Allen D Thank you! Certain things are now clear -- I'll go over them one at a time. Your definition is - "Rotation -- a progressive radial orientation to a common point". First point is '... a common point.' Not two -- just one. Yet your drawing indicates a common point at the Sun and a common point on the axis of Uranus. That's two points. Two points NOT at the same location are not common. Your drawing also states that there are TWO different rotations.This whole debacle has its origin if you recall, in your adamant assertion that in the case of the Moon at least -- and by implication all similar cases -- there was only ONE motion. Your words from memory were "It is a unnecessary complication [to postulate two motions]." Next -- if you would just use agreed terms, you would have referred to Uranus' Annual REVOLUTION rather than its annual rotation. Had you done that then further confusion would have been avoided. Now because the axis of the Moon is approximately parallel with the axis of the Earth (its not -- and in a more rigorous treatment, such would not be assumed even for a first approximation) if you assume there is only one motion, then this lends credence to the possibility that there was only the one COMMON point. That is why I asked for the one COMMON point for Uranus' motions because on the basis of my understanding of your definition, the concept of such a COMMON point is absurd. Speaking of which, the reason it is absurd is the fact of Uranus' 97 deg axial tilt which you have wrongly illustrated as something closer to zero. I was going to edit your Uranus1.png to make this clearer but unfortunately it is so small that this was not possible. So at this point, it seems to me that your definition, rather than being sufficiently powerful, that if only people were smart enough to understand its meaning, then physics would be revolutionised, it is simply wrong terminology in an imperfect combination which is less well suited to describing the motions under consideration than definitions currently accepted by the world at large. Now this unseemly wrangling has wasted hours of our time -- time which is precious to us all. It is not resolved yet of course but perhaps we can now make some headway. Perhaps when reflecting on all this wasted time you might consider making an effort to use agreed terms in future so as to reduce this waste. Treating us all with the same consideration that we extend to you would also be welcome but I'm not holding my breath on that one. I'll close with this observation. Some time ago, you asked for another copy of one of my drawings. No name, and only a very sketchy description. You could have searched for it on the archive but of course that would have been harder than having me do the work. So you asked and I searched. I found -- I think -- six possibilities, zipped them up into an archive and sent them to you. I did not stop to think how you might use this information to my disadvantage, I didn't think about how inconvenient it was, I didn't privately curse you for for your laziness or your carelessness -- I simply did it. I especially did not tell you in open forum how stupid you were. There was no bombastic barrage repeated over a period of weeks. I still think that it is me who extends the hand rather than you. I'll be away for about a week starting Tue or Wed. Paul D ________________________________ From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, 21 December, 2008 6:52:13 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus Paul, I don’t need your permission for the number of Words I use…. See attached…I've lost concern for what you "consider"…understand that! Allen D In ten words or less Allen. Not an explanation -- just "Please PLEASE PLEASE -- where is the common point to which Uranus is radially and progressively orienting itself." If you won't answer I'll have to conclude that you're just blowing smoke. Paul D ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 10:14:21 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus Phil, "Rigid body" is not necessary to be part of the definition...and why you think it must be just demonstrates that you do not understand at all ….there are plenty of bodies that are not ridged that can perform progressive radial orientations to a common point….that definition of rotation defines it even for non rigid bodies as well as in 2d space Paul,I addressed what the common point is for each rotation I was extremely specific for both a planetary rotation as well as well as a orbital rotation. I even insinuated that you were stupid and offered to apologies if you would just get someone to explain to me what part of my answer did not answer your question….i have no doubt that you do not like the answers IM giving but I go to a lot of trouble to explain why, but then you only accuse me of obfuscating and or avoiding and or not answering .…I’m not going to repeat it all here again …you want to play the village idiot that is your privilege …. If you don’t understand my definition then what are you objecting to? Every time someone attempts to explain to you two what that definition means and or how it is applicable to the everyday world. you just make more empty assertions and fail to address the arguments and then turn right around and claim you don’t understand…..no wonder!? We have arrived at a point in this conversation where your accusations about my arguments are the and only essence to any and all of your arguments…you want to play stupid that is your problem….I will proceed with or without you….If you cannot understand enough of what I have given you to grasps even a morsel so as to address it … then by all means I’m more then willing to let you wallow ignorance and play the dancing fool… --- On Sun, 12/21/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 8:34 AM Then as i said maybe you need you to get someone else to make your case and or help you out "you poor thing"... ..funny you and your ilk seem to be the only ones that are quite so clueless as you make yourself out to be........but then again i wonder if it is just a act or you really are not able to discuss this issue......either way it is your problem play stupid or be stupid if you want to…..I’m not so sure there is much if any difference at this point……... I will continue with or without you....but i will not entertain any more stupidity...and if you cant get it then get Regner to explain it for you. He did not seem to have quite the difficulty with that defintion or its application as I am using it here... --- 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, 11:14 PM 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. Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox