[geocentrism] Moon Rotation

  • From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:51:07 -0800 (PST)

1. YES 
2. Absolutely Brilliant argumentaion Paul!...I think ...yes......you just may 
have this one all wraped up..umm..lets see..... Others have not come to 
an agreement on my definition, as such "must therefore be 
deprecated".....Kinda like saying since the equivalence principle of relativity 
was a privet definition of Einstein’s,….. thus "must therefore be deprecated" 
!? ..some one had to agree with it at some point even if most rejected 
it......Hey Paul, what defines and constitutes a rotation is the point and 
question at hand?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! 
I have no doubt you & others have not agreed to the arguments i put 
forward.....But my definition is demonstratable, reproducible and is applicable 
to every rotation ever produced...and oh yea..does not depend on counting the 
same motion twice or failing to distinguish between various motions...that is 
the power of that definition......feel the power yet? Your argument against my 
argument thus far is the fact that Google & MS do not disagree but you 
feel they do not have a consensus or concur on it either...ummmm???  
Yes, Paul that is a definition I coined..make no mistake about where it came 
from!...If you don’t like my argument then, demonstrate the flaw......,  don’t 
just quote the ignorant masses .........we already know they did not make that 
"discovery" !?!? I will concede that I and only I did and could have 
“performed so such great a wonder" (echo...echo) ...?! 
Dealing with the arguments for or against what constitutes rotation and how 
that relates to the earth moon system is the task at hand.......There is no 
need to tell us that you don’t like it; you don’t agree; Google cant find it; 
others may or may not agree….we already know that!!!! Thus, the necessity for 
discovery , examinations & argumentation...........ummmm 
...............I knew we were here for some reason I just could not put my 
finger on it...lol  




--- 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, 11:43 AM

Allen D

I'll look at this tomorrow but in the meantime -- in one word (where that one 
word is a subset of 'yes/no') -- are the laws of physics the same at all points 
in the universe?
Paul D
PS  I Googled "progressive radial oreintaion to a common point" and got zero 
hits. After correcting the spelling errors to get "progressive radial 
orientation to a common point" I got eight hits -- all at 
www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism, the 'snippets' of which all exhibited 
spelling errors characteristic of Allen Daves. I believe that I am entitled to 
believe that this is a private definition of rotation held by Allen Daves. 
I then Googled "define:rotation". After rejecting references to tires on cars, 
conduct of card games, games of pool and agricultural practise etc, none of the 
definitions on offer agreed with that offered by Allen Daves.
I am therefore forced to the conclusion that "progressive radial orientation to 
a common point" is not an agreed definition of 'rotation' and must therefore be 

Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter Now 

Other related posts: