[geocentrism] Re: Uranus

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:44:01 +1000

What you describe is "period p"+ "period p"   No !during period p both actions 
take place together.. read again, I said at the sme time.. concurrent. "At the 
same time in the same period P"  are you twisting my words? 

Philip. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:34 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus



        Phil,
        you state: 
        "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"

        You cannot have your weightless sphere in a rotation with period p 
while at the same time in orbit with the same period p and keep the same side 
facing the center…….!? …Phil that is a physical absurdity…The two are mutually 
exclusive….! What you describe is "period p"+ "period p" every part of the 
weightless sphere will be travailing twice as fast as the orbital motion 
itself…….It will never ever, ever produce a synchronous "period p" ...one 
period plus the other period is 2xperiod, not one period!





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

                  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
                  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                  Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 3:14 PM


                   
                  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: