[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Uranus

---

From:  allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To:  geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To:  geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:  [geocentrism] Fw: Uranus
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.