[geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:03:45 -0800 (PST)
Allen D
I'd ask you if the rubber band will twist except that I have no doubt that it
would end up in the same basket with your failure to address the matter of
whether the red 1 kg mass or the green 1 kg mass would be in front at
perihelion; whether the Moon would rotate on its axis subsequent to the tragic
disappearance of its primary at superior conjunction (or indeed at any other
time); and your pathetic avoidance of the problem of the two cylinders, to wit
"...I would be able to deduce by virtue of the fact i could know beforehand
what was really moving before I got in it.."
As far as I am concerned -- you can go back to sleep.
Paul D
________________________________
From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 25 November, 2008 3:34:45 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
Your arguments are a joke!..where is the moons majic ruber band ?...for that
matter where is the moons majic rubber band's point of reference in the
universe for it's majic ruber band?. The earth..well no ..coz the only
progresive radial oreintaion that any poin on the moon makes lay in the earth
....so where is this point of reference you attach your majic ruber band
too?!.....Hey , fellas.......any absolute RF is a GU postion not AC!?...
"As has been mentioned previously by others, it doesn't make a jot of
difference what you believe, or what others believe -- what matters is what is."
Yea I think i have pointed this out once or twice......
What point on the moon can you show a progressive radial orientation to a some
other point that lay in the moon itself rather then at the earth..........oh
that’s right ...you can't ...coz it don’t exist in reality!....it only exist in
your magical world of ridiculous imagination..........Even Regner did not agree
with you?!
I dont think we have to answer your imafinary follishness until you can answer
a simple question about realilty.........You guys are confusing yourselfs with
your own logic( lack therofe) and you dont have a proper understanding of what
rotaion is ...real, reproducable, demonstratable rotaion in the real world not
majic ruber bands and nonsense!
--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 10:59 PM
Bernie B
Well done -- no equivocation!
I've added to the drawing. There is now a rubber band fitted between two hooks
on the bottom of the ball and two hooks on a fixed object mounted below the
centre of the thin, circular metal rod.
I now ask you another question. If the ball is propelled around the circle,
will the rubber band show twisting? Further, will the twisting not be in fact,
one twist for each and every trip the ball makes around the circle?
In another post this thread -- From philip madsen Mon Nov 24 21:36:28 2008, he
has presented you with excellent advice. Study it, understand it. It is the
truth.
In another post this thread -- From Bernie Brauer Mon Nov 24 15:39:38 2008, you
said -
It actually also works against heliocentrists because
who could believe their synchronized Moon rotation explanation?
The odds are way against that type of order in an exploding universe.
As has been mentioned previously by others, it doesn't make a jot of difference
what you believe, or what others believe -- what matters is what is. Arguments
about how many teeth a horse might have is not the way to go. The way to go is
to go and count them. Well metaphorically speaking, so far as the phenomenon of
synchronised orbits of moons is concerned, the teeth have been counted. Most of
the large moons in the solar system have their rotations synchronised with
their revolutions. Even further, there is one planet which has an orbit where
the rotation is synchronised with the revolution though it is not 1:1 but
rather 1.5:1. I'll not spoil your joy of discovery though -- you'll be thrilled
to discover it for yourself.
Paul D
________________________________
From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 24 November, 2008 3:19:47 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
Paul,
Yes, that looks like a fair representation.
"All rigid body movements are rotations, translations, or combinations of the
two."
So the movement of the Moon is a translation, but there
is no rotation. The Moon is fixed within the rotating firmament.
Bernie
--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:56 PM
Bernie B
You said to Philip -- From Bernie Brauer Sat Nov 22 07:58:12 2008
If you go dwon to your local day-care centre ( where toddlers get dropped off
so mummie can go to work to help daddy pay 66% ALL-TOTAL taxation ) you will
see a toy where you can slide a wooden sphere along a circular thin metal
rod. So the sphere is fixed upon the circular rod and the same point always
shows inward.
I have attached an illustration of what I think you have described but with the
small addition of a straight, thin, light, paper tube attached to the wooden
ball so as to indicate visually that it always points to the centre. The ball
-- with the indicator -- is shown travelling around the circular rod in a
clock-wise direction.
Is this a fair representation? Please indicate any reservations or arguments
you may have.
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
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline
Other related posts:
