[geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 09:26:41 +1000

slight correction. 
3.  At normal speeds.    As a body moves in any direction, this motion does not 
alter the position of its centre of gravity..  therefore it must be accepted 
that any rotation around this centre of gravity is un perturbed by any other 
motion of the body. i.e. the centripetal/centrifugal forces, remain unchanged . 
(this centrifugal force is the only indicator of real rotation, as observation 
with our eyes can be an illusion) .
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: philip madsen 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:55 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation


  Paul, I have been thinking more on a practical demo for this rotation model 
for the moon. I know Allen calls it imagination, but then that is what all text 
books are, but the graphical representation of imagined theory of operation. I 
know this is basic to you, but with all the complicated mumbo jumbo being 
floated, I need to make it clearer for the layman , who must be absolutely 
confused by now. 

  Some base principles..  are in order .''  Keep in mind this is standard 
physics as demonstratable in any lab..  It does not include my exotic theories 
on the aether or concern itself with explaining geocentrism, which must fit 
with observable/measurable facts anyway

  1.    A body rotates around its centre of gravity. Where that is can only be 
presumed based upon calculation which accepts the constituents distribution of 
the mass of the body. It can be confirmed by actual observations of 
perturbations of orbits.  A fairly accurate science as astronomical predictions 
often prove. Pretty good considering nobody but Jules has been to the centre of 
the earth to see what it is made of. 

  2.  The rotation of the body is a motion experienced by the mass itself, and 
the magnitude of the effects of this rotation , ie the centripetal/centrifugal 
forces it experiences , is independent of any other object or observation. ie  
if there is no rotation there is no centripetal force. 
    
  3.  At normal speeds.    As a body moves in any direction, its motion does 
not alter the position of its centre of gravity..  therefore it must be 
accepted that any rotation around this centre of gravity is un perturbed by any 
motion of the body. i.e. the centripetal/centrifugal forces, remain unchanged . 
(this centrifugal force is the only indicator of real rotation, as observation 
with our eyes can be an illusion) .

  4.    From 3, it must be deduced that if a spherical body is set in motion 
around its axis through its centre of gravity, and kept in motion at exactly 
the same force, and rpm,  and is then moved in an orbital path around a central 
point, it will continue to exhibit the same centrifugal forces due to initial 
rpm imparted to it.  Now the moon needs no motor, as there is negligible  
friction to slow it down. 

  5.    Further, if the orbital period just happened to be the same number as 
the rotational speed of the Sphere,  then this coincidence will cause the 
sphere to present the same face to the centre of the orbit. This is a true 
mechanical representation .. There is no need for a primary planet if the 
motions are controlled on a bench top model .. In the case of the moon, it is a 
coincidence, ( God Planned) but in our experiment we can plan it to be that 
way. 

  6.    But most assuredly, the centrifugal forces due to these rpm of the 
sphere will remain measurable and be exactly the same as they were when the 
sphere was revolving stationary before it was set in any motion.

  Keeping those basics in mind we now need to make a turntable , a record 
player is fine. Next we  need a speherical mass like a marble that is 
vertically attached to a "frictionless " shaft through its central axis at the 
periphery of the turntable. Mark the marble so that any spin can be observed. 

  Turn the turntable slowly..  You will see that the marble will not turn , but 
keep its face pointed in the direction it had at the beginning..  Of course the 
shaft friction will eventually effect this experiment.   but the effect is 
proven . the marble will not rotate, and it will not present the same face to 
the centre as the turntable turns. 

  This is not imagination I have done the experiment another way and proved 
it.. As can anyone interested. Hold a glass of water close to your chest . On 
the surface of the water is a floating toothpick pointing at you , just to let 
you see what happens to the water .. The friction between the water and the 
glass is negligible. 

  Now turn yourself slowly a full circle if you want.. doesn't matter. You will 
see that the water will not rotate in the glass , and the tooth pick will keep 
its orientation..It will not keep pointing at you.   

  In fact it is difficult to make the water spin this way. 

  Now this tells you something else. I have long ago considered the forces 
involved here. 

  Let us seize up the bearing in the marble with glue, so that it cannot keep 
its orientation. When you now turn the turntable, the marble will present the 
same face to the centre..  But what else?  Can you not see the force being made 
to break the glue on the bearing, as the marbles inertia tries to keep its 
original orientation? Extra work is actually being done on the turntable to 
force the marble to spin. 

  Now I will leave you all with a little thought experiment, which just 
occurred to me and which I havn't considered yet. 

  How does relativity effect rotations..  keeping in mind the centrifugal 
forces mentioned above. 


  Let us put the marble on the same central shaft of the turntable and spin 
them up to 100 rpm. 

  The turntable will have a centrifugal force.. and the marble also will have 
its own centrifugal force due to its own mass. 

  Now free up the marbles shaft and spin it in the opposite direction at 
exactly the same 100rpm.

  Will the marble appear stationary to us? Will its centrifugal force be any 
different? 

  I think I got it already.... But then put the marble back on the periphery, 
and spin it up again in the opposite direction....

  Philip.  




    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Paul Deema 
    To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 2:53 AM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation


    Philip M
    Some comments in <colour>

    From philip madsen Tue Nov 25 12:23:12 2008 Re: Moon Rotation
    Thats an ingenious idea Paul..<Ahem! Thank you ... thank you ...>  
Something I never visualised.. another way of twisting a cable?  Now I know why 
my hose twists up as I walk around the yard watering..  I'll have to learn to 
retrace my steps ..  Have you investigated the bank/money /Government borrowing 
 scam yet?  Your life does depend on it.. <I've read your 'Funny Money' and 
Open Letter to PM. I will try to put something together soon but it is 
something I'd prefer to spend a little time with. A warning though, I cannot 
support your position. I hope my reasoning will satisfy you even if your 
conversion is not complete.|[:-)>

    From philip madsen Tue Nov 25 14:30:19 2008 Re: Moon Rotation
    That actually is another proof I missed paul..  If the moon lost its 
primary, the earth, it would move off tangentally in a straight line, and it 
would keep its same rotation of 28 days for the Helioman and 24 hours for the 
geoman.. <Exactly so. See attachment prepared in advance and here revealed for 
the very first time!> This could be easily done on the kitchen table, by simply 
doubling the orbit diameter on the model, where in the moon would no longer 
show the same face, 
     
    Paul D





----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Other related posts: