[geocentrism] Re: Uranus

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&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! 
http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail

Other related posts: