Allen D OK -- this seems like just another one of those things you refuse to discuss. Well if you won't discuss it, please provide me with a reference which refutes the description of Mercury's rotation and revolution found (among many others) here - http://physics.fortlewis.edu/astronomy/astronomy%20today/chaisson/AT308/HTML/AT30803.HTM ; ... and which supports your description below - [geocentrism] Uranus From allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sun Dec 14 23:42:54 2008 Hint: as with the tether ball and the synchronous orbit of mercury.( it keeps the same side facing the sun at all times).......there is no rotation or rotational force in either.... There is only a force or resistance that prevents a rotation, there is no rotation and no cause for a rotation...Rotation is prevented not sustained in mercury.... Paul D ________________________________ From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 16 December, 2008 7:12:46 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus Paul, When you get around to addressing mine,….. because mine get to the very heart of the issue, all you keep trying to do add "layers of argumentation" that change absolutly nothing…..but when you get to addressing those I have given you ,then maybe in that day you will start to see why your arguments will not hold water...they lead to logical contradictions and or physical absurdities .....i demonstrate that mine do not...yours do..mine are logical yours are not..mine are based on what you can observe......... yours are based on assuming what you can only imagine is true... --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 11:11 AM Paul, When you get around to addressing mine,….. because mine get to the very heart of the issue, all you keep trying to do add "layers of argumentation" that change absolutly nothing…..but when you get to addressing those I have given you ,then maybe in that day you will start to see why your arguments will not hold water...they lead to logical contradictions and or physical absurdities .....i demonstrate that mine do not...yours do..mine are logical yours are not..mine are based on what you can observe......... yours are based on assuming what you can only imagine is true... --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 10:57 AM Allen D The problem here is that your definition of rotation and its application is under challenge and you will do anything to avoid discussing the issue -- contempt, prevarication, obfuscation, diversion, pretence that you posed some other question -- it goes on and on ad nauseam. I -- and others -- labour under the assumption that you are a reasonable man and so we try to treat with you as though you are that reasonable man. But what we get is your fanatical defence of your questionable definition. This puts us at a significant disadvantage because you do not treat us as reasonable people. To show that I at least will persevere, state plainly what is the question which you have given me and I will address it, if you in turn will address the question of Mercury's rate of orbital angular velocity and its rate of rotational angular velocity. Note that standard, accepted definitions must be used since you have also resolutely avoided explanation of your private definition. Perhaps we can proceed with one question at a time and make some progress. Paul D PS Three days in a row now you have posted the same message twice. Why so? ________________________________ From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 16 December, 2008 6:13:38 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus Paul, Your nonsense is simply using the word "turn" to attempt to claim proof for what constitutes your definition of it, which is the very thing under consideration..!?! Deal with what I have given you ........linguistic acrobatics and diversions from the issue is not doing your argument any good.... "the characteristics of Mercury's motions" the nature of those motions Paul is what we are discussion!? ...Start addressing the issue and quit trying to claim your conclusions as the proof and premises for all your arguments?!.. Just more nonsense from you ...oh when oh when, will it ever end?...... --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 9:55 AM Allen D I guess you missed it. Here is the relevant portion again with the key word highlighted - I have a turntable and bearing/suspension system from long long ago. The turntable weighs 2750 g. If I hold it horizontal, turn it CW (looking from above) and wait till it slows to something in the vicinity of the radial velocity which I can sustain without falling on my donkey and begin toturn in the same direction at the same rate -- guess what? And the matter of your abysmal ignorance of the characteristics of Mercury's motions????? I was saving this for later but I think you've earned it. It's one of your illustrations which I have augmented. Care to comment? Paul D ________________________________ From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 16 December, 2008 4:31:12 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus "guess what? The arrow head I painted on the turntable stays pointing at me!!! "...Guess what Paul, if you take that same aparatus down on the ground and don't do anything .... you still get geuss what?....no rotation!......ge we are looking for a progressive radial oreintation to a common pont that lay within the body itself...... That I believe is synchronism. Even more -- when I stop turning (so I don't fall on my donkey) the turntable is still turning! congragulations, when you stoped you observed the inertial effects to CAUSE A ROTATION...oh but wait,...... it was not rotating earlier....because it was prevented from rotating by the mechanical friction! Just like the the moon and mercury are prevented from rotating while in orbit!? In all your examples the synchronisim is the fact that it is not rotating..if it were rotattion then it would not and cannot be synchronous.. Phil shows us a rotation that is prevented and attempts to claim that prevention of rotation demonstrates a rotation!?....and now you offer us the fact that somthing did not rotate as evidence that it rotated?! ........... the diversion here is yours...now answer the chalenges ..your empty, vain accusations and words weary me.... --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 8:29 AM "guess what? The arrow head I painted on the turntable stays pointing at me!!! "...Guess what Paul, if you take that same aparatus down on the ground and don't do anything .... you still get geuss what?....no rotation!......ge we are looking for a progressive radial oreintation to a common pont that lay within the body itself......Phil shows us a rotation that is prevented and attempts to claim that prevention of rotation demonstrates a rotation!?....and now you offer us the fact that somthing did not rotate as evidence that it rotated?! That I believe is synchronism. Even more -- when I stop turning (so I don't fall on my donkey) the turntable is still turning! congragulations, when you stoped you observed the inertial effects to CAUSE A ROTATION...oh but wait,...... it was not rotating earlier....because it was prevented from rotating by the mechanical friction! Just like the the moon and mercury are prevented from rotating while in orbit!? In all your examples the synchronisim is the fact that it is not rotating..if it were rotattion then it would not and cannot be synchronous... the diversion here is yours...now answer the chalenges ..your empty and vain words weary me.... --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 8:11 AM Allen D I have a turntable and bearing/suspension system from long long ago. The turntable weighs 2750 g. If I hold it horizontal, turn it CW (looking from above) and wait till it slows to something in the vicinity of the radial velocity which I can sustain without falling on my donkey and begin to turn in the same direction at the same rate -- guess what? The arrow head I painted on the turntable stays pointing at me!!! That I believe is synchronism. Even more -- when I stop turning (so I don't fall on my donkey) the turntable is still turning! Whaddaya know!? It can't have read your various theses! You entreat Philip to answer one of your challenges. One of the standard Allen Daves diversionary tactics -- pretend not to have noticed the solitary challenge to you and reply with many of yours thought up on the spur of the moment. While you are thinking on this, note that I have noted your non-response to my highlighting of your abysmal ignorance concerning the orbit and rotation of Mercury (note the spelling. Not even American usage can excuse "Murcury"). Can we expect that you will correct this oversight? Paul D ________________________________ From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, 15 December, 2008 11:15:09 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus 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!?! ________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now. ________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now. ________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now. Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail