[geocentrism] Re: Uranus

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:25:43 +1000

 and you said you were retiring! Damn you eyes sir! |[:-)    Paul D

Wheres that quote from? Sounds Familiar, sounds British umm, English.  

I retired from recycling with Allen.. not the subject  with anybody else. Where 
would I get my daily fun? 

Philip.  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 5:28 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus


  Philip M



  From philip madsen Sun Dec 21 01:36:21 2008 

  a combination of rotation and translation, as described previously.. not two 
different rotations. Phil 

  This point leaped off the page at me also. And your other tour de force this 
thread -- From philip madsen Sun Dec 21 01:36:21 2008 -- said it all for me.



  ... and you said you were retiring! Damn you eyes sir! |[:-)



  Paul D




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Sent: Sunday, 21 December, 2008 1:57:10 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus


  Bernie its ok to use rotation or revolution in a barn dance. But in 
discussing  mechanics, where a difficult combination of motions is involved, 
the car differential comes to mind, as shown already, your example below is not 
correct. Even I could and have often said the moon rotates around the earth, or 
the earth rotates around the sun, but that is not scientific. but in general 
ordinary people know what I mean. . This laxity , once condemned, is common to 
quite a lot of word usage today,  that is not acceptable in science. Yet quite 
acceptable on the Ballroom floor..  I could imagine the looks one would get if 
the instructor said "I want you to do one spin per beat as you translate 
yourself around he floor in 50 beats. !!!  

  Progressive rotation. 
  What the instructor is describing  in truth is a body having a combination of 
rotation and translation, as described previously.. not two different 
rotations.    Phil
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Bernie Brauer 
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 9:07 AM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus



          Two Sides of the Body 

          The body has two sides: The left side and the right side (see diagram 
1-1). These two sides of the body have a constant, ongoing relationship as you 
move. 
           
          diagram 1-1 
          Rotationally speaking, each of the two sides of the body can do one 
of two things: 
            a.. Move Forward 
            b.. Move Backward 
            c.. Remain in Place 
          The quality of rotation relies on which of these three actions each 
of the sides of the body takes. Based on this, the resulting action of the body 
as a whole can be pure progression, pure rotation, or a combination of both. 
                  EXAMPLES
                 
                Example 1-2
                When both sides of the body move forward equally, the result is 
pure progression. 
                 
                Example 1-3
                When one side of the body moves forward while the other moves 
backward, the result is pure rotation (on the spot). 
                 
                Example 1-4
                When both sides of the body move forward with one side moving 
faster than the other, theresult is progressive rotation.  


           
          Two Types of Rotation 

          For our purposes, we will be thinking of rotation as being one of two 
varieties: 
            a.. Spot Rotation 
            b.. Progressive Rotation 
           
          SPOT ROTATION
          Spot rotation occurs any time the body turns in place, without 
traveling. In most cases, this means that the body weight remains over one 
foot. It is possible to have spot rotation with the weight held between the 
feet (as in a "Twist Turn") or shifting slightly from foot to foot (as in a 
"Fleckerl"), but for this lesson we will be focusing more on the rule than the 
exceptions. Just think of spot rotation as rotation which occurs over a fixed 
point in space. 
           
          PROGRESSIVE ROTATION
          Progressive rotation occurs as the body is traveling, and therefore 
takes place between steps, or over a series of two or more steps. Chainé turns, 
Pivots, and even the Waltz Box Step are all examples of progressive rotation. 



          More here:
          
http://www.ballroomdancers.com/learning_Center/Lesson/2/Default.asp?page=1

          --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

            From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
            Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
            To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
            Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 2:55 PM


                  Continuous versus Progressive

                  "The progressive aspect expresses the dynamic quality of 
actions that are in progress while the continuous aspect expresses the state of 
the subject that is continuing the action. For instance, the English sentence 
"Tom is walking" can express the active movement of Tom's legs (progressive 
aspect), or Tom's current state, the fact that Tom is walking rather than doing 
something else at the moment (continuous aspect)."

                  --- On Sat, 12/20/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

                    From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                    Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
                    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                    Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 2:25 PM


                          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 


                                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....

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


                                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 


                                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.... 



                                --- On Thu, 12/18/08, philip madsen 
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


                                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.

Other related posts: