Ok....Paul your own source demonstrates that was one view point at one time.......my analogy was based on old idea...and Im happy to correct the 1:1 to 2:3 Gravitational /"tidal lock" http://courses.nnu.edu/ph106wj/Terrestrial%20planets/Mercury%20and%20Venus.htm ; The tether ball example applies to the moon although you are right it would not apply to mercury since the moon and mercury do not have the same motions...which would still support my postion…. This does not help your argument or your positions and you still refuse to address the issue before us....If you took the orbit away you could still observe a rotation....thus the motions can be isolated and separated from each other...therefore we can consider mercury to have a real rotation around a common point that lay within mercury itself.......this does not hold true for the moon nor did it hold true for mercury’s motions that "Science" thought it had way back when...... Thanks for the mercury correction…now please address the arguments put before you… --- On Thu, 12/18/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 7:03 AM Ok....Paul your own source demonstrates that was one view point at one time.......my analogy was based on old idea...and Im happy to correct the 1:1 to 2:3 Gravitational /"tidal lock" http://courses.nnu.edu/ph106wj/Terrestrial%20planets/Mercury%20and%20Venus.htm ; The tether ball example applies to the moon although you are right it would not apply to mercury since the moon and mercury do not have the same motions...which would still support my postion…. This does not help your argument or your positions and you still refuse to address the issue before us....If you took the orbit away you could still observe a rotation....thus the motions can be isolated and separated from each other...therefore we can consider mercury to have a real rotation around a common point that lay within mercury itself.......this does not hold true for the moon nor did it hold true for mercury’s motions that "Science" thought it had way back when...... Thanks for the mercury correction…now please address the arguments put before you… --- On Thu, 12/18/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 3:24 AM 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