[geocentrism] Re: Uranus

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 08:56:07 -0800 (PST)

Paul, 
 
Slow down there cowboy.. :-) ...you are making way too many assumptions about 
way too many things and you are not stopping to understand the fundamentals of 
what is under consideration..…you have not yet even begun to understand the 
nature of what is under consideration here.....
 
1. 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. 
 
The principle is the same ?! what connects any solid?...force not 
solid!?....The only question is one of "rigidness" Or elasticity but in all 
cases these are one and the same things fundamentally….. Why?...…even the atoms 
and individual molecules in a “solid” are only held together with nothing more 
then “force”. the electrons are held to the atom via force and yet they make up 
your "ridgid" bodies.  Gravity itself is a force the only difference is that it 
is a weaker force and the only other difference is the scale of the distance 
between the molecules verse the distance between the orbital bodies and the 
scale of the force that holds them together and or permits any elasticity………The 
fundamental relationships are the identical!  You need to fully grasp that fact 
first....... 
 
 
2. Parent 1 is assumed to be a disk of negligible thickness and of uniform 
density). That can be considered  true as long as you keep in mind all things 
are only a matter of scale…..That is not just a “minor point”…that is important 
to understand not only  for simplicity sake but it is a key  fundamental point 
to understand the world around you. A perfectly smooth sphere is only perfectly 
smooth at your scale, a wheel is only perfectly balanced at a given scale……The 
orbital plane of the earth moon system can be considered to fully encapsulate 
all of the earth and all of the moon at scale……… Otherwise, at larger scales we 
would have to complicated things with individual parallel planes for each 
molecule atom and quantum state in the body under consideration, this would 
lead to the infinite axis of rotation for every sigle molecule, then atom then 
quark and leptons and all the empty space in between as well!???…..This is the 
physical
 absurdity and failure of fully understanding these things that you and your 
arguments keep trying to bring us to…... However I have demonstrated  the 
simplicity and practical applications of Fundamentally  concepts. 
 
3. You need to address this fully……..If the disk of parent “1” is rotating or 
”spinning” how many common points or axis of rotation exist for it?.. If the 
axis did not exist before you cut it out why or how does it exist after you cut 
it out?....the fundamentals are the same as long as there is some force or 
cause to keep it in the same orientation after the cut out as it had before the 
cutout……. How are you going to define where the or any axis is defined….... At 
the molecular level? ..the atomic level?...the quantum level?.....if the disc 
has one axis of rotation then your whole arguments fails to even get off the 
ground. If on the other hand you claim that there are infinite axis of rotation 
present in the disk parent “1” then you are left without any meaningfully 
relationship to anything observed in reality, And the only thing you have left 
then are imaginary "infinities"! 
 
4. The  difference between our positions is that one has a meaningful and 
useful application the other is infinite imagination complicated infinitely, 
with no relevance to the world we live in except in pure imagination external 
of observation.  We already know what you prefer and that is ok….what  you fail 
to see is that you have no logic, observational or experimental bases for 
assuming or claiming that approach is more reasonable. This is particularly 
true since it is determined purely by what you cannot see and what you cannot 
demonstrate to attempt to argue what you do not and cannot know!?  …………… As 
said before any fool can make things more complicated, it takes real genius to 
go in the opposite direction…




________________________________
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2009 5:10:56 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus


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.

Other related posts: