[geocentrism] Uranus
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 17:26:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-556637670-1231118795=:67356"
--0-556637670-1231118795=:67356
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Philp, =0A=A0=0A"You took everything about atoms/molecules =A0straight 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 und=
er=A0discussion, and then used it against Paul"=0A=A0=0AThat was the whole =
point of my post to you then and the point of my post now...It is a ridicul=
ous imaginative argument to attmept to appeal to=A0every atom and molecule =
ect....Note:I'm not making that argument your and Pauls postion does, that =
is where your and his postions lead to.....NONSENSE...... about every atom =
melcule and quantum particle....That is what i pointed out to you then and =
that is what i am pointing out to you now...as i said it is ridiculous and =
prevents any meaningfull disscussion or defintions or understanding of the =
real observable world around you..........??????=0A=0A=A0 =0APaul,=0A=A0=0A=
When you address the points of my last post, and not just talk about the po=
ints of my last post, then I think we will have a meaningful platform on wh=
ich to be able to move forward... Please pay particular attention to the qu=
estions asked in point #3=0A=0APoints 1& 2 are not "minor points" they are =
extremely relevant and extremely important. If you don=92t see that then yo=
u need to spend some time here=85.coz, I don see how you are going to move =
forward in your understanding about anything in the world around you partic=
ularly technical definitions wrt bodies including motion =85=85...Those poi=
nts are designed to help you achieve a logical answer and arrive at a logic=
al conclusion to the questions I asked based on any of the given premises I=
point out=85.=0AThey lay out the necessary premises for any answers to que=
stions in #3....=0ASpeaking of "Nothing else here is of any import" I sugge=
st that is what Imhotep is to this conversation.=0AThe purpose of the discu=
ssion and all my points here are to clarify and simplify ....not Complicate=
, exaggerate and obfuscate.......one of those leads to meaningful understan=
ding the other does not=85...=85=85...Good luck..=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A--=
- On Sat, 1/3/09, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:=0A=0AFrom: Pau=
l Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>=0ASubject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus=0ATo: =
geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=0ADate: Saturday, January 3, 2009, 9:46 PM=0A=0A=
=0AAllen D=0A=0AI give you 9 1/2 out of 10 for this post. It's clear. The s=
pelling is fair to good. There are real sentences and real paragraphs. This=
is what communication demands (though sticking to the same font and line s=
pacing 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 t=
he issue.=0A=0ANow -- comments. This bit was the most telling -=0A4. The di=
fference between our positions is that one has a meaningful and useful appl=
ication the other is infinite imagination complicated infinitely, with no r=
elevance to the world we live in except in pure imagination external of obs=
ervation. =0AI 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 t=
hat most people, if they are impartial and honest would say that this is mu=
ch more applicable to you than it is to me.=0A=0AI'll give you an example o=
f what I'm talking about. Some 5000 or so years ago, the Egyptians built th=
e Great Pyramid of Cheops (or Khufu). It is still right up there with the f=
ew other "BIGGEST" constructions ever accomplished by Man. Yet they had no =
idea about the existence of atoms or the forces which hold them together. T=
heir theoretical knowledge of chemistry and physics was essentially non-exi=
stent. They were unable to mathematically analyse and solve structural prob=
lems. Their best estimate for the value of pi was (2^8)/(3^4) =3D 256/81. Y=
et they did it. Without a positional numbering system. Without decimal frac=
tions. Without even a rational system of measurement units. Without heavy l=
oad carrying wheels. Not a steam engine nor even a compound pulley block. T=
hey did it by trial and error, by organisation and by man power.=0A=0AI sug=
gest that were you to have been in Imhotep's sandals, charged with the desi=
gn and construction of Zoser's Step Pyramid -- the first such construction =
in stone -- you would still be waiting for the invention of anti-gravity li=
fting devices and the perfection of understanding of how and why it operate=
d, to lift really big stones. Meanwhile, Zoser, unprotected by a tomb, woul=
d have been reduced to dust and scattered to the four corners of the Earth.=
=0A=0AThe points you make about my not having considered eg whether a "A pe=
rfectly smooth sphere is only perfectly smooth at your scale, a wheel is on=
ly 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 a=
m able to exclude from consideration those things which will not materially=
affect the outcome while you seem unable to do so.=0A=0ANothing 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 ano=
ther 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.=0A=0ASpeaking about the matter at hand, you did not address my concl=
uding question. Here it is again, emphasised -=0AIn the HC model -- how man=
y 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 -=0AYou will shortly see that this assumption is false.=0A=
Paul D=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Allen Daves <all=
endaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>=0ATo: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=0ASent: Saturday, 3=
January, 2009 4:56:07 PM=0ASubject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus=0A=0A=0APaul,=
=0A=A0=0ASlow down there cowboy.. :-) ...you are making way too many assum=
ptions about way too=A0many things=A0and you are not stopping to understand=
the fundamentals of what is under consideration..=85you have not yet even =
begun to understand=A0the nature of what=A0is under consideration here.....=
=0A=A0=0A1. 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 c=
an't do these calculations, of one thing I'm sure -- the total energy of th=
e system would remain constant. =0A"... what you fail to see is that you ha=
ve no logic, observational or experimental bases for assuming or claiming t=
hat approach is more reasonable ..."=0A=A0=0AThe principle is the same ?! w=
hat 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 thing=
s fundamentally=85.. Why?...=85even the atoms and individual molecules in a=
=93solid=94 are only held together with nothing more then =93force=94. the=
electrons are held to the atom=A0via force=A0and yet they make up your "ri=
dgid" bodies. =A0Gravity itself is a force the only difference is that it i=
s 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 th=
e scale of the force that holds them together and or permits any elasticity=
=85=85=85The fundamental relationships are the identical! =A0You need to fu=
lly grasp that fact first....... =0A=A0 =0A=A0 =0A2. Parent 1 is assumed to=
be a disk of negligible thickness and of uniform density). That can be con=
sidered =A0true as long as you keep in mind all things are only a matter of=
scale=85..That is not just a =93minor point=94=85that is important to unde=
rstand not only =A0for simplicity sake but it is a key =A0fundamental point=
to understand the world around you. A perfectly smooth sphere is only perf=
ectly smooth at your scale, a wheel is only perfectly balanced at a given s=
cale=85=85The orbital plane of the earth moon system can be considered to f=
ully encapsulate all of the earth and all of the moon at scale=85=85=85 Oth=
erwise, at larger scales we would have to complicated things with individua=
l parallel planes for each molecule atom and quantum state in the body unde=
r 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 i=
n between as well!???=85..This is the physical
absurdity and failure of fully understanding these things that you and you=
r arguments keep trying to bring us to=85... However I have demonstrated=A0=
the simplicity and practical applications of Fundamentally=A0 concepts. =
=0A=A0 =0A3. You need to address this fully=85=85..If the disk of parent =
=931=94 is rotating or =94spinning=94 how many common points or axis of rot=
ation exist for it?.. If the axis did not exist before you cut it out why o=
r 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=85=85. How are you going to d=
efine where the or any axis is defined=85.... At the molecular level? ..the=
atomic level?...the quantum level?.....if the disc has one axis of rotatio=
n then your whole arguments fails to even get off the ground. If on the oth=
er hand you claim that there are infinite axis of rotation present in the d=
isk parent =931=94 then you are left without any meaningfully relationship =
to anything observed in reality, And the only thing you=A0have left then ar=
e imaginary "infinities"! =0A=A0 =0A4. The=A0 difference between our positi=
ons is that one has a meaningful and useful application the other is infini=
te imagination complicated infinitely, with no relevance to the world we li=
ve in except in pure imagination external of observation. =A0We already kno=
w what you prefer and that is ok=85.what=A0 you fail to see is that you hav=
e no logic, observational or experimental bases for assuming or claiming th=
at approach is more reasonable. This is particularly true since it is deter=
mined purely by what you cannot see and what you cannot demonstrate to atte=
mpt to argue what you do not and cannot know!? =A0=85=85=85=85=85 As said b=
efore any fool can make things more complicated,=A0it takes real genius to =
go in the opposite direction=85=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_____________________________=
___=0AFrom: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>=0ATo: Geocentrism@freelists=
.org=0ASent: Saturday, January 3, 2009 5:10:56 AM=0ASubject: [geocentrism] =
Uranus=0A=0A=0AAllen D=0A=0AWhere used below, the terms "rotation" and "rev=
olution" have the following meanings -=0Arotation -- radial motion of a bod=
y about a line -- the axis -- which passes through the body's centre of mas=
s.=0Arevolution (first approximation) -- translation of a small mass body a=
bout a large mass body in an elliptical orbit.=0AConcerning the "Parent 1" =
proposition. (Parent 1 is assumed to be a disk of negligible thickness and =
of uniform density).=0A=0AThe LHS Parent 1 body as shown is not rotating. I=
f 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 co=
nstant rate (neglecting friction) determined by its mass and the accelerati=
ng energy applied. It will rotate about the "Common point of progressive ra=
dial 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 rota=
tion will be fully concentric.=0A=0AThe RHS Parent 1 body will be considere=
d to be rotating as described for the LHS Parent 1. The argument that all p=
arts of the disk are independently and synchronously rotating at a fixed ra=
te is specious and will be ignored in favour of the prevailing view that wh=
at is rotating is Parent 1 -- not all the bits of Parent 1, ie it is a rigi=
d body(*). However, every part of the disk, including the cutouts, have mas=
s, 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, Cutou=
t A will carry radial motion with it. It will rotate concentrically about i=
ts individual centre of mass as was described for Parent 1, and Parent 1 wi=
ll -- due to the lost mass (and the location from which this mass was remov=
ed) rotate eccentrically about its new centre of mass ie its axis has moved=
.=0A=0AIf 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 bu=
t 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 orbit=
al 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.=0A=0ADid I =
miss anything?=0A=0AOK -- I've addressed your model -- time for you to reci=
procate. In the HC model -- how many 360 deg rotations does the Earth make =
in one 360 deg revolution about the Sun?=0A=0APaul D=0A=0A(*) This "... how=
many motions ..." argument reminds me of the acquittal of the police in th=
e 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 respon=
sible for his own injuries. Come on!=0A=0A________________________________=
=0AStay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take=
a look.=0A________________________________=0AStay connected to the people =
that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look.
--0-556637670-1231118795=:67356
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></he=
ad><body><div style=3D"font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:1=
4pt"><DIV>=0A<DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG><U>Philp,</U> </STRONG></F=
ONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>=0A<DI=
V><FONT size=3D2>"</FONT><FONT size=3D1><EM>You took everything about atoms=
/molecules straight out of one of my arguments concerning rotation, a=
fter accusing me that this was irrelevant and imaginative and nothing to do=
with the rotation motions under discussion, and then used it against =
Paul"</EM></FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG> =
;</DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>That was the whole point of my post t=
o you then and the point of my post now...It is a ridiculous imaginative ar=
gument to attmept </FONT></STRONG><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>to appeal to =
every atom and molecule ect....<U><FONT size=3D4>Note:</FONT><FONT size=3D4=
> I'm not making that argument your and Pauls postion does, that is where y=
our and his postions lead to</FONT></U>.....NONSENSE...... about every atom=
melcule and quantum particle....That is what i pointed out to you then and=
that is what i am pointing out to you now...as i said it is ridiculous and=
prevents any meaningfull disscussion or defintions or understanding of the=
real observable world around you..........??????</FONT><BR></DIV></STRONG>=
</DIV>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans=
-serif">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new=
york, times, serif"><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New R=
oman"> </FONT> =0A<DIV><STRONG><U>Paul,</U></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STR=
ONG> </STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG>When you address the points of my =
last post, and not just talk about the points of my last post, then I think=
we will have a meaningful platform on which to be able to move forward... =
Please pay particular attention to the questions asked in point #3</STRONG>=
</DIV>=0A<DIV><BR><STRONG>Points 1& 2 are not "minor points" they are e=
xtremely relevant and extremely important. </STRONG><FONT size=3D2></DIV>=
=0A<DIV><STRONG>They lay out the necessary premises for any answers to ques=
tions in #3....</STRONG></FONT><STRONG>If you don=92t see that then you nee=
d to spend some time here=85.coz, I don see how you are going to move forwa=
rd in your understanding about anything in the world around you particularl=
y technical definitions wrt bodies including motion =85=85...Those points a=
re designed to help you achieve a logical answer and arrive at a logical co=
nclusion to the questions I asked based on any of the given premises I poin=
t out=85.</STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG>Speaking of <I>"Nothing else here i=
s of any import"</I> I suggest that is what Imhotep is to this conversation=
.</STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG>The purpose of the discussion and all my po=
ints here are to clarify and simplify ....not Complicate, exaggerate and ob=
fuscate.......one of those leads to meaningful understanding the other does=
not=85...=85=85.</STRONG><STRONG>..Good luck..</STRONG></DIV></FONT></DIV>=
<BR></DIV></DIV>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helve=
tica, sans-serif">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new =
roman, new york, times, serif">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMIL=
Y: arial, helvetica, sans-serif">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAM=
ILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-F=
AMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"> </DIV>=0A<DIV style=
=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">=
=0A<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 border=3D0>=0A<TBODY>=0A<TR>=0A<T=
D vAlign=3Dtop>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV><BR>--- On <=
B>Sat, 1/3/09, Paul Deema <I><paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:<=
BR></DIV>=0A<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDE=
R-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxx=
uk><BR>Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus<BR>To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxx=
g<BR>Date: Saturday, January 3, 2009, 9:46 PM<BR><BR>=0A<DIV id=3Dyiv206425=
9911>=0A<STYLE type=3Dtext/css><!--#yiv2064259911 DIV {margin:0px;}--></STY=
LE>=0A=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans=
-serif">=0A<DIV></DIV>=0A<DIV>Allen D</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>I gi=
ve you 9 1/2 out of 10 for this post. It's clear. The spelling is fair to g=
ood. There are real sentences and real paragraphs. This is what communicati=
on demands (though sticking to the same font and line spacing would be a pl=
us). If you'd like to try for 9 3/4 in your next test -- try dumping these =
ambiguities - > "!?" and "?!" |[:-) They only confuse the issue.</DIV>=
=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>Now -- comments. This bit was the most telling =
-</DIV>=0A<DIR>=0A<DIR><U>=0A<DIV>4.</U> The difference between our positio=
ns is that one has a meaningful and useful application the other is infinit=
e imagination complicated infinitely, with no relevance to the world we liv=
e in except in pure imagination external of observation. </DIV></DIR></DIR>=
=0A<DIV>I thought to myself "Why is he talking about himself?" Well of cour=
se it was soon obvious that you were talking about me. You don't see that m=
ost people, if they are impartial and honest would say that this is much mo=
re applicable to you than it is to me.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>I'l=
l 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 ri=
ght up there with the few other "BIGGEST" constructions ever accomplished b=
y Man. Yet they had no idea about the existence of atoms or the forces whic=
h hold them together. Their theoretical knowledge of chemistry and physics =
was essentially non-existent. They were unable to mathematically analyse an=
d solve structural problems. Their best estimate for the value of pi was (2=
^8)/(3^4) =3D 256/81. Yet they did it. Without a positional numbering syste=
m. Without decimal fractions. Without even a rational system of measurement=
units. Without heavy load carrying wheels. Not a steam engine nor even a c=
ompound pulley block. They did it by trial and error, by organisation and b=
y man power.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>I suggest that were you to ha=
ve been in Imhotep's sandals, charged with the design and construction of Z=
oser's Step Pyramid -- the first such construction in stone -- you would st=
ill be waiting for the invention of anti-gravity lifting devices and the pe=
rfection of understanding of how and why it operated, to lift really big st=
ones. Meanwhile, Zoser, unprotected by a tomb, would have been reduced to d=
ust and scattered to the four corners of the Earth.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DI=
V>=0A<DIV>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 i=
s only perfectly balanced at a given scale..." etc suggest that I am unawar=
e 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 materi=
ally affect the outcome while you seem unable to do so.</DIV>=0A<DIV> =
</DIV>=0A<DIV>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 j=
ust crank up the scale issue another notch and tell me that I need to addre=
ss 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.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>Spe=
aking about the matter at hand, you did not address my concluding question.=
Here it is again, emphasised -</DIV>=0A<DIR>=0A<DIR><B><FONT size=3D4>=0A<=
DIV>In the HC model -- how many 360 deg rotations does the Earth make in on=
e 360 deg revolution about the Sun?</DIV></DIR></DIR></B></FONT><FONT face=
=3D"Times New Roman">=0A<DIV><FONT face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Fi=
nally, and returning to your paragraph four which I addressed in my opening=
, you say -</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIR>=0A<DIR></FONT>=0A<DIV>"... what you fail t=
o see is that you have no logic, observational or experimental bases for as=
suming or claiming that approach is more reasonable ..."</DIV></DIR></DIR>=
=0A<DIV>You will shortly see that this assumption is false.</DIV>=0A<DIV>&n=
bsp;</DIV><FONT face=3Darial>=0A<DIV>Paul D</DIV></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></FONT>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SI=
ZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><BR>=0A<DIV style=3D"F=
ONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><FONT=
face=3DTahoma size=3D2>=0A<HR SIZE=3D1>=0A<B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: b=
old">From:</SPAN></B> Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR><B><=
SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<B=
R><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Saturday, 3 January=
, 2009 4:56:07 PM<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></=
B> [geocentrism] Re: Uranus<BR></FONT><BR>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 14pt;=
FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif">=0A<DIV>=0A<P class=3DMsoNormal=
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue"><FONT size=3D3><=
FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Paul, </FONT></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>=0A<P cl=
ass=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue"><=
FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3> </FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>=0A<P =
class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue"=
><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>Slow down there cowboy.. :-) ...yo=
u are making way too many assumptions about way too many things a=
nd you are not stopping to understand the fundamentals of what is under con=
sideration..=85you have not yet even begun to understand the nature of=
what is under consideration here.....</FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>=0A<P cl=
ass=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: A=
rial"><FONT size=3D3> </FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>=0A<P class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=
=3D3><STRONG><U><FONT color=3D#0000ff>1.</FONT></U></STRONG> Parent 1/Cutou=
t A -- is not an accurate analogy for the Moon in its orbit <I>or</I> <SPAN=
class=3Dyshortcuts>Uranus</SPAN> in <I>its</I> orbit. <B><U>An <SPAN class=
=3Dyshortcuts>orbital plane</SPAN> has no mass</U></B>. Though I can't do t=
hese calculations, of one thing I'm sure -- the total energy of the system =
would remain constant. </FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>=0A<P class=3DMsoNormal styl=
e=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3D3=
> </FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>=0A<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in=
0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3D3>Th=
e principle is the same ?! what connects any solid?...force not solid!?....=
The only question is one of "rigidness" Or elasticity but in all cases thes=
e are one and the same things fundamentally=85.. Why?...=85even the atoms a=
nd individual molecules in a =93solid=94 are only held together with nothin=
g more then =93force=94. the electrons are held to the atom via force&=
nbsp;and yet they make up your "ridgid" bodies. Gravity itself is a f=
orce the only difference is that it is a weaker force and the only other di=
fference is the scale of the distance between the molecules verse the dista=
nce between the orbital bodies and the scale of the force that holds them t=
ogether and or permits any elasticity=85=85=85The fundamental relationships=
are the identical! You need to fully grasp that fact first....... </=
FONT></SPAN>=0A<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT fac=
e=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3></FONT> =0A<P class=3DMsoNormal style=
=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3> </FO=
NT> =0A<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"FO=
NT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3D3><STRONG><U><FONT color=3D#0000ff>2.</FONT>=
</U></STRONG> Parent 1 is assumed to be a disk of negligible thickness and =
of uniform density). <SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue">That can be considered <SP=
AN> </SPAN>true as long as you keep in mind all things are only a matt=
er of scale=85..That is not just a =93minor point=94=85that is important to=
understand not only <SPAN> </SPAN>for simplicity sake but it is a key=
<SPAN> </SPAN>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=85=85The orbital plane of the ear=
th moon system can be considered to fully encapsulate all of the earth and =
all of the moon at scale=85=85=85 Otherwise, at larger scales we would have=
to complicated things with individual parallel planes for each molecule at=
om and
quantum state in the body under consideration, this would lead to the infi=
nite axis of rotation for every sigle molecule, then atom then quark and le=
ptons and all the empty space in between as well!???=85..This is the physic=
al absurdity and failure of fully understanding these things that you and y=
our arguments keep trying to bring us to=85... However I have demonstrated<=
SPAN> </SPAN>the simplicity and practical applications of Fundamental=
ly<SPAN> </SPAN>concepts. </SPAN></FONT></SPAN>=0A<P class=3DMsoNorma=
l style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT si=
ze=3D3><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue"></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> =0A<P class=
=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Aria=
l"><FONT size=3D3><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue"><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue"><=
FONT size=3D3><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><U>3.</U></STRONG> You=
need to address this fully=85=85..If the disk of parent =931=94 is rotatin=
g or =94spinning=94 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 exis=
t after you cut it out?....the fundamentals are the same as long as there i=
s some force or cause to keep it in the same orientation after the cut out =
as it had before the cutout=85=85. How are you going to define where the or=
any axis is defined=85.... At the molecular level? ..the atomic level?...t=
he 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 =931=94
then you are left without any meaningfully relationship to anything observ=
ed in reality, And the only thing you have left then are imaginary "in=
finities"! </FONT></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>=0A<P class=3DMsoNorma=
l style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT si=
ze=3D3><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue"></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> =0A<P class=
=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Aria=
l"><FONT size=3D3><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue"><U>4.</U> The<SPAN> </S=
PAN>difference between our positions is that one has a meaningful and usefu=
l application the other is infinite imagination complicated infinitely, wit=
h no relevance to the world we live in except in pure imagination external =
of observation. <SPAN> </SPAN>We already know what you prefer and that=
is ok=85.what<SPAN> </SPAN>you fail to see is that you have no logic=
, observational or experimental bases for assuming or claiming that approac=
h is more reasonable. This is particularly true since it is determined pure=
ly by what you cannot see and what you cannot demonstrate to attempt to arg=
ue what you do not and cannot know!? <SPAN> </SPAN>=85=85=85=85=85 As =
said before any fool can make things more complicated, it takes real <=
SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial">genius</SPAN> to go in the opposite direction=85</SPAN></FONT></SPA=
N><BR>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans=
-serif"><BR>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,=
new york, times, serif"><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>=0A<HR SIZE=3D1>=0A<B=
><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Paul Deema <paul_dee=
ma@xxxxxxxxxxx><BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> G=
eocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPA=
N></B> Saturday, January 3, 2009 5:10:56 AM<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGH=
T: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [geocentrism] Uranus<BR></FONT><BR>=0A<DIV sty=
le=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif">=0A<DIV s=
tyle=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif">=0A<DIV=
></DIV>=0A<DIV>Allen D</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>Where used below, t=
he terms "rotation" and "revolution" have the following meanings -</DIV>=0A=
<DIR>=0A<DIR>=0A<DIV>rotation -- radial motion of a body about a line -- th=
e axis -- which passes through the body's centre of mass.</DIV>=0A<DIV>revo=
lution (first approximation) -- translation of a small mass body about a la=
rge mass body in an elliptical orbit.</DIV></DIR></DIR>=0A<DIV>Concerning t=
he "Parent 1" proposition. (Parent 1 is assumed to be a disk of negligible =
thickness and of uniform density).</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>The LHS=
Parent 1 body as shown is not rotating. If we assume it is radially accele=
rated 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 o=
f mass. A line through the centre of mass orthogonal to the plane of the di=
sk defines its axis of rotation. This rotation will be fully concentric.</D=
IV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>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 -- <I>not</I> all the <I>bits</I> 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 rotati=
ng, Cutout A will carry radial motion with it. It will rotate concentricall=
y about its individual centre of mass as was described for Parent 1, and Pa=
rent 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.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>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 wort=
h the effort, I'd study the matter so as to be able to do so. But I don't t=
hink it is, so I won't. The reason I don't think it is so, is that this mod=
el -- Parent 1/Cutout A -- is not an accurate analogy for the Moon in its o=
rbit <I>or</I> Uranus in <I>its</I> orbit. An orbital plane has no mass. Th=
ough I can't do these calculations, of one thing I'm sure -- the total ener=
gy of the system would remain constant.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>Di=
d I miss anything?</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>OK -- I've addressed yo=
ur model -- time for you to reciprocate. In the HC model -- how many 360 de=
g rotations does the Earth make in one 360 deg revolution about the Sun?</D=
IV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif">=
Paul D</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>(*) This "... how many motio=
ns ..." argument reminds me of the acquittal of the police in the case of t=
he assault of Rodney King. The film evidence was broken down to tiny increm=
ents of time and used to demonstrate that Rodney King was responsible for h=
is own injuries. Come on!</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>=0A<HR S=
IZE=3D1>=0AStay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inb=
ox. <A href=3D"http://au.rd.yahoo.com/galaxy/mail/tagline2/*http://au.docs.=
yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox" target=3D_blank rel=3Dnofollow>Take a look</A>=
.</DIV></DIV><BR>=0A<HR SIZE=3D1>=0AStay connected to the people that matte=
r most with a smarter inbox. <A href=3D"http://au.rd.yahoo.com/galaxy/mail/=
tagline2/*http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox"; target=3D_blank rel=
=3Dnofollow>Take a look</A>.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></=
DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>
--0-556637670-1231118795=:67356--
Other related posts:
