[geocentrism] Uranus

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 12:10:56 +0000 (GMT)

Allen D

Where used below, the terms "rotation" and "revolution" have the following 
meanings -
rotation -- radial motion of a body about a line -- the axis -- which passes 
through the body's centre of mass.
revolution (first approximation) -- translation of a small mass body about a 
large mass body in an elliptical orbit.
Concerning the "Parent 1" proposition. (Parent 1 is assumed to be a disk of 
negligible thickness and of uniform density).
 
The LHS Parent 1 body as shown is not rotating. If we assume it is radially 
accelerated for a finite period of time in a CW direction and in the plane of 
its mass, then it will be rotating CW at a constant rate (neglecting friction) 
determined by its mass and the accelerating energy applied. It will rotate 
about the "Common point of progressive radial orientation" -- its centre of 
mass. A line through the centre of mass orthogonal to the plane of the disk 
defines its axis of rotation. This rotation will be fully concentric.
 
The RHS Parent 1 body will be considered to be rotating as described for the 
LHS Parent 1. The argument that all parts of the disk are independently and 
synchronously rotating at a fixed rate is specious and will be ignored in 
favour of the prevailing view that what is rotating is Parent 1 -- not all the 
bits of Parent 1, ie it is a rigid body(*). However, every part of the disk, 
including the cutouts, have mass, and if moving, store energy. If we extract a 
portion of Parent 1 -- say Cutout A (it doesn't matter which one) -- while 
Parent 1 is rotating, Cutout A will carry radial motion with it. It will rotate 
concentrically about its individual centre of mass as was described for Parent 
1, and Parent 1 will -- due to the lost mass (and the location from which this 
mass was removed) rotate eccentrically about its new centre of mass ie its axis 
has moved.
 
If I were sufficiently skilled in applied maths, I'd calculate what the rates 
of rotation were both before and after the removal of Cutout A but I'm not and 
so I can't at this time. If I were sufficiently motivated and felt the 
investment in time were worth the effort, I'd study the matter so as to be able 
to do so. But I don't think it is, so I won't. The reason I don't think it is 
so, is that this model -- Parent 1/Cutout A -- is not an accurate analogy for 
the Moon in its orbit or Uranus in its orbit. An orbital plane has no mass. 
Though I can't do these calculations, of one thing I'm sure -- the total energy 
of the system would remain constant.
 
Did I miss anything?
 
OK -- I've addressed your model -- time for you to reciprocate. In the HC model 
-- how many 360 deg rotations does the Earth make in one 360 deg revolution 
about the Sun?
 
Paul D

(*) This "... how many motions ..." argument reminds me of the acquittal of the 
police in the case of the assault of Rodney King. The film evidence was broken 
down to tiny increments of time and used to demonstrate that Rodney King was 
responsible for his own injuries. Come on!



      Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take 
a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox

Other related posts: