[geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:04:29 -0800 (PST)

Philip M
A nice bit of clear thinking. Very few<observations> (I'm pushed for time and 
busy with Allen. But then who isn't if Allen is involved?)
Paul D

From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 26 November, 2008 10:55:36 PM
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. <Not really convinced of this. The body may be 
rotating eccentrically eg centre of mass not at centre of volume but in this 
case, the centre of mass will still not be perturbed and will accurately follow 
an elliptical orbit (assuming of course a 'two body' system. >  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..  <Well it does translate with the 
body but is constant within the body.> 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. <Tidal friction needs to be considered if you are 
interested in longer term observations.>
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. <Well not quite. It's those tidal forces again but that could be His way 
of achieving this.>
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. <Gee these 'few' 
observations are multiplying! Philip, it is very important to not use 'rotate' 
interchangeably with 'revolve'. It can cause a great deal of confusion and 
misunderstanding -- but yes.>
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. <A disk is easier to manage and within certain limits won't 
change your hypothesis.> 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. <Absolutely!>
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. <And should you choose to measure it, it must take 
more energy to achieve the same radial velocity in the glued-up case.>
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. <Sorry -- out of my depth!>
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? <If you are measuring the marble's rpm 
in absolute terms ie with a marble-mounted gyroscope as the reference for zero 
radial velocity then it will not appear stationary.>Will its centrifugal force 
be any different? <Must also be dependant on the absolute value of is radial 

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

----- 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 

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 

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

Other related posts: