[geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:01:41 +1000
"I address all those other issues as well, on rotaion and your acceleration
questions..... Refresher" Allen said
You addressed them to yourself Allen.. You failed on all counts to convince me
that there was anything rational in what you said then or now..
Take this little bit of contradiction in the one post..here today below.. you
said.
what forum did you wake up and think you or anyone here has produced any kind
of argument that has not been totaly and soundly deated in both logic and
experiment... ....???
go back and read Bernnies example of the ball on the stick post. ...????
......you keep appealing to observation and reality but when it is show to you,
you jump back to imaginary rubber bands and frames of reference that are not
even valid in your own arguments!?...Like Bernies ball on a stick perhaps..
allen?
Allen Bernie accepted the reality of the ball as a real experiment, equal in
reality to the kindergarten toy experiment.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:11 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
Paul,
I think you have it back wards....if there was a rubber band on the
moon where is tha band attached to?..it most certainly would not twist wrt the
earth.....go back and read Bernnies example of the ball on the stick
post.....you can find them at a kindergaurden.. cars on a race track do not
rotate either they only have one common pont from which any part of the vehicle
makes a progressive radial oreintaion to....its called center field! there is
no rotaion...maybe you should start again at kindergaurden because your post is
nonsense.
.I address all those other issues as well, on rotaion and your
acceleration questions..... Refresher:
Reproducable acceleraions are allways in every real experiment ever
performed detectable via optical gyros....that goes for your "TWO
CYLENDERS"..oh yea i already answered and addressed all of this months
ago......putting a different wrapping paper on it does not make it any more
valid..
....you are the one who is asleep inconsistent and complelty out of
touch with your own failed sense of reality verse your feelings......you keep
appealing to observation and reality but when it is show to you, you jump back
to imaginary rubber bands and frames of reference that are not even valid in
your own arguments!?.... ..where have you been?!..what forum did you wake up
and think you or anyone here has produced any kind of argument that has not
been totaly and soundly deated in both logic and experiment....this is earth
Paul.....come down to it.....the dream is over.....:-)
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 8:03 AM
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
Other related posts:
