[geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 06:34:48 +1000
I defined Rotation on several occations...in fact most of the post are centered
on that very definiton......around its own axis...yes.....and that is
demonstrated as all motion is wrt somthing
OK Allen, your idea of rotation is false.... thats only guessing, because your
words are always garbled.. Too much Scooby Doo perhaps.. Are you still
watching that.. I wouldn't even watch that when I was a serious kid. Hmm well
they didn't have such rubbish when I was a kid.. We got educational comics
from England.. When England was great.
Rotation needs no observer. It s a self evident truth as defined. Whether it is
observable or not IS NOT THE QUESTION. The only reference needed is the centre
axis....which is also a self evident truth. This centre is NOT stated as
necessarily stationary, and has no bearing on the subject at all.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:24 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
Philip,
"Allen opens up a rebuttal with, "Synchronous means more then one...OK "
No Allen it does not mean more than one.. HERE IS THE GENERALLY
ACCEPTED MEANING".....
Phil.....you can't have a simoltanious anything with just one of
them..!?
Paul,
You an't gona get no confession outa me you dirty coper.....I take you
all wits me...
...Like the villan always says on "scooby dooby doo"
mysteries....."Ida goten away with too, if it hadnt been for thoes meddeling
kidds".....
There is just one problem with your theory of "who done it".........
1. I never Referenced Wikipedia.......?.
2. I Openly admitted long ago months in fact, that coined that
definiton and again on recently I stated "I and I alone could have created so
great a wonder (echo echo)." ..see even complete with my own sound
effects......I even went ever further and said you dont need to tell us you
cant find it .....we already know that1?.......by George..... Paul you might be
on to a very sinister scheme indeed..LOL....
3. Even If I had been the one to reference Wkipeadea, I would have
referenced this..........
"If a rotation around a point or axis is followed by a second rotation
around the same point/axis, a third rotation results. The reverse (inverse) of
a rotation is also a rotation. Thus, the rotations around a point/axis form a
group. However, a rotation around a point or axis and a rotation around a
different point/axis may result in something other than a rotation, e.g. a
translation."
Note the diagram to the right of it....I did not edit any of
that....you cant have a second without defining the first!...counting the same
thing twice dose not mean you have two of them!?.....(by the way, Phil you
can't have a simoltanious anything with just one of them..!?).........That that
object in the diagram looks suspeciouly like a radial oreintaion around a
common point....ummmmmm..........,I did not say you could find that deffintion
anywhere in fact again i stated you could not becuase I coined it!?............
I stated that you could find the same elements in the one I coined......so why
the nessesity to quote myself to "cover" for myself is yet another mystery it
seems.....well call call that "scooby dooby doo".....episode "the phantom
rotation"...(echo echo)
Ok...just one problem with three faces, just like your one rotation
with two differnt axis.?!
........ummm :-D...
What is you nifty new physics site again....i might be able to find the
elements i disused there as well.....
PS. Phil......you can't have a simoltanious anything with just one of
them..!?..
"Alan asks? "WHAT IS & IS NOT A ROTATION.(as it relates to any motion
)"...
You don't know! I have always considerd "rotation" as a body's spin
around its own axis."
I defined Rotation on several occations...in fact most of the post are
centered on that very definiton......around its own axis...yes.....and that is
demonstrated as all motion is wrt somthing....you can't count the same thing
twice and call it two of them..!? so what is your rotation wrt?..the observer
at the earth?......no the observer sees the progresive radial oreintaion wrt
and around the earth.........If you could get a spacespip to translate around
the earth above and with the moons orbit tI supose it would see a
rotation......although that would requires additional motion so that realy is
not a rotation in and of itself if it requires addtional motions to see
it...?...ummmm...well we are waiting.....
--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- On Tue, 12/2/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 2:48 PM
I remember my first year into science as a subject, bitterly
opposing the fact that English was an essential component. ... what has poetry
to do with atoms and stuff! I cried. It seems that even in the 40's the
decline was beginning. I was infected. The teacher did half convince me that
Science would fail without the most perfect of communication skills. Yet mob
rule seems to have won, and perfect communication is no more. When University
Professors so easily find nothing wrong with a "Kill-om-eter" science is very
low indeed. And never more so have I been convinced of this , as when we
dialogue with Allen.
Phil said, "This is called synchronous rotation.." meaning
in normal science as regards the moons rotation relative to its orbit around
the earth.
Allen opens up a rebuttal with, "Synchronous means more then
one...OK "
No Allen it does not mean more than one.. HERE IS THE
GENERALLY ACCEPTED MEANING
1. occurring at the same time; coinciding in time;
contemporaneous; simultaneous.
2. going on at the same rate and exactly together;
recurring together.
and in science,
3. Physics, and Electricity. having the same frequency
(period) and zero phase difference.
Hope that helps..
As I used the word rotation, here is another simple detailed
restatement. When the rotational spin of the moon is in the plane of its orbit
and has the same frequency as the orbit, with zero phase difference... It will
always present the same face to the primary.
Alan asks? "WHAT IS & IS NOT A ROTATION.(as it relates to
any motion )"...
You don't know! I have always considerd "rotation" as a
body's spin around its own axis. such spin creating centrifugal force..
Rotation of a free body is not affected by any other motion of that body due to
any other forces. ie it is an independent motion. If there is no centrifugal
force , there is no rotation or spin..
Gerneral dictionaries confuse the issue, and Wiki often has
to differentiate between false common usage, and the real defined technical
term... Such is the sad state of affairs.. And we are all infected. So I am
not criticising Allen if he has a communication problem.
The dictionary says,
Rotation :
1. the act of rotating; a turning around as on an axis.
2. Astronomy. a. the movement or path of the earth or a
heavenly body turning on its axis.
b. one complete turn of such a body.
Notice the very bad presentation of English usage,
where the word "path" is used. A rotating body is not an orbiting body, and
has no path, unless there is some other movement .Also it is possible to
rotate 20% of a turn, so b. above is incorrect. . The correct term to avoid
confusion when speaking of motion in an orbit, is to "orbit".. An orbit is NOT
a rotation.. It is independent of rotation.
orbit Show phonetics
verb [I or T]
to follow a curved path around a planet or star:
This dictionary fails to state that orbit is a
mechanical term, not only applied to astronomy. We do have orbiting gears..
Cambridge dictionary mentions nothing of this?
Another confusing term is revolve and revolution. often
used interchangeably with spin (rotation) and orbiting. and gyrate also .. ...
But whilst it is commonly used to say an orbiting body
revolves around a centre, it is often confused with rotation.. Ie I've seen it
said that a wheel revolves.. but this is because the wheel has a rim, which
predominates in this usage. A rotating body should not be said to be
revolving., even though it is quite acceptable to say a rotating body has so
many revolutions per given time.....
I have avoided wiki for definitions because wiki is
accessed and modified by people who most often are not in command of good
communication skills such as the English language. To obtain these definitions
one must consult ancient books printed pre 1950, or thereabouts.
All of the above is an introduction necessary to allow
me define the difference in modern imprecise terms the true position. as
regards orbit and rotation.
Rotation is the angular turning of a body around an
axis geometrically central to itself.
Revolving, gyrating, or orbiting, is the angular
turning of a body around an axis that is displaced from its centre, and which
can be within or external to the body under discussion. Whether these motions
are forced or natural has nothing to do with the definitions exactitude. A body
may have both types of motion simultaneously, synchronised or otherwise.. But
they are separate and independent motions.
Philip.
.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
Phil, ......you are getting lost in your own...exotic
experiment(s) and are completely loosing site of .....WHAT IS & IS NOT A
ROTATION.(as it relates to any motion )...I am I dealing with the issues. ,The
problem is you think your experiments demonstrate something other then a change
wrt something else!?
6. But when the moon moves through 90 degrees of
orbit, it simultaneously turns 90degrees to keep its nose facing the centre of
the orbit.
This is called synchronous rotation..
Synchronous means more then one...OK ..that is what
we want you to demonstrate not merely assert exist!.......you are claiming two
separate Rotations....we know what the first(orbit) rotation is wrt the
earth..........Now what is the second rotation wrt?!.........counting the same
rotation twice does not mean you have two different axis..those axis are
defined by the relative positions and motions of all the other bodies......so
where in the universe can you go and show us a body where any point on the moon
is making a progressive radial orientation to another point on the moon....hint
take that toy and spin it....it is in rotation on its on axis wrt you the
observer...now where in the universe can we go and observe that for the
moon!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!??! you cant demonstrate it because it does not exist
either in imagination or reality! Until you can answer that Phil there is
nothing for me to address...i have already answered and demonstrated
objectively that the rotation cannot be claimed or demonstrated based on any
consistent objective criteria!...not as matter of proof but for crying out loud
maybe you should consider that .. EVEN REGENER OUR RESIDENT MS EXPERT DID NOT
AGREE WITH YOU….so i dont know how you are claiming you are looking at it from
the HC perspective?!..........maybe just maybe, I’m not the one who is “out of
his depth”…
--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Allen Daves
<allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 3:02 PM
--- On Mon, 12/1/08, philip madsen
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 2:32 PM
Allen I'd appreciate it if your reply would
specifically deal with the points I made in my experiment, and show me where my
conclusons are mechanically unsound or incorrect. Just coming back with a
ramble that has no relationship to my experiment gets you and me nowhere. Your
just being obstropolis.. It is the usual ploy of people who are out of their
depth, Like the tall cedars, who are so far out in space, they no longer can
appreciate the simplicity of the simple daisy..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 2:48 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
What you keep missing is the fact that every
rotation has a single axis on which it rotates and that axis is defined by the
relative motion between the object in rotation or orbit and something else…….
If you spin a top(moon) it is in rotation on its own axis…wrt you….it is not
orbiting you?! ..how do you know?.........If the top(moon) is orbiting you it
may or may not be in rotation on its own axis…….what makes that determination
in both cases orbit or spin is that the points on the toy top(moon) make a
progressive radial orientation wrt something.....did you get that?..... the
individual atoms molecules or something on the toy(moon) must be making a
progressive radial orientation wrt something else or to each other as defined
by something else external of the toy such as around each other wrt you the
observer........…if there is not change wrt to each other as defined by that
something else then there can be no claim of rotation!…if every particle on the
toy top(moon) are doing the same things wrt each other as defined by all other
objects then how do you claim there is more then one rotation?…..The
fundamental problem you have is how do you make a formal distinction between
one rotation and two…or even three or more …..how do you know how many
rotations exist at all period?…resting your laurels on your ambiguity and
inability to make distinctions is hardly something to be proud of, and yet not
only do you seem proud of your lack of achievement but you brag about it to
each other…look how smart you and Paul are, you two can imagine things so mixed
up that you can’t define or make distinctions about anything!?....Einstein
talked about that..something to the effect ….Any idiot can make things more
complicated, it takes real genius to go in the opposite direction….....Your
definitions will not and are not capable of making these or any distinctions,
....….mine can... feel the power…hold it in your hands .........become one with
the force.....give me a break.....
--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Allen Daves
<allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 8:42 AM
--- On Sun, 11/30/08, philip madsen
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 2:34 PM
Allen I was so perplexed with this I left it
alone, not intending to answer, because we seemed to be on two different
planets or moons...But in the end, i couldn't resist ... I insert my
perplexities in brown below.. with what are I hope suitable words common to the
lowest common denominator.
Keep in mind, we are talking and have been
through this subject, from the heliocentric universe point of view. , for
easier comprehension.
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 8:46 PM
Phil,
The key to your whole post and very own
experiment is that fact that the toothpick changes orientation wrt
something.....well gee wiz......This makes my case but not yours...If this be
true, theny ou are very perplexing indeed........There are no particles on the
moon changing orientation wrt to anything... your example is a valid experiment
that demonstrates a change in orientation... The moon nor any place or object
on the moon is not?
Please let me explain what you seemed to have
missed.. The simile of the experiment and the moon.
1. The moon floats in space and has no friction
with its environment,,
2. As much as is possible, the water in the
glass floats in the glass and has no friction with its environment... Yes there
is friction, but for the short time of the experiment it is ignored as
negligible.
There are no particles on the moon
3. The moon has a face.. one of the craters
representing the nose of the man in the moon are the particles on the moon
which have orientation . This orientation is always pointed at the earth.
4. The toothpick in the water I put there
because the water has no face or marks .. This represented the nose of the man
in the water.
5. When I swung the bowl of water through
90degres of arc, representing 90 degrees of orbit, the inertia of the water
kept it stationary, ie it did not spin.. It would not rotate. After 90 degrees
of orbit, he face of the man was not still looking at me.. It was still
pointing in the original direction. say N - S .
6. But when the moon moves through 90 degrees
of orbit, it simultaneously turns 90degrees to keep its nose facing the centre
of the orbit.
This is called synchronous rotation..
Something the water inthe glass did not have.
I could have tried to stir the glass of water
enough to give the tooth pick floating in it a rotation ..Yes? spinning once
per second? yes? And then moved it again around a 90 degree arc or a full
circle if I was sober in the exact same one second..
Voiler the toothpick nose will now keep
pointing at the centre of the arc, throughout the whole circle of orbit.....
Why? Because I gave it a spin, a rotation if
you like..
Why you insist in agreeing that it is spinning
in the glass whilst stationary, , yet deny that it is spinning because I made
it orbit at the same time ,,,, is well hmmm its perplexing...
In light of this new clarification , perhaps
you might like to rewrite the rest below, Forgrt the moon because you are
letting cosmology get in the way.. Lets stick to mechanics..where I'm
comfortable. The mechanical principle will still apply to the celestial
bodies. Phil.
The reasons why and the forces involved in
producing that change are irrelevant to the fact that the change has taken
place ...now if you could just show us a point on the moon that changes wrt
some other point that lay in the moon you would have it licked...the problem is
motion any kind of motion must be relative to something else and in
consideration of all other things.......well the moon does not change
orientation wrt to earth.. only wrt the back ground stars the earth is the
pivot or common point that those changes ...you cant have a rotation if there
is no change wrt something else....and how many other things and where they are
located wrt each other determines where and what the common point or axis of
any and all relative Rotations are...if you do not have a relative rotation you
certainly cannot have any real rotation..........as for your thoughts at the
bottom MS does use the Graviational feilds as frames of reference for motion
and lack thereofe...that is wahy they call them inertial reference
frames......you know grav and inertia are one and the same in MS.....but all
that goes back to the acceleration Points I raised a few months ago, and the
difference between relitive and absolute motion ..is there such a thing we say
yes...AC says not...experiment and logic are on our side...
I Think i shall attempt to break for the
holiday weekend :-) .........Happy thanksgiving everyone and for all those
who don't celebrate it......happy days anyways........
--- On Thu, 11/27/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, November 27, 2008, 6:45 PM
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 8:46 PM
Phil,
The key to your whole post and very own
experiment is that fact that the toothpick changes orientation wrt
something.....well gee wiz......This makes my case but not yours..........There
are no particles on the moon changing orientation wrt to anything... your
example is a valid experiment that demonstrates a change in orientation... The
moon nor any place or object on the moon is not?
The reasons why and the forces involved in
producing that change are irrelevant to the fact that the change has taken
place ...now if you could just show us a point on the moon that changes wrt
some other point that lay in the moon you would have it licked...the problem is
motion any kind of motion must be relative to something else and in
consideration of all other things.......well the moon does not change
orientation wrt to earth.. only wrt the back ground stars the earth is the
pivot or common point that those changes ...you cant have a rotation if there
is no change wrt something else....and how many other things and where they are
located wrt each other determines where and what the common point or axis of
any and all relative Rotations are...if you do not have a relative rotation you
certainly cannot have any real rotation..........as for your thoughts at the
bottom MS does use the Graviational feilds as frames of reference for motion
and lack thereofe...that is wahy they call them inertial reference
frames......you know grav and inertia are one and the same in MS.....but all
that goes back to the acceleration Points I raised a few months ago, and the
difference between relitive and absolute motion ..is there such a thing we say
yes...AC says not...experiment and logic are on our side...
I Think i shall attempt to break for the
holiday weekend :-) .........Happy thanksgiving everyone and for all those
who don't celebrate it......happy days anyways........
--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Allen Daves
<allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I Think i shall attempt to break for the
holiday weekend :-) .........Happy thanksgiving everyone and for all those
who don't celebrate it......happy days anyways........
--- On Wed, 11/26/08, philip madsen
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 3:26 PM
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:
