# [geocentrism] Uranus

• From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:55:34 -0800 (PST)

```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
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
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?.... ..

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.... ..

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.

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
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
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 ..."

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

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
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

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
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:

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.```