Phil, "we are going around in "circles" getting nowhere..." I said this is where the discussion is "going" .....(pun intended)........but I’m going to try yet once more to get you to answer even a single challenge of mine to you....I keep having to address your challenges or otherwise my words mean nothing so you said... but you don’t seem to see the point of addressing mine.......ummmm..well here is a "turntable" type example see attached and answer! "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."..I know i addressed that many times..." But to get them syncronous ..that does not happen does it!....Therefore, you cannot lay claim to a effect that does not exist when they are syncronized as your rotation..why..becuse if the are syncronised it does not exist.!? if that persisted during the orbit you would see it and that would be a rotation inaddition to the orbit but to get them to syncronize you must negate that effect!....by the way which way does it rotate clokwise or counter clockwise?...ummm.... .........as i have pointed out .....it takes a force to prevent that rotation,........ you still show us no rotation in the same direction of the orbit ......... At best on a good day this could only be considered to be a prevention of rotational motion not a demonstration of a rotation!?!
Attachment:
Slide1.PNG
Description: PNG image
