[geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:23:35 +1000
Bernie, you should not let morals interfere with scientific discussions. If a
known paedophile told me that a bridge I was about to drive through was
undermined and dangerous, I would check it out, and his moral status would have
nothing to do with the truth of the bridge condition.
You have been postulating quite a few absurd things here on this list, that
quite truthfully are worse than a flat earth theory for credibility, but
obviously are due to your lack of instruction/education in basic physics. .
In discussions, it is fair and proper to make statements as possibilities..
based upon evidence which is uncertain. None of us here can state with the
venom and certainty that the Appollo moon landings were a hoax as you do...
"Both have sullied reputations, one a known
liar ( Moon landing-hoax ) the other a known killer. "
This is hate speech of the worst kind, if not worse than slander, which has
nothing to do with science in action. There are questions about the Apollo
missions, and that is for now the end of it.
I have said many times, that some people do much harm to the credibility of
geocentrism, and you are the worst I have found in this regard. I am surprised
at Pauls patience in responding to your need for education in basic physics.
Allen on the other hand is so far into the mystical, that no one could ever
follow a single paragraph of what he writes, and probably no one reads it
anyway, that we can excuse him.
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:...
Isn't that fabulous? Or hilarious? To me its sad.
Bernie you cannot convince people with a basic education in physics and
engineering merely by parotting what someone else wrote. It has to come from
understanding, and this has to come from knowledge of the basics in physics.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 9:14 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
Philip,
I wouldn't believe any figures ( like your Wikipedia ones below )
that NASA, MainStream Science, etc puts out for the same
reason that I would not ask Clifford Olson to babysit a child.
Both have sullied reputations, one a known
liar ( Moon landing-hoax ) the other a known killer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson
Bernie
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
Adjective "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
Mean radius 1 737.10 km (0.273 Earths)[1]
Equatorial radius 1 738.14 km (0.273 Earths)
Polar radius 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:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
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.
Other related posts:
