[geocentrism] Re: Uranus

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.

Other related posts: