[geocentrism] Re: Uranus

Allen D

If your drawings and explanations were clear, I would have no need of further 
clarification.

I remind you again of the origin of the name of this thread -- 'Uranus'. I 
asked you to identify the 'common point' to which Uranus was radially and 
progressively orienting itself. In the centre of the Sun would have been an 
understandable answer; in the centre of Uranus would have been an 
understandable answer; in the centre of the galaxy would have been an 
understandable answer -- all incorrect of course,  but the answer would have 
been comprehensible. It would have been the jumping off point to refine just 
where this elusive point is located.

You consistently avoid any such answer, usually intimating that I lack the 
intellect and the honesty to " ... deal with what I have already given you ..." 
Instead we get your usual verbose, tangential word storm.

I am trying to understand your definition. Please -- in not more than ten words 
-- where is the common point to which Uranus is radially and progressively 
orienting itself.

Paul D




________________________________
From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 20 December, 2008 10:25:09 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus


Paul, 
  
One the one hand you proclaime it is “too much/too little -- too late” .…while 
in the same post challenging me to answer you ....practically daring me not to 
answer you on pains of not being able to be coherent…...Then......Whenever I 
answer you, then you accuse me of browbeating and obfuscation.........If I do 
not answer you, then you accuse me of avoiding the issue!? ….. You claim to 
extend your hand and that I keep biting,  when the reality Paul is just the 
opposite…I answer and address and offer, it is you who keep biting the hand 
that feeds…….. 
  
If you are really interested then deal with what I have already given you…….If 
you don’t understand the words “A Progressive radial orientation to a common 
point” as it related to the numerous examples I have already provided and the 
applications to the real world and the experiments we have discussed..... then 
I don’t think anyone can help you in your tireless and charitable labor of  
perseverance..… 
 
 
 


--- On Sat, 12/20/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 10:39 AM




--- On Sat, 12/20/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 5:57 AM


Allen D

It's too little -- or perhaps that should be too much -- too late.

How many times have I held my hand out to you, and how many times did you bite 
it? 

Here's a test. Try to explain to me what is meant by "Rotation -- a progressive 
radial orientation to a common point," in not less than three paragraphs and 
not more than 100 words, with no spelling errors and correctly punctuated. If 
you can do that, then you'll get some idea of what it takes to communicate 
rather than to brow-beat and to demonstrate consideration for your fellow man.

The preceeding three paragraphs contain 99 words.

Paul D




________________________________
From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 19 December, 2008 4:17:39 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus


Common guys …I can’t not believe it is this hard for you…unless it is willful…. 
  
I understand your arguments...all you do is keep coming at this issue with two 
basic arguments… 
  
1. "Purely Geometrical"….which is not even possible in reality because 
"pure geometry is "pure imagination".... but I addressed it as "pure 
geometry" in Parent “1”  & the plate diagrams which leads to physical 
absurdities in that it prevents any quantifiable and objectively meaningful 
definition applicable in the real world.....as well as the fact that real 
rotation has real requirements not just imaginary “pure geometry”… 
  
Or 
  
2. Rotation due to a force…which has more to do with reality then just a pure 
geometrical concept….I address this approach in th motors snyc and tether ball 
diagrams... 
  
 You canot jump back and fourth between these two approaches taking what you 
like and ignoring the rest of "the baggage" each carries with it...when it 
suits you .....you can take either, OR, or both but not  the cherry picking you 
attempt in your reasoning.... 
  
In our experiment….whether or not the motor is welded to the orbital plate or 
if  it requires just has .5ftb of torque to rotate either from energizing the 
motor or from centrifugal force generated by the orbit…there is no motion until 
such a force is produced from either of those tow possibilities to overcome 
what is by definition a reissuance to move or rotate…  now if the condition 
that produces a sync is one where the resistance is greater then any force to 
cause it to rotate then how on earth can you suggest that it is in rotational 
motion. It leads to contradictions and paradoxes. Namely what you are putting 
forward is that while in one motor is not  able to rotate due to some 
resistance the other motor overcome that resistance and is also equally in 
sync….you cannot have one motor in a forced rotational motion  while the other 
motor is without force and by definition prevented from  rotation and claim 
those are the two conditions are
 one and the same…you cannot have a motion equivalent to a non motion wrt the 
same things namely, the orbital plate……..   if before the orbit begins one 
motor is spinning at 200rpm and the other is mechanically prevented from 
rotation then you cannot claim that you are going to reduce the one to 100rpm 
and be in sync with the motor that is mechanically prevented from rotation…The 
only way to achieve snyc is to reduce the energized motor to the same state of 
the motor that is mechanically prevented from rotation before we began….If the 
condition of the mechanically prevented motor is one of no rotation before we 
began and after we stop the orbit then there is not logical claim to motion 
during except in your purely geometrical sense but as I have already 
demonstrated that Leeds to physical absurdity as well as technically incorrect 
since rotation real rotation requires a force and we are addressing it as such 
in this experiment…... Just
 because you have a centrifugal and or any force acting upon the other motor 
does not mean it will rotate unless the force is greater then the reissuance to 
that force…in the motor that is not energized the only source for forces comes 
from the centrifugal effects of the orbital motion. However, again if the force 
is not greater then the resistance to that force there will still be no 
rotation before, after and as such no logical claim it exist during.  The only 
logical claim based on the observation is that one motor is prevented from 
rotation due to friction or insufficient  force and as such the other energized 
motor will and must mimic that same condition in order to manifest the same 
effects…If the one has not rotation then the other cannot either, if they are 
doing the same things…. If one motor has insufficient force to cause a rotation 
then the other motor must also have insufficient force to cause a rotation. 
Otherwise there is no way
 the two could be doing the same things wrt the orbital plate. There is simply 
no logical way to claim a rotation when  your arguments 
1. “ pure geometry” does not describe reality and 
2.  There is no demonstatable force sufficient to overcome resistance and cause 
motion 
 

--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If there is no motion before and no motion after the orbit then what is the 
claim of rotation based on during the orbit…the “rotation” you both keep 
referring to is the orbit. There is no second motion except in your head 
particularly since there is no way to define it except in imagination that is 
absent of facts in reality..  The only logical claim is that there is a 
prevention of rotation in our experiment not a rotation...subsequently that is 
the only demonstratable claim we can make for the moon.....something is 
preventing it from rotation not causing it to rotate....you cannot assume the 
very thing you are trying to ascertain as evidence for itself....
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 7:44 AM


Common guys …I can’t not believe it is this hard for you…unless it is willful…. 
  
All you do is keep coming at this with two basic arguments… 
  
1. "Purely Geometrical"….which is not even possible in reality because 
"pure geometry is "pure imagination".... but I addressed it as "pure 
geometry" in Parent “1”  & the plate diagrams which leads to physical 
absurdities in that it prevents any quantifiable and objectively meaningful 
definition applicable in the real world.....as well as the fact that real 
rotation has real requirements not just imaginary “pure geometry”… 
  
Or 
  
2. Rotation due to a force…which has more to do with reality then just a pure 
geometrical concept….I address this approach in th motors snyc and tether ball 
diagrams... 
  
 You canot jump back and fourth between these two approaches taking what you 
like and ignoring the rest of "the baggage" each carries with it...when it 
suits you .....you can take either, OR, or both but not  the cherry picking you 
attempt in your reasoning.... 
  
In our experiment….whether or not the motor is welded to the orbital plate or 
if  it requires just has .5ftb of torque to rotate either from energizing the 
motor or from centrifugal force generated by the orbit…there is no motion until 
such a force is produced from either of those tow possibilities to overcome 
what is by definition a reissuance to move or rotate…  now if the condition 
that produces a sync is one where the resistance is greater then any force to 
cause it to rotate then how on earth can you suggest that it is in rotational 
motion. It leads to contradictions and paradoxes. Namely what you are putting 
forward is that while in one motor is not  able to rotate due to some 
resistance the other motor overcome that resistance and is also equally in 
sync….you cannot have one motor in a forced rotational motion  while the other 
motor is without force and by definition prevented from  rotation and claim 
those are the two conditions are
 one and the same…you cannot have a motion equivalent to a non motion wrt the 
same things namely, the orbital plate……..   if before the orbit begins one 
motor is spinning at 200rpm and the other is mechanically prevented from 
rotation then you cannot claim that you are going to reduce the one to 100rpm 
and be in sync with the motor that is mechanically prevented from rotation…The 
only way to achieve snyc is to reduce the energized motor to the same state of 
the motor that is mechanically prevented from rotation before we began….If the 
condition of the mechanically prevented motor is one of no rotation before we 
began and after we stop the orbit then there is not logical claim to motion 
during except in your purely geometrical sense but as I have already 
demonstrated that Leeds to physical absurdity as well as technically incorrect 
since rotation real rotation requires a force and we are addressing it as such 
in this experiment…... Just
 because you have a centrifugal and or any force acting upon the other motor 
does not mean it will rotate unless the force is greater then the reissuance to 
that force…in the motor that is not energized the only source for forces comes 
from the centrifugal effects of the orbital motion. However, again if the force 
is not greater then the resistance to that force there will still be no 
rotation before, after and as such no logical claim it exist during.  The only 
logical claim based on the observation is that one motor is prevented from 
rotation due to friction or insufficient  force and as such the other energized 
motor will and must mimic that same condition in order to manifest the same 
effects…If the one has not rotation then the other cannot either, if they are 
doing the same things…. If one motor has insufficient force to cause a rotation 
then the other motor must also have insufficient force to cause a rotation. 
Otherwise there is no way
 the two could be doing the same things wrt the orbital plate. There is simply 
no logical way to claim a rotation when  your arguments 
1. “ pure geometry” does not describe reality and 
2.  There is no demonstatable force sufficient to overcome resistance and cause 
motion 
 --- On Thu, 12/18/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If there is no motion before and no motion after the orbit then what is the 
claim of rotation based on during the orbit…the “rotation” you both keep 
referring to is the orbit. There is no second motion except in your head 
particularly since there is no way to define it except in imagination that is 
absent of facts in reality..  The only logical claim is that there is a 
prevention of rotation in our experiment not a rotation...subsequently that is 
the only demonstratable claim we can make for the moon.....something is 
preventing it from rotation not causing it to rotate....you cannot assume the 
very thing you are trying to ascertain as evidence for itself.... 
  
  
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 10:59 PM


If you don’t understand what I am saying please get someone who can actually 
debate this issue with me….  Allen
 
 
Perhaps someone with autism...  I saw an interesting experience of autistic 
children experiencing new life with dolphins..  They taught thes kids how to 
relate affectionately with their parents.. I thought that marvellous..  
 
I saw sea lions today acting like the lovliest and most loving of dogs. It was 
claimed that they were endangered with only 2 or 3 thousand left.. Thats in 
keeping with the consummation I suppose. 
 
Philip. 
   
________________________________
Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a 
look.  


      Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take 
a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox

Other related posts: