Allen D I've abbreviated this response to your last two posts -- I think most will not want to look back earlier than that. As I read it, you are saying that the Moon has only one rotation while Uranus has two. Here I read your use of the term 'rotation' to mean 'motion'. (If only you would use commonly accepted terminology, we would all be better able to understand just what it is that you are trying to communicate). You refer to Parent "1". Unfortunately Yahoo can find no attachment with 'Parent' included in the attachment name. If I am to gain any insight into what you are thinking, I need that drawing. It is impossible to grasp what you are referring to in most of your statements. Indeed from one phrase to the next you often seem to be contradicting yourself. It may be clear in your mind but it sure as shootin' ain't so in the writin'. It's Wednesday -- I'm gone. Paul D ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo From: oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo On Mon, 12/22/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 12:55 PM Paul,Your drawing also states that there are TWO different rotations. IN URANUS NOT THE MOON?!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. Uransus does not have the same motions as the moon!?Your words from memory were "It is a unnecessary complication [to postulate two motions]."The moon only has one rotation to a common point that lay outside the moon itself at the earth only one.........Paul, how can you be so confused?......There is only one rotation for the moon....Uranus has two rotations to two different common points......Uranus has one rotation to a common point at the sun (outside Uranus) and one rotation to a common point that lay insideUranus......I was adamant then and I still am...you however are still clueless.Uranus has two rotationsThe moon has one rotation This has nothing to do with convenience of postulation...It is matter of fact only one rotation exist for the moon.........I have demonstrated the differences for both bodies and both types. A progressive radial orientation to a common pointis the same action no matter if the common point lay within or without a body in rotation ... = one to a common point that lay outside the moon itself at the earth...that is the only rotation that exist for the moon...the common point lay outside the moon...that fact does not constitue two motions or two rotations... = 1. common point at sun (outside the body in question/ uranus) and 2. one within the body/ uranus itself 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?.... .. "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, 22 December, 2008 10:47:28 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox