[geocentrism] Fw: Uranus
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Paul,
I answered your question specifically ..If you don't get it then i suggest you
reread it!... according to MS Uranus is making a "daily" progressive radial
orientation to geometric center point also a center of mass point that lay in
that axis of rotation ..or any number of common points the axis lay through,
that lay 97.77 degrees from the annual orbit….. We can identify those axis and
they lay 90degrees to the plane of the motion.......... The planet as a whole
is making a progressive radial orientation to the earth/sun with epicycles what
that axis 90degrees to the plane of that motion...those two axis lay 97.77
degrees wrt each other...... What part of this do you not understand?! Maybe if
you would pay attention to the "blizzard of words" you might get clue!? Each of
those motions are independent of the other..There is nothing scientific about
taking a motion and counting it as two motions...any one of Uranus motions can
be isolated and observed
if any of the other motions are stopped....The motion you keep trying to
ascribe to the moon is the orbit, take the orbit away and there is nothing to
observer (except the liberation).... Paul, you are obfuscating all your post
are a waste of your time because you are not here to learn, you are hear to
espouse ignorance and nonsense. Logic observation and experiment clearly show
only one demonstrable motion, no additional second motion or rotation...only
one rotation with either the axis that the common point lay inside or outside
the diameter of the various bodies in question.. Counting the same thing as
twice does make two of them...nor is splitting it in half (in your head) mean
you have demonstrated two synchronous parts!? ..Now you either demonstrate the
moons supposed rotation isolated and separate, not dependent on the orbit or
you sir are just exercising foolishness either willfully or you just don’t have
the intellect for it. Either way I
don’t think anyone can help you with your problems. You demonstrate nothing
and even after I do you keep claiming, I’m the problem and there is logic and
science in your post!? Your arguments are utter nonsense and yet you accuse me
of not answering, obfuscating, and dealing with the issues… Either demonstrate
something or concede…or find someone who can debate me on this issue with some
better arguments then the foolishness you keep cling so dearly to?!
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 9:07 AM
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 6:10 AM
Allen D
From Wikipedia courtesy of Allen Daves 67.131.20.93 we have -
A Rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That
common point lay within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees
perpendicular to the plane of the motion.
I asked you, with specific reference to Uranus, where is that common point. You
have responded -- your post below -- with a blizzard of words which addressed
everything except the question I asked. Please think of me as being as stupid
and as ignorant as your posts frequently intimate -- where is the common point?
Indeed, what is the common point?
Please note that I am not interested in every single particle in Uranus,
billions of quarks and leptons, individual atoms, stars at night, Galaxies with
billions of individual stars in them or riders on white horses, or indeed
horses of any other colour, with or without riders.
I will also excuse you your intemperate but inaccurate list of things which it
is your conjecture that I need.
What I need at this moment is for you to explain to me what you mean by "...
progressive radial orientation to a common point ..." and later you can build
on that to explain to me how it bears upon the rotation rate of Uranus and the
Moon.
Paul D
From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 6 December, 2008 9:46:36 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
My problem is ' ..' common point ...'. Where is it?????
You deny the Moon is rotating on its axis while it revolves about its primary
yet here you talk about Uranus' rotation and its revolution having separate
axes with no common point. Why do you see the Moon as being different?????
Paul D
Paul,
Dose Uranus have no Geometric center point?!..No center of mass?!..No center
point of EMR ? ..No gravo-inertial center?!. ( MS uses inertial reference
frames..the center point of that frame… to define motion wrt..I wonder how they
do that and if it might apply here as well…ummm) .. Is every single particle
in Uranus moving wrt each other, how do you know that?! Can we not consder
Uranus a whole rather then just billions upon billions of quarks and
leptons..?!...how do they move int he individual attoms?!......Why not ask
about those stars at night that are actually Galaxies with billions of
individual stars in them…do they have a center at all?....Or is it that we
consider them point source lights(EMR)?…..does It matter?.....How would have a
rotation without something going in around something else in progressive and
radial orientation to it? I think that is far more interesting and relevant
question then the obvious obfuscation, you accuse me
of, but are in fact now engaging in.... If you dont know where the common
point point is then have no business arguing geometical conepts that are not
dependent upon dimention......
Admit it …you need the confusion, the anarchy, the chaos and disorder, the
completely random universe, you cant get enough of it, you eat it like
candy.......its siren call is that of the embrace of a sweet lover for you
isn’t it….I mean ....without it….....well that just leaves love for that Jesus
God Guy…
Don’t worry Paul you can go to sleep now, that sword that proceeds out of the
mouth of the rider on the white horse long ago began its work and has already
done its work on you as it has on all the nations….only a little more killing
left to do………
--- On Sat, 12/6/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 1:43 PM
--- On Fri, 12/5/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 10:34 AM
Paul,.
.."I've asked if you would explain what is meant by "Progressive radial
orientation to a common point' with particular reference to its application to
the rotation and revolution of Uranus and the identification of that common
point in that instance"
I'm not sure what the problem is...its spin/Daily/internal common point lay in
the axis that is at 97.77 degrees to the orbital plane, the orbital plane has
its own axis of orbital motion........one axis for "daily" rotation and one for
"annual" orbital rotation....one axis for each progressive radial orientation
to a common point.......Any and every axis lay 90 degrees to the plane of the
motion in question.....the motions must be independent of each other and
isolatable from each other otherwise you are just counting things more then
once and calling them two.....but every progresive radial orientation to a
common point will have its own axis.......The number of axis for Uranus or any
body for that matter is only limited to the amount of rotational motions
present...
"the lengthening list of items which you refuse to address" I dobut i could
ever address all the items you would like me to...im forced to focus on the
most relevant and fundimental ones.....coz i dont think i will live to be older
then a 100 or so years and I have already used quite a few.....but dont worry
too much,.....I don't think it is nessisary to look at every atom in the
universe or vistit every part of the universe before you and I can both claim
victory in the assertion that atoms are very small and the universe is very
large...
--- On Fri, 12/5/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 6:04 AM
Allen D
You said --
Paul, The curt remarks I referred to are made by me. My post are at some times
more disciplined then others but don’t let that bother you. I’m not playing
dumb, not at all. I am just giving you and others ample opportunity to say
"less then brilliant" things of which you and Phil have not disappointed me
with…I then remark in very, perhaps extreme sarcastic manner. I’m sorry you
can’t see beyond your own logical contradictions, …. but then again you never
did get the whole gravity= inertia thingy either…..Note I did not start out
that way but I keep coming to the same conclusion about most not all but
certainly most of your arguments, they are focused on "claiming victory" not on
evaluating the possibility that they are completely wrong. ….. As I said before
this thread will just go in circles. It will most certainly not progress your
learning at all because ..well we all know why…….but my point is not so much
for me to convince you
of your error. You truly believe in your own folly and will not be shown
otherwise! It is to offer others a chance to understand and evaluate the real
world and the kinds of people that live in it……..
'... claiming victory ...' Yes -- it could be so construed. I however see it as
an attempt to contribute to your education in reality. By contrast, your
position is characterised by avoiding admission of error at any cost. The most
demeaning of mental gyrations is not beneath you in this endeavour.
'... that they are completely wrong ...' Well I've asked if you would explain
what is meant by "Progressive radial orientation to a common point" with
particular reference to its application to the rotation and revolution of
Uranus and the identification of that common point in that instance. This is
only my second request so it may be too early to add this question to the
lengthening list of items which you refuse to address but I suspect it is none
the less destined for that distinction.
Paul D
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now.
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now.
Other related posts:
