Allen D I give you 9 1/2 out of 10 for this post says Paul. Allen I would not even give you a 2... You took everything about atoms/molecules straight out of one of my arguments concerning rotation, after accusing me that this was irrelevant and imaginative and nothing to do with the rotation motions under discussion, and then used it against Paul... For no rational purpose that I could read into it other than to continue making a fool of this entire list, who are atempting to get some rationale out of science as it applies to cosmology and geocentrism. This reluctant reply is to have put my protest on the archive, so that students or observers will see your interlude as mere intertainment, frivolous as it is, to fill in the dead spots when nothing serious is being discussed. It is not intertaining to me. If you were in a class infront of me, I would have no trouble in identifying you as an agent provocature. As I am not so unlucky to have this real experience, I must in charity give you the benefit of the doubt, that you indeed do not have even the slightest comprehension of real basic physics, or that possibly you suffer some mental handicap. Niether of which are your fault.. In such circumstances my heart and prayers are for your wellbeing and as much a happy state as you are able to enjoy. Other than the above, I have considered the possibility that you are not a real person. Nobody can be sure on this medium.. Has the moderator confirmed you or anybody as real persons. You come across as some student at a university, or even a group of them, intent on disruption for fun.. typical of the intelligence level of a lot of university students in this era. As I said, I charge no blame, and ask that observers and students who delve into the science of cosmology and geocentrism, be not deterred from serious discussion and consideration of the subject, by these seemingly non-scientific discussions at the periphery. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Deema To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 3:46 PM Subject: [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 - "... what you fail to see is that you have no logic, observational or experimental bases for assuming or claiming that approach is more reasonable ..." 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look.