# [geocentrism] Moon Rotation

• From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:11:56 -0800 (PST)

```

comon guys....your beat.. how many times do we need to beat this dead
horse...you only demonstrate one thing...that people like you cannot see truth
or a contridition of ones own positions no matter how obvious or plain we make
it.......

Evidence!!..where?!.....you cannot claim the moon would rotate if released from
its orbit without first ASSUMING the AC dynamics is true first and that the
moon is not fixed in the Firmiment.!!!. Making assumptions about the very
nature of physics and physcial constructs of the universe that is in question
is not Evidence it is called circular fallicies!!!!!!!.....I would have thought
that would have seeped in by now....

A rotation...any demonstratable roation is a progresive radial orientaion to a
common point... YOur arguments are inconsistent and self defeating.....NOTE:...

Your “common point” cannot go flying and moving all over the universe like some
sort of “Nexus” from star treck….otherwise,  it is not “common” to anything!
This holds true especially in abstract mathematical “points in space”…..& if it
is not a “point in space” but rather a point tied & common to any given
material object then any rotational motion of that object is only relative to
some other object and thus as before the only progressive radial orientation to
a common point lay outside the moon at the earth ( you know…..the other object
the relative motion is measured against!?) Do remember that any motion of a
object can and must be relative to other objects not itself!?!?!.. If  the
relative positions between two particles of sand on the moon do not change wrt
each other then there can be no claim to relative motion! Another outside body
such as the earth would be necessary in order to claim that those two particles
of
sand have a relative rotational motion wrt each other as indicated by the
relative amount of the changes in distances at any given moment in time..(ie
the any two riders on a merry-go-round)….If all that were not true and “common
points” can move nilly willy all over the universe then there can be no such
thing as a meaningful definition or understanding of motion because all things
are both moving  and not moving around clockwise and counterclockwise, up down
left and right wrt each other and everything else all simultaneously…if that
were the case then there is no such thing as motion period, for it could not be
defined in any meaningful way since any point of reference used to isolate and
define a particular kind of motion could be and must be considered to exist in
All locations of every part of the universe simultaneously!? You can’t have it
both ways…your point of reference cannot move otherwise it has no meaning as a
point of
reference! This is true for inertial frames or absolute frames…..you guys are
imagining and trying to create a whole new Kinematics ….one absent of any
geometrics!?

The only thing you guys have given us is.......well it aint called evidence!?

comon guys....your beat.. how many times do we need to beat this dead
horse...you only demonstrate one thing...that people like you cannot see truth
or a contridition of ones own positions no matter how obvious or plain we make
it.......

Evidence!!..where?!.....you cannot claim the moon would rotate if released from
its orbit without first ASSUMING the AC dynamics is true first and that the
moon is not fixed in the Firmiment.!!!. Making assumptions about the very
nature of physics and physcial constructs of the universe that is in question
is not Evidence it is called circular fallicies!!!!!!!.....I would have thought
that would have seeped in by now....

A rotation...any demonstratable roation is a progresive radial orientaion to a
common point... YOur arguments are inconsistent and self defeating.....NOTE:...

Your “common point” cannot go flying and moving all over the universe like some
sort of “Nexus” from star treck….otherwise,  it is not “common” to anything!
This holds true especially in abstract mathematical “points in space”…..& if it
is not a “point in space” but rather a point tied & common to any given
material object then any rotational motion of that object is only relative to
some other object and thus as before the only progressive radial orientation to
a common point lay outside the moon at the earth ( you know…..the other object
the relative motion is measured against!?) Do remember that any motion of a
object can and must be relative to other objects not itself!?!?!.. If  the
relative positions between two particles of sand on the moon do not change wrt
each other then there can be no claim to relative motion! Another outside body
such as the earth would be necessary in order to claim that those two particles
of
sand have a relative rotational motion wrt each other as indicated by the
relative amount of the changes in distances at any given moment in time..(ie
the any two riders on a merry-go-round)….If all that were not true and “common
points” can move nilly willy all over the universe then there can be no such
thing as a meaningful definition or understanding of motion because all things
are both moving  and not moving around clockwise and counterclockwise, up down
left and right wrt each other and everything else all simultaneously…if that
were the case then there is no such thing as motion period, for it could not be
defined in any meaningful way since any point of reference used to isolate and
define a particular kind of motion could be and must be considered to exist in
All locations of every part of the universe simultaneously!? You can’t have it
both ways…your point of reference cannot move otherwise it has no meaning as a
point of
reference! This is true for inertial frames or absolute frames…..you guys are
imagining and trying to create a whole new Kinematics ….one absent of any
geometrics!?

The only thing you guys have given us is.......well it aint called evidence!?

--- On Tue, 11/25/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 2:47 PM

﻿

But we are HERE not THERE.  Absolutely true, but you could stop mentalising and
build a model on the kitchen table along the lines of Pauls experiment , before
you theoretically pontificate.. Why did you ignore the rest of my post from
Wiki which put to risk your on your claimed view from Wiki?

Bernie if you persist with your error after all this evidence, I have to
believe you are either just in to stir up dissent, or you are one of those whom
Jesus warned us to leave alone in case we should be doomed to hell. ..
"And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. , "

Allen should take care as well.... "it only exist in your magical world of
ridiculous imagination..."  Hmmm..

Philip.

----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 2:43 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation

Philip wrote:
"...and you should look from above and outside
of the earth, not from the earth."

But we are HERE not THERE.

"To look out and see other objects in the heavens move does not tell you what
is absolute motion, or what or whether or not you would and could feel/detect
those motions if you were there ... and since you are not there ... think about
that for a while."  Allen Daves

Bernie

--- On Mon, 11/24/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 9:36 PM

﻿

Bernie do not appeal to heliocentric science for support..  as I show below
Why assume an extra rotation, when the full translation cycle
explains what we see - the same face of the Moon.
The full translation cycle has the same effect as one rotation,
but it's not called a rotation ( I looked in up in Jewiepedia ).
It is not an assumption..  and you should look from above and outside
of the earth, not from the earth. Rotation is a geometric action
which need not involve any material object. Then your pedia is wrong.
But Wiki is not wrong Bernie .. Here is Wiki's specifications for the moon..
You will read it has a synchronous rotation ..  equal to its orbit
heliocentrically speaking of course. I highlighted it in brown  ...

Sidereal rotation
period
27.321 582 d (synchronous)
Also from Wiki  I find this line.. which should convince you..  The axis of
rotation of the moon is not the same as the axis of its orbit...  see below.
The mean inclination of the lunar orbit to the ecliptic plane is 5.145°. The
rotation axis of the Moon is also not perpendicular to its orbital plane, so
the lunar equator is not in the plane of its orbit, but is inclined to it by a
constant value of 6.688° (this is the obliquity). One might be tempted to think
that as a result of the precession of the Moon's orbit plane, the angle between
the lunar equator and the ecliptic would vary between the sum (11.833°) and
difference (1.543°) of these two angles. However, as was discovered by Jacques
Cassini in 1721, the rotation axis of the Moon precesses with the same rate as
its orbit plane, but is 180° out of phase (see Cassini's Laws). Thus, although
the rotation axis of the Moon is not fixed with respect to the stars, the angle
between the ecliptic and the lunar equator is always 1.543°.

Designations

"lunar"

Orbital characteristics

Perigee
363 104 km  (0.002 4 AU)

Apogee
405 696 km  (0.002 7 AU)

Semi-major axis
384 399 km  (0.002 57 AU[1])

Eccentricity
0.054 9[1]

Orbital period
27.321 582 d  (27 d 7 h 43.1 min[1])

Synodic period
29.530 588 d  (29 d 12 h 44.0 min)

Average orbital speed
1.022 km/s

Inclination
5.145° to the ecliptic[1]
(between 18.29° and 28.58° to Earth's equator)

Longitude of ascending node
regressing by one revolution in 18.6 years

Argument of perigee
progressing by one revolution in 8.85 years

Satellite of
Earth

Physical characteristics

1 737.10 km  (0.273 Earths)[1]

1 738.14 km  (0.273 Earths)

1 735.97 km  (0.273 Earths)

Flattening
0.001 25

Circumference
10 921 km (equatorial)

Surface area
3.793 × 107 km²  (0.074 Earths)

Volume
2.195 8 × 1010 km³  (0.020 Earths)

Mass
7.347 7 × 1022 kg  (0.012 3 Earths[1])

Mean density
3 346.4 kg/m³[1]

Equatorial surface gravity
1.622 m/s² (0.165 4 g)

Escape velocity
2.38 km/s

Sidereal rotation
period
27.321 582 d (synchronous)

Equatorial rotation velocity
4.627 m/s

Axial tilt
1.542 4° (to ecliptic)
6.687° (to orbit plane)

Albedo
0.12

Surface temp.
equator
85°N[5]

min
mean
max

100 K
220 K
390 K

70 K
130 K
230 K

Apparent magnitude
−2.5 to −12.9[2]
−12.74 (mean full moon)[3]

Angular diameter
29.3 to 34.1 arcminutes[3][4]

Why does everything have to rotate? Who said it does..
Plus it sure would be quite a coincidence for the moon's rotation to be such
that
we always only see one side of the moon, Well coincidence has nothing to do
with mechanics,,,,,especially
when the Earth would be rotating also..  and the earth, being stationary or
spinning like a top, would make no difference to the moons facing the earth at
all times..  Not a spit of difference. Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:39 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation

Philip,

Why assume an extra rotation, when the full translation cycle
explains what we see - the same face of the Moon.
The full translation cycle has the same effect as one rotation,
but it's not called a rotation ( I looked in up in Jewiepedia ).

Why does everything have to rotate? Plus it sure would be
quite a coincidence for the moon's rotation to be such that
we always only see one side of the moon, especially
when the Earth would be rotating also.

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.

Bernie

--- On Mon, 11/24/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 1:52 PM

So the movement of the Moon is a translation, but there
is no rotation. The Moon is fixed within the rotating firmament.

Bernie
Bernie, look again at Pauls moon and see it orbit..  you will see it rotate/
Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:19 AM
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

#yiv818363861 #yiv1797422068 #yiv795455690 #yiv308599885 #yiv899752549 DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}

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.

```