Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a = look. --0-1482092440-1235679172=:17422 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <table cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0" ><tr><td valign=3D"= top" style=3D"font: inherit;"><BR><BR>--- On <B>Thu, 2/26/09, Allen Daves <= I><allendaves@xxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(= 16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sub= ject: Re: [geocentrism] leselene part 2<BR>To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR= >Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 12:10 PM<BR><BR> <DIV id=3Dyiv98877638> <TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 border=3D0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD vAlign=3Dtop><BR> <P class=3DMsoNormalCxSpFirst style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"T= imes New Roman" size=3D3>Part two:</FONT>=20 <P class=3DMsoNormalCxSpMiddle style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3= ><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN> </SPAN>Your experimental sectio= n=E2=80=A6.</FONT></FONT>=20 <P class=3DMsoNormalCxSpMiddle style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"= Times New Roman" size=3D3> </FONT>=20 <P class=3DMsoNormalCxSpMiddle style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"= Times New Roman" size=3D3>Your experiment applies rotational force to your = balloon as the balloon orbits your apparatus but does not change orientatio= n to your apparatus because it is prevented by the friction the exist betwe= en your balloon and apparatus... while the balloon is attached to your appa= ratus is it not in rotation wrt your apparatus, it is only when you release= the balloon from the apparatus that the resistance between the balloon and= the apparatus is also released=E2=80=A6.. it the begins to rotates wrt to = your apparatus, <SPAN> </SPAN>which is the RF of your earth moon syste= m=E2=80=A6.I have already covered this in the Motors experimental example = =E2=80=A6.there is no rotation while sufficient reissuance to the force is = present between the balloon and the apparatus=E2=80=A6the rotation that exi= st only exist wrt the balloon and apparatus=E2=80=A6otherwise you only crea= te a larger RF with more bodies who=E2=80=99s motion must be consider. This does not define the motion it = only creates more motions that must be defined=E2=80=A6 The same questions = must be asked which one is doing the Rotation? How do you define that? If y= ou assume that you are stationary and thus observed the rotation from your = observational location then you are invoking by definition a ARF to define = your motions=E2=80=A6.This begs the question how can you have a Absolute RF= to use define your motions without being able to absolutely measure the mo= tions?!..the appearance of rotation only exist from your vantage point..in = your universe where only the balloon and apparatus exist which one is in mo= tion?..Yes, i would say the balloon did roatate after it was realeased= and that makes my case not yours. The balloon only beg= ins any rotaional motion wrt the apparatus once it is released not bef= ore. As such your apparatus is considered the RF for your experiment n= ot the observer! =E2=80=A6.. when you release your balloon you also remove the re= sistance to that rotational force=E2=80=A6this is noting new here just a di= fferent bow on the top=E2=80=A6</FONT>=20 <P class=3DMsoNormalCxSpMiddle style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"= Times New Roman" size=3D3> </FONT>=20 <P class=3DMsoNormalCxSpMiddle style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"= Times New Roman" size=3D3>If you don=E2=80=99t understand this or you think= I am just playing with words then consider taking your experiment into =E2= =80=9Cdeep space=E2=80=9D (or obit) considering only your three body univer= se <I>(nothing outside your local RF)</I> ..now define the motions=E2=80=A6= .!???!? <SPAN> </SPAN>Remember you cannot go outside your reference fr= ame to give yourself a frame of reference=E2=80=A6..Your universe (three bo= dies) in an of themselves do not and cannot define the motions of your thre= e bodies without using something or some other observation post as a ARF fr= om which to define those motions!=E2=80=A6If you can define motion as absol= ute then you must be able to measure it absolutely!...All you have demonstr= ated is the appearance of a kind of motion <B><U>but only</U></B> from a sp= ecific vantage point, from other locations the apparatus would appear to ro= tate=E2=80=A6.your experiment only demonstrates the appearance of motion at your location, .but you never act= ually get to the point where you define it!! If the definition is just rela= tive then all you gave us was the appearance not proof of anything=E2=80=A6= ..if on the other hand you accept that the balloon was in actual rotation t= hen you must accept the logical imperative for a ARF. Without which there i= s no way to define your motions.</FONT>=20 <P class=3DMsoNormalCxSpMiddle style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"= Times New Roman" size=3D3> </FONT>=20 <P class=3DMsoNormalCxSpMiddle style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"= Times New Roman" size=3D3>Describing =E2=80=9Ca thing=E2=80=9D not matter h= ow vividly demonstrates nothing=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6..</FONT>=20 <P class=3DMsoNormalCxSpMiddle style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"= Times New Roman" size=3D3> </FONT>=20 <P class=3DMsoNormalCxSpMiddle style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"= Times New Roman" size=3D3> </FONT><BR>--- On <B>Wed, 2/25/09, Paul Dee= ma <I><paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(= 16,16,255) 2px solid">From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Su= bject: [geocentrism] leselene<BR>To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Date: Wed= nesday, February 25, 2009, 10:03 PM<BR><BR> <DIV id=3Dyiv1511865776> <STYLE type=3Dtext/css><!--#yiv98877638 #yiv1511865776 DIV {margin:0px;}-->= </STYLE> <DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><FONT size=3D2> <DIV>Greetings all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hasn't it been quiet lately?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial size= =3D2> <DIV>For some time now, Allen Daves has been resolutely asserting (and pret= ending that he has demonstrated) that the Moon does not rotate. Here are th= e key points for anyone who is behind the play. (References are given at th= e bottom). Emphasis is mine.</DIV> <DIV>In brief -</DIV> <DIR> <DIR><B> <DIV>[AD] "...the Moon orbits it most certainly does not rotate".</DIV> <DIV>[PD] "... are the laws of physics the same at all points in the univer= se?</DIV> <DIV>[AD] 1. YES</DIV> <DIV>[PD] "The Moon has a sidereal period of approximately 27.322 mean sola= r days. At full moon the Earth vanishes. Will its sidereal period change an= d if so by (roughly) how much?"</DIV> <DIV>[AD] "what the sidereal period of the moon would be............. if th= e earth suddenly disappeared?" ....It would be the same as is and has and e= very will be now!? That is as succinctly of an answer to your question as p= ossible. </B>[PD While precise interpretation of the forgoing is not really= possible, I take this as intended to mean that if it is rotating prior the= n it will be rotating subsequently and if it is not rotating prior then it = will not be rotating subsequently].</DIV></DIR></DIR> <DIV>In further discussion, Allen Daves stated -</DIV> <DIR> <DIR></FONT></FONT><B><FONT size=3D2> <DIV>"If you cannot separate out the motions and still observe the motion t= hen it does not exist.</DIV></DIR></DIR></B> <DIV>... and -</DIV> <DIR> <DIR> <DIV>"... <B>it always comes down to what you imagine could be vs what you = can actualy demonstrate."</DIV></B></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT= face=3DArial size=3D2> <DIV> </DIV></DIR></DIR> <DIV>At this point, I ask anyone wishing to comment on this matter, to plea= se view the material presented at http://au.video.yahoo.com/watch/4558230/1= 2206499.<FONT face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> </FONT></FONT></FONT><= FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif">This is the demon= stration which I foreshadowed in my "Uranus" post of 2008_Dec_19 and severa= l subsequent references; the demonstration which Allen erroneously convince= d himself that I had claimed to have already given despite many hints that = he was mistaken.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2> </DIV></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT fa= ce=3DArial size=3D2> <DIV>I submit that the demonstration, together with the concessions already= made, supports my contention that the Moon does rotate and refutes Allen D= aves' contention that it does not.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In the ten days remaining to me on the forum, I will welcome support, = join discussion and refute objections.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Paul D</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV><B> <DIV>[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [= ] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [= ] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []</DIV></B> <DIV>Here are the references for the above statements -</DIV> <DIV>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</DIV> <DIV>From Bernie Brauer <B>Wed Nov 19 </B>16:28:08 2008</DIV> <DIV>[geocentrism] Moon Rotation</DIV> <DIV>(Also see http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/moonmovement -- = Allen Daves)</DIV> <DIV>Question: In Geocentrism/Geostatic, does the Moon rotate?</DIV> <DIV>Answer: Think about every rotation you can observe . . . it is nothing= more than a single point that has a progressive radial orientation to a co= mmon point . . . now look on the Moon . . . take any fixed point on the Moo= n . . . the only progressive radial orientation made by any fixed point on = the Moon is to a common point that lay outside the Moon . . . thus the Moon= does not rotate it orbits . . . a rotation is a progressive radial orienta= ion to a common point that lay internal of the object in rotation . . . i.e= . the center of a record, drill any hole you want to in it . . . all rotati= on will be around that point that lay inside the record itself . . . where = in an orbit the only common point that any other point on the Moon can make= a progressive radial orientation to is at the Earth not the Moon . . . orb= it common point outside the body in question . . . rotation =3D common poin= t internal to the body in question <B>. . . the Moon orbits it most certainly does not rotate. Allen Daves</DIV></B> <DIV>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</DIV> <DIV></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>= From Paul Deema <B>Wed Nov 26 </B>11:43:36 2008</DIV> <DIV>[geocentrism] Moon Rotation`</DIV> <DIV>I'll look at this tomorrow but in the meantime -- in one word (where t= hat one word is a subset of 'yes/no') -- are the laws of physics the same a= t all points in the universe?</DIV> <DIV>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</DIV> <DIV>From allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <B>Wed Nov 26 </B>12:51:07 2008</DIV> <DIV>[geocentrism] Moon Rotation</DIV> <DIV>1. YES</DIV> <DIV>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</DIV> <DIV>From Paul Deema <B>Thu Nov 27 </B>01:37:59 2008</DIV> <DIV>To my question regarding the universality of the laws of physics, you = have answered "1. YES". Thank you. I do so applaud forthrightness.</DIV> <DIV>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</DIV> <DIV>From Paul Deema <B>Thu Dec 13 </B>16:56:43 2007</DIV> <DIV>re:Rotation of camera</DIV> <DIV>Allen D</DIV> <DIV>The Moon has a sidereal period of approximately 27.322 mean solar days= . At full moon the Earth vanishes. Will its sidereal period change and if s= o by (roughly) how much?</DIV> <DIV>Paul D</DIV> <DIV>oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</DIV> <DIV>From Allen Daves <B>Fri Dec 14 </B>16:31:02 2007</DIV> <DIV>[geocentrism] Re: Rotation of camera</DIV> <DIV>Paul,</DIV> <DIV>1. I say things the way i do to get a certain response .</DIV> <DIV>2. the answer to your question is " If the moon is still be moving the= way it did before the earth's disapearance then it will see exactly the sa= me things the same way it did before the earths disappearance."</DIV> <DIV>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</DIV> <DIV>From Allen Daves <B>Sun Dec 16 </B>17:37:03 2007</DIV> <DIV>[geocentrism] Re: (no subject)</DIV> <DIV>"what the sidereal period of the moon would be............. if the ear= th suddenly disappeared?" ....It would be the same as is and has and every = will be now!? That is as succinctly of an answer to your question as possib= le. I stated as much in my very first and all subsequent responses!? </DIV> <DIV>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</DIV> <DIV>From Allen Daves <B>Sat Jan 3 </B>16:56:07 2009 </DIV> <DIV>[geocentrism] Re: Uranus</DIV> <DIV>4. The difference between our positions is that one has a meaningful a= nd useful application the other is infinite imagination complicated infinit= ely, with no relevance to the world we live in except in pure imagination e= xternal of observation. We already know what you prefer and that is ok=E2= =80=A6.what you fail to see is that you have no logic, observational or exp= erimental 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!? =E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6 As said before= any fool can make things more complicated, it takes real genius to go in t= he opposite direction=E2=80=A6</DIV> <DIV>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</DIV> <DIV>From allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <B>Fri Jan 9 </B>16:24:58 2009</DIV></F= ONT></FONT><FONT size=3D2> <DIV>[geocentrism] meditations on Scripture</DIV> <DIV>I''m not the one who is complicating things it is so ironic that you s= ee it that way... .......any defintion used to create the axis you kee refe= ring to logicaly demands a axis for every single and infinate ,"infinity" y= ou can imagine. at any "pratical scale" you choose imhotep or not :-).....w= hy? ....because what defines one just as equaly defines all the others.....= The error is that you do not see that your application and defintion and us= e of rotation and its axis applies equaly to every infinity you can imagine= . you have no way of claiming an objective separtaion between your axis and= infinate axis. The key point is that cannot just arbitraily pick one axis = out of all your posible infinities and call it an objective anylisis of any= thing....cherey picking your observations and results and then calling ever= ything else "error" is simply silly!....</FONT><B>If you cannot separate ou= t the motions and still observe the motion then it does not exist</B><FONT size=3D2>......period firiment or no firmiment ..as the for= ce examples all show there is and can only be a logical claim to a preventi= on of a rotation, not a rotaion due to any demonstratable force.</FONT> <B>= it always comes down to what you imagine could be vs what you can actualy d= emonstrate</B>.........</DIV><FONT size=3D2> <DIV>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</DIV> <DIV>From allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <B>Sat Jan 10 </B>01:10:50 2009</DIV> <DIV>[geocentrism] Uranus</DIV></FONT><B><FONT size=3D4> <DIV><FONT size=3D3>... it always comes down to what you imagine could be v= s what</FONT> you <FONT size=3D5>can</FONT> <FONT size=3D6>actually </FONT>= <FONT size=3D7>demonstrate ...</FONT></DIV></B></FONT><FONT face=3D"Times N= ew Roman" size=3D2> <DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif">[] [] [] [] [] [] = [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] = [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] = [] [] []</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV><BR> <HR SIZE=3D1> Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. <A href= =3D"http://au.rd.yahoo.com/galaxy/mail/tagline2/*http://au.docs.yahoo.com/m= ail/smarterinbox" target=3D_blank rel=3Dnofollow>Take a look</A>.</DIV></BL= OCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table> --0-1482092440-1235679172=:17422--