[geocentrism] Re: Uranus

Allen D
 
I give you 9 1/2 out of 10 for this post. It's clear. The spelling is fair to 
good. There are real sentences and real paragraphs. This is what communication 
demands (though sticking to the same font and line spacing would be a plus). If 
you'd like to try for 9 3/4 in your next test -- try dumping these ambiguities 
- > "!?" and "?!" |[:-) They only confuse the issue.
 
Now -- comments. This bit was the most telling -
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. 
I thought to myself "Why is he talking about himself?" Well of course it was 
soon obvious that you were talking about me. You don't see that most people, if 
they are impartial and honest would say that this is much more applicable to 
you than it is to me.
 
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. Some 5000 or so years ago, 
the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid of Cheops (or Khufu). It is still right 
up there with the few other "BIGGEST" constructions ever accomplished by Man. 
Yet they had no idea about the existence of atoms or the forces which hold them 
together. Their theoretical knowledge of chemistry and physics was essentially 
non-existent. They were unable to mathematically analyse and solve structural 
problems. Their best estimate for the value of pi was (2^8)/(3^4) = 256/81. Yet 
they did it. Without a positional numbering system. Without decimal fractions. 
Without even a rational system of measurement units. Without heavy load 
carrying wheels. Not a steam engine nor even a compound pulley block. They did 
it by trial and error, by organisation and by man power.
 
I suggest that were you to have been in Imhotep's sandals, charged with the 
design and construction of Zoser's Step Pyramid -- the first such construction 
in stone -- you would still be waiting for the invention of anti-gravity 
lifting devices and the perfection of understanding of how and why it operated, 
to lift really big stones. Meanwhile, Zoser, unprotected by a tomb, would have 
been reduced to dust and scattered to the four corners of the Earth.
 
The points you make about my not having considered eg whether a "A perfectly 
smooth sphere is only perfectly smooth at your scale, a wheel is only perfectly 
balanced at a given scale..." etc suggest that I am unaware of these things. I 
assure you that I am quite well aware. It is just that I am able to exclude 
from consideration those things which will not materially affect the outcome 
while you seem unable to do so.
 
Nothing else here is of any import. If I were to laboriously address every one 
of your minor points, I have the feeling that you would just crank up the scale 
issue another notch and tell me that I need to address the matter in greater 
depth -- an endless task preventing any conclusion from being reached. Unless 
you are prepared to address these problems from a practical perspective -- the 
approach which got the pyramids built -- we will never get to the matter at 
hand.
 
Speaking about the matter at hand, you did not address my concluding question. 
Here it is again, emphasised -
In the HC model -- how many 360 deg rotations does the Earth make in one 360 
deg revolution about the Sun?Finally, and returning to your paragraph four 
which I addressed in my opening, you say -
You will shortly see that this assumption is false.
 Paul D



________________________________
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 3 January, 2009 4:56:07 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus


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.
"... what you fail to see is that you have no logic, observational or 
experimental bases for assuming or claiming that approach is more reasonable 
..."


      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: