[geocentrism] Re: Uranus
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:32:34 +1000
we are going around in "circles" getting nowhere. Allen, I cannot see how you
can say the spinning top that is also gyrating, due to gravity, does not have
two separate motions.. an orbit and a rotation.
Perhaps this is why! In your own diagram , you know the green discs:
You have a serious error of your own imagination. "Until you can demonstrate
the motions without assuming"
On the left side you have a motor "not energised" over which you have these
words. "This motor is not energised. There is no energy applied to this motor.
It is a fact this motor will keep the same face to the centre dot at all times,
"
Allen it is not a fact at all. It is untrue. You did not do this test when I
told you, did you. You assumed without demonstrating. The inertia inherent to
that motor/disk will keep it stationary pointing North or where ever, no matter
where you rotate the bottom wheel .. Allen I have done this test.. Please do
it yourself. This is the third time you have ignored it, and is the reason you
made that statement error .
Third time for everybody: To demonstrate that what Allen said , highlighted
/underligned above is FALSE.
Take any LP record player. Remove the drive belt so that the turntable is free
to move just as is Allens un energised motor rotor. Hold it in front of you
close to your chest, you have made a mark on this turntable next to your chest.
You are the centre dot equivalent to that on Allens larger turntable. Now you
turn /spin 90 degrees on the balls of your feet and stop. If Allen is correct
the mark on the turntable should still be in front of your chest. BUT IT WILL
NOT BE SO. IT WILL HAVE TURNED 90 DEGREES AWAY FROM YOU.. You can believe me
I have actually done this several times.
Notice I said the turntable WILL HAVE TURNED 90 DEGREES away from you.. Not
strictly true..
The inertia of the turntable prevented it from moving with your own turn. It
remains stationary, and appears to you as having moved. It was the base and
bearing of the record player that actually turned. The rotor remained facing
NORTH as the saying goes.
It cannot get any simpler than that, yet I have already written Allens answer
and placed it in a secret envelope with an independent observer.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:54 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
Phil,
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?
Saying it is so, dose not demonstrate anything……Calling something “two
of” does not demonstrate that one = two…….I have already demonstrated not just
claimed that:
1. There is no way to claim and or distinguish the rotation form the
orbit….you can keep claiming it is a separate but valid motion, but as of yet
you have not demonstrated how that is the case......counting the same thing as
two different things does not make it so, no matter how much you believe it is
two separated things…If you cannot stop the other motions, Isolate and
demonstrate to us the rotation then it does not exist except in your head…!?
2. Phil…wake up…claiming that: “ 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?” That is what you must demonstrate, that
is what you must prove not merely assert true as your proof that it is!?
Claiming it is at the same time does not make it so. You have to demonstrate
the motion exist in the first place. Phil your argument is akin to your
“imaginary friend” is always behind something else and that is why we can never
ever see him!? I have no doubt you are convinced he ( that rotation) exist,
but merely claiming it is so does not demonstrate anything nor does it make it
true.
3. Geometrically a rotation is a motion …… Motion, at least real
motion……. in the real world not your imaginary world of make-believe
friends……..requires A. force and B. must be relative to something else… All you
have offered us is motion absent of force or force that produces nothing
relative to anything.
Until you can demonstrate the motions without assuming they are there
first does make two rotations out of only one…..one of anything does not make
two simply because you can envision it!…..I have demonstrated no such rotation
can be demonstrated without first assuming it exist!?… You have no case
except in your imaginary world of make-believe where things exist but cannot be
seen because they are always hid by something else. What’s worse, you give us
absolutely no reason why it must be there in the first place!?….Sure little
green men could be living on the far side of the moon and living in caves so we
nor our satellites can ever see them….but A. what is the point of that
“discovery” /assertion B. How and when do you demonstrate that without
assuming it is true?!.
Demonstrate something and quit making wild accusations and baseless
assertions..
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.
Other related posts: