[geocentrism] Uranus

  • From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:38:27 -0800 (PST)

Paul,
I have no Idea what you are talking about .. ……..but you obviously have no idea 
what i am talking about either ..Although I personally don't think it could be 
any easier.. Thank you means “thank you”?...... I used mercury as an example 
and it was a improper one because its motions are not the same as the moon. I 
based that on a old idea that was stuck in my head. I would not have realized 
that if you had not given the reference you did because I did not look it 
up….….but this does not affect in any shape form or fashion the arguments or 
debate on rotation and motion…..…How can this be so difficult? ..If you want to 
spend your time addressing mercury and Uranus and everything under the sun 
latterly except for rotation,…. then......go ahead but they do not define 
rotation and motion!?........ Until you start to address rotation  and motion 
itself, which is what this is all about, (changing the name does not change 
that)...debate is
 impossible. There is no reasoning with you …….. ..as for  "crushing 
demonstration" I have already given you several and you don’t even get 
it......??? I’m focused on rotation and motion….. I don’t always “comb” through 
every detail of every detail in your arguments  particularly if it is not 
important or does not affect the debate one way or the other!?  
 
Your support of Phil is somewhat baffling???…How can you be so clueless unless 
its willful?!.. I know write difficult sometimes and sometime it takes a while 
to find each other…, but gee wiz…….how much simpler can something be made 
before you can  see enough of it to even begin to address them?! Do you realize 
you either willfully or ignorantly do not even comprehend enough to address 
what I am putting forward..?!… You and Phil talk about everything except the 
arguments I give you and you don’t seem to comprehend enough to even begin to 
address them……If you don’t understand what I am saying please get someone who 
can actually debate this issue with me….  
 
If the experiment uses a non moving part to demonstrate synchronicity…..how on 
earth can anyone claim that a moving part could ever show the same orientation 
and motion as a non moving part in the exact same mechanical configuration 
doing the exact same things?!  How can you have a fixed position that 
moves?!..How can you have two identical objects doing the same exact things 
while one is in motion and the other is not?! How can you have a motion that is 
also equaly a non motion wrt the same things?! 

--- On Thu, 12/18/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: 
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 7:32 PM







Paul,
I have no Idea what you are talking about .. ……..but you obviously have no idea 
what i am talking about either ..Although I personally don't think it could be 
any easier.. Thank you means “thank you”?...... I used mercury as an example 
and it was a improper one because its motions are not the same as the moon. I 
based that on a old idea that was stuck in my head. I would not have realized 
that if you had not given the reference you did because I did not look it 
up….….but this does not affect in any shape form or fashion the arguments or 
debate on rotation and motion…..…How can this be so difficult? ..If you want to 
spend your time addressing mercury and Uranus and everything under the sun 
latterly except for rotation,…. then......go ahead but they do not define 
rotation and motion!?........ Until you start to address rotation  and motion 
itself, which is what this is all about, (changing the name does not change 
that)...debate is
 impossible. There is no reasoning with you …….. ..as for  "crushing 
demonstration" I have already given you several and you don’t even get 
it......??? I’m focused on rotation and motion….. I don’t always “comb” through 
every detail of every detail in your arguments  particularly if it is not 
important or does not affect the debate one way or the other!?  
 
Your support of Phil is somewhat baffling???…How can you be so clueless unless 
its willful?!.. I know write difficult sometimes and sometime it takes a while 
to find each other…, but gee wiz…….how much simpler can something be made 
before you can  see enough of it to even begin to address them?! Do you realize 
you either willfully or ignorantly do not even comprehend enough to address 
what I am putting forward..?!… You and Phil talk about everything except the 
arguments I give you and you don’t seem to comprehend enough to even begin to 
address them……If you don’t understand what I am saying please get someone who 
can actually debate this issue with me….  
 
If the experiment uses a non moving part to demonstrate synchronicity…..how on 
earth can anyone claim that a moving part could ever show the same orientation 
and motion as a non moving part in the exact same mechanical configuration 
doing the exact same things?!  How can you have a fixed position that 
moves?!..How can you have two identical objects doing the same exact things 
while one is in motion and the other is not?! How can you have a motion that is 
also equaly a non motion wrt the same things?! 
 




From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:48:29 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus





Allen D
 
Your link is broken. Got another one? 
 
You say ... "Thanks for the mercury correction…now please address the arguments 
put before you…"
 
This is a highly imperious attitude and somewhat insulting. We are at this 
point because it is you who won't address the arguments put to you. This thread 
is titled "Uranus". It is called that because I asked you where the "Common 
Point" for Uranus' "Progressive Radial Orientation" was located which you 
failed to address. I asked you about Uranus because I thought it would be 
easier for you to address than the same question related to the Moon which you 
also failed to address.
 
You are doing the same to Philip as we speak in relation to the functioning of 
a model involving motors.
 
I am truly being drawn inexorably to the conclusion that debate with you is 
impossible. It will take a crushing demonstration -- and that's coming soon.
 
Paul D
 



From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 18 December, 2008 3:37:20 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus






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

Other related posts: