[geocentrism] Moon Rotation
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:09:14 -0800 (PST)
All motion is relative to Something other then itself…..the discussion is the
rotation of the moon..with respect to what does it rotate if it rotates?..the
earth?!..NO it has not change in orientation wrt the earth…thus it cannot be
said to have a relative motion wrt earth!? .no relitive motion, no real
rotation!? …Paul and Phil, Imagining that you are a omnipotent god looking down
from the heavens over earth is not science, nor is that objective nor is that a
objective definition and demonstration of the existance of a real motion.
Merely counting the sacred cows twice does not me you have twice as many sacred
cows as before…Motion is only motion relative to other REAL bodies not
imaginary ones!?…..….. without the reality of another body to have relative
motion wrt, then there can be no logical or valid claim for a motion that is
dependent on something that does not exist!? This is the difference between
reality and
imagination….creating imaginary frames of reference and moving them around
using imaginary physics does not constitute a motion in reality……You are
confused and confusing demonstratable reality with pure imaginations of
nonsense.
--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Moon Rotation
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 10:05 AM
--- On Wed, 11/26/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 9:41 AM
Paul,
1. Im not assuming anything , only poinint out that you cant rest your evidence
on assumptions....that was a argument of your postion not mine...I did
not attempt to use what the moon would or would not do if it were sudenly
released from its orbit...only pointing out that niether can you..
2. ....I chose that defining because it sucintly captures the essence of a
rotaion...but merely having a rotaion does not tell you what is in rotataion
around what and there in lies your problem....the rotation exist internal or
external to the body in question or both simoltaniously...i can objectively
define and demonstrate them ...you resort to counding a motion twice and
calling it two motions....otherwise you have to demonstrate the distinqution
between the motion...it is that to which you have not done nor can you using
your approach...I have proven my affermation by demonstrating the converse of
it to be in error...that is a indirect proof but logicaly valid untill shown
otherwise. I'm sure if you pick up several dictionaries you can find any
number of deffintions....that does not mean the deffintions are not relevant or
valid..A progressive radial oreintaion to a common point is a rotation by
nature..I have already affirmed and demonstrated
that every rotation has thoes common elements........no your problem is
demonstrating how that particular deffintion is not valid or relevant or
somehow in error. Some things are self evident....If you dont agree that this
is ...ok, fine...now demonstrate the folly here...They say answeres are easy to
find, asking the right questions is the real difficulty.......maybe it is
because you don't properly define your terms first as one the reason you can't
seem to objectivley show the "real truth" you are trying to demonstrate.
--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Moon Rotation
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 9:38 AM
--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 9:16 AM
Allen D
Comments in <colour>
You said - From allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tue Nov 25 15:11:56 2008
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.!!!.<Are you assuming that the Moon IS fixed
in the firmament?> 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!!!!!!!..<Hmmm!>...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..<I have been unable to find any reference supporting this
definition. Can you supply one?>. YOur arguments are inconsistent and self
defeating.....NOTE:...
Paul D
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter Now
Other related posts:
