[geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Philip,
Why assume an extra rotation, when the full translation cycle
explains what we see - the same face of the Moon.
The full translation cycle has the same effect as one rotation,
but it's not called a rotation ( I looked in up in Jewiepedia ).
Why does everything have to rotate? Plus it sure would be
quite a coincidence for the moon's rotation to be such that
we always only see one side of the moon, especially
when the Earth would be rotating also.
It actually also works against heliocentrists because
who could believe their synchronized Moon rotation explanation?
The odds are way against that type of order in an exploding universe.
Bernie
--- On Mon, 11/24/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 1:52 PM
So the movement of the Moon is a translation, but there
is no rotation. The Moon is fixed within the rotating firmament.
Bernie
Bernie, look again at Pauls moon and see it orbit.. you will see it rotate/
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:19 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
Paul,
Yes, that looks like a fair representation.
"All rigid body movements are rotations, translations, or combinations of the
two."
So the movement of the Moon is a translation, but there
is no rotation. The Moon is fixed within the rotating firmament.
Bernie
--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, November 23, 2008, 11:56 PM
#yiv308599885 #yiv899752549 DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}
Bernie B
You said to Philip -- From Bernie Brauer Sat Nov 22 07:58:12 2008
If you go dwon to your local day-care centre ( where toddlers get dropped off
so mummie can go to work to help daddy pay 66% ALL-TOTAL taxation ) you will
see a toy where you can slide a wooden sphere along a circular thin metal
rod. So the sphere is fixed upon the circular rod and the same point always
shows inward.
I have attached an illustration of what I think you have described but with the
small addition of a straight, thin, light, paper tube attached to the wooden
ball so as to indicate visually that it always points to the centre. The ball
-- with the indicator -- is shown travelling around the circular rod in a
clock-wise direction.
Is this a fair representation? Please indicate any reservations or arguments
you may have.
Paul D
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter Now.
Other related posts:
