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