in very, perhaps extreme sarcastic manner. I’m sorry you 
can’t see beyond your own logical contradictions, …. but then again you never 
did get the whole gravity= inertia thingy either…..Note I did not start out 
that way but I keep coming to the same conclusion about most not all but 
certainly most of your arguments, they are focused on "claiming victory" not on 
evaluating the possibility that they are completely wrong. ….. As I said before 
this thread will just go in circles. It will most certainly not progress your 
learning at all because ..well we all know why…….but my point is not so much 
for me to convince you
 of your error. You truly believe in your own folly and will not be shown 
otherwise! It is to offer others a chance to understand and evaluate the real 
world and the kinds of people that live in it…….. 
'... claiming victory ...' Yes -- it could be so construed. I however see it as 
an attempt to contribute to your education in reality. By contrast, your 
position is characterised by avoiding admission of error at any cost. The most 
demeaning of mental gyrations is not beneath you in this endeavour.
 
'... that they are completely wrong ...' Well I've asked if you would explain 
what is meant by "Progressive radial orientation to a common point" with 
particular reference to its application to the rotation and revolution of 
Uranus and the identification of that common point in that instance. This is 
only my second request so it may be too early to add this question to the 
lengthening list of items which you refuse to address but I suspect it is none 
the less destined for that distinction.
 
Paul D


Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now.

Other related posts: