“where this rotation thread is going (note, not where it has been)?” A never ending circle I’m afraid…..to end up in curt coments of which I must admit am enjoying far too much…. Phil is right about this…” From what I believed, Allen has been postulating MS science unrelated to geocentrism..”…at least exclusivley, I have been adressing both systems....The two systems must be geometrically equivalent, otherwise there is a problem with one or the other or both. Since motion is relative to other bodies, this includes rotation…The correct answer, wrt the rotaion of the moon, must then be identical to both systems. I must regress a little now… This is particularly true when we consider the question of where to draw the perimeter at the earth moon system or the edge of the solar system how about at the Galaxy…If we are considering the motions of any of those particular sets we cannot go outside them to extrapolate additional relative motions for rotations. Thus all motions must be considered relative only to all other bodies in the system under consideration. If on the other hand we use the relative rotation of all matter in the universe then we are back at the same spot we began. Every motion must be relative to something else this holds true for rotational motion as well, Otherwise, what defines it? The arguments and demonstrations I have put forward stand on their own. I will point once again to my previous and attached here diagram….There is only one rotation there, because only the relative motions of any parts to it can be considered with respect to the whole..If I include a observer then the perimeter of the evaluation extends but not the criteria for what is and is not motion. Albeit I’m sure folks with vivid imaginations can certainly envision billions upon billions of rotations, one for each molecule around their own axis in the plate as well as the very center molecule in the plate, which is the only thing in rotation on its on axis in the plate and this is defined by the rest of the molecules in the plate.…..This would no doubt not create any problem for Phil or Paul. Even though every other molecule in the plate keeps the same orientation wrt that center molecule which is rotating on its own axis. They are however now left without a clear definition of what motion is, since there is no relative motion between the molecules in the plate and the center molecule. Yet they are claiming motion exist…but with a very novel idea……ummmm ..motion without being relative.....… --- On Wed, 12/3/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Moon Rotation To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 9:27 AM “where this rotation thread is going (note, not where it has been)?” A never ending circle I’m afraid…..to end up in curt coments of which I must admit am enjoying far too much…. Phil is right about this…” From what I believed, Allen has been postulating MS science unrelated to geocentrism..”…The two systems must be geometrically equivalent, otherwise there is a problem with one or the other or both. Since motion is relative to other bodies, this includes rotation…The correct answer must then be identical in both systems. I must regress a little now… This is particularly true when we consider the question of where to draw the perimeter at the earth moon system or the edge of the solar system how about at the Galaxy…If we are considering the motions of any of those particular sets we cannot go outside them to extrapolate additional relative motions for rotations. Thus all motions must be considered relative only to all other bodies in the system under consideration. If on the other hand we use the relative rotation of all matter in the universe then we are back at the same spot we began. Every motion must be relative to something else this holds true for rotational motion as well, Otherwise, what defines it? The arguments and demonstrations I have put forward stand on their own. I will point once again to my previous and attached here diagram….There is only one rotation there, because only the relative motions of any parts to it can be considered with respect to the whole..If I include a observer then the perimeter of the evaluation extends but not the criteria for what is and is not motion. Albeit I’m sure folks with vivid imaginations can certainly envision billions upon billions of rotations, one for each molecule around their own axis in the plate as well as the very center molecule in the plate, which is the only thing in rotation on its on axis in the plate and this is defined by the rest of the molecules in the plate.…..This would no doubt not create any problem for Phil or Paul. Even though every other molecule in the plate keeps the same orientation wrt that center molecule which is rotating on its own axis. They are however now left without a clear definition of what motion is, since there is no relative motion between the molecules in the plate and the center molecule. Yet they are claiming motion exist…but with a very novel idea……ummmm ..motion without being relative.....…