[geocentrism] Uranus

Paul.....  If you read my earlier post this very issue after you asked me the 
first and then second times..., I clearly stated what was meant by common point 
several times in several post…. ….. I  also stated specifically in some of th 
those post that the daily axis tilt of Uranus  is 97.77degrees offset from the 
orbital?..….Why do you keep trying to make “points” that don’t make any sense 
whatsoever......either they have already been addressed specificaly or are not 
relevant to beging with.. ?...my diagram does not address the axial tilt 
between the two but all those post when i answered this before do........The 
whole issue is moot to begin with since I clearly show them to be two different 
rotations with two different common points in the very diagram...I do not show 
them to be zero wrt each other in the diagram, beacuse i dont even address 
it....... The two different rotations are under consideration not the angle 
displacement
 between the axis? Whether they are parallel or offset wrt each other the 
principle will always be the same always….…I have addressed this over and over 
again…?......The common point defines any given rotation?.......How hard can 
this be for you to see....?  A rotation is the same thing in every case 
regardless of if the common point lay inside or outside the body in question 
same principle ........First grasp that concept,  you must grasp that fact 
first before any headway will be made.  When you do you will see that not only 
is my definition correct but very powerful..... where in the world did you get 
the idea that there must be one common point for every rotation in the 
universe?..........I never suggested that except wrt to the observer himself 
since his observation post is common to all things under consideration.....more 
to the point, why do you think that is even relevant?.......I never said that 
or even implied that....I've covered
 all this so many times before........but in every case the priciple is the 
same no matter what rotation you look at no mater if the common point lay 
inside or outside the body in question... Look at parent "1" diagram it proves 
that what I just said is true....Paul folk can say spin and orbit all day long 
but fundamentally they are the same thing..they are just two different names/ 
types for the same exact action.... a spin is a rotation who's common point lay 
within the body in question where a orbit is just a rotation who's common point 
lay outside the body in question....again look at Parent "1" ..it is all the 
same thing just different wrapping paper...thats all......when you begin to 
grasp that please let us know......my definition is correct and understanding 
the physics is my point your the one who is not understanding here  
remember?.... ..


--- On Mon, 12/22/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 12:45 PM







Paul.....  If you read my earlier post this very issue after you asked me the 
first and then second times..., I clearly stated what was meant by common point 
several times in several post…. ….. I  also stated specifically in some of th 
those post that the daily axis tilt of Uranus  is 97.77degrees offset from the 
orbital?..….Why do you keep trying to make “points” that don’t make any sense 
whatsoever......either they have already been addressed specificaly or are not 
relevant to beging with.. ?...my diagram does not address the axial tilt 
between the two but all those post when i answered this before do........The 
whole issue is moot to begin with since I clearly show them to be two different 
rotations with two different common points in the very diagram...I do not show 
them to be zero wrt each other in the diagram, beacuse i dont even address 
it....... The two different rotations are under consideration not the angle 
displacement
 between the axis? Whether they are parallel or offset wrt each other the 
principle will always be the same always….…I have addressed this over and over 
again…?......The common point defines any given rotation?.......How hard can 
this be for you to see....?  A rotation is the same thing in every case 
regardless of if the common point lay inside or outside the body in question 
same principle ........First grasp that concept,  you must grasp that fact 
first before any headway will be made.  When you do you will see that not only 
is my definition correct but very powerful..... where in the world did you get 
the idea that there must be one common point for every rotation in the 
universe?..........I never suggested that except wrt to the observer himself 
since his observation post is common to all things under consideration.....more 
to the point, why do you think that is even relevant?.......I never said that 
or even implied that....I've covered
 all this so many times before........but in every case the priciple is the 
same no matter what rotation you look at no mater if the common point lay 
inside or outside the body in question... Look at parent "1" diagram it proves 
that what I just said is true....Paul folk can say spin and orbit all day long 
but fundamentally they are the same thing..they are just two different names/ 
types for the same exact action.... a spin is a rotation who's common point lay 
within the body in question where a orbit is just a rotation who's common point 
lay outside the body in question....again look at Parent "1" ..it is all the 
same thing just different wrapping paper...thats all......when you begin to 
grasp that please let us know......my definition is correct and understanding 
the physics is my point your the one who is not understanding here  
remember?.... ..
 
P.S. Merry Christmas Paul....but do please pay attention and address your 
comments with something relevant and meaningful to the class or .........we may 
need a parent student conference...... Trying to “sharp shoot” the others when 
you don’t pay attention and don’t know what you are talking about only 
demonstrates your folly to the rest of the class…..but lets.be honest you are 
just playing games here anyway aren’t you….......…..no matter,  we will proceed 
with or without you…..

 
 

--- On Mon, 12/22/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 6:56 AM







Paul......?? If you would have read my post I clearly stated what was meant by 
common point several times in several post…. ….. I  stated specifically several 
days ago that the axis tilt of Uranus  is 97.77degrees?!..where are you? ….Why 
do you keep trying to make “points” that don’t make any sense whatsoever 
because either they are not relevant or I have already addressed it?!...my 
diagram does not address the axial tilt between the two but the post one way or 
the other…..that whole issue is moot to begin with since I clearly show them to 
be two different rotations with two different common points how can you claim I 
show them to be zero?! The two different rotations are under consideration not 
the angle displacement between the axis?! Whether they are parallel or offset 
wrt each other the principle will always be the same always….…I have addressed 
this over and over again…???......The common point defines any
 given rotation?.......How hard can this be for you to see....????  A rotation 
is the same thing in every case regardless of if the common point lay inside or 
outside the body in question same principle ........First grasp that concept ,  
you must grasp that fact first before any headway will be made.  When you do 
you will see that not only is my definition correct but very powerful..... 
where in the world did you get the idea that there must be one common point for 
every rotation in the universe..........I never suggested that except wrt an 
observer since his observation post is common to all things under 
consideration.....more to the point, why do you think that is even 
relevant?!.......I never said that or even implied that....Iv' covered all this 
so many times before........but in every case the priciple is the same no 
matter what rotation you look at no mater if the common point lay inside or 
outside the body in question... Look at parent
 "1" diagram it proves that what i just said is true....Paul folk can say spin 
and orbit all day long but fundamentally they are the same thing, just two 
different types of the same exact thing. a spin is a rotation who's common 
point lay within the body in question where a orbit is just a rotation who's 
common point lay outside the body in question.....when you begin to grasp 
that please let me know......my definition is correct and understanding the 
physics is my point your the one not understanding here not me.... ..
 
P.S. Will you please pay attention and address your comments with something 
relevant and meaningful to the class or  otherwise we may need a parent student 
conference......?! Trying to “sharp shoot” the instructor when you don’t pay 
attention and don’t know what you are talking about only demonstrates your 
folly to the rest of the class…..or anyone else who reads these post….be honest 
you are just playing games here aren’t you….. I can see it and I bet others can 
see it.....…..no matter,  I will proceed with or without you…..

 
 

--- On Mon, 12/22/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 12:30 AM








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 
  
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.


Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look.

Other related posts: