[geocentrism] Moon Rotation
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:20:49 -0800 (PST)
Allen D
You have made some sort of record here -- three almost lucid posts in a row! I
do wonder at the efforts you make at just this time. They don't make a lot of
sense though unfortunately. I've extracted a few points upon which I will
comment.
…..to end up in curt coments of which I must admit am enjoying far too much….
I've had a suspicion for some time that you think that it is clever to be
stupid so that you can provoke "... curt coments ..." from others. Most people
grow out of this juvenile behaviour by the time they bid farewell to their
teens but you seem not to have achieved this.
Every motion must be relative to something else this holds true for rotational
motion as well, Otherwise, what defines it?
Linear, constant motion or motion in a path curved by external gravity, cannot
be measured except by utilising an external reference. However rotation,
whether the rotating body is translating, orbiting, in parabolic free fall or
stationary in the absolute sense, can still be determined to be rotating
without any external reference. I don't care if you agree, I don't care if you
disagree -- all I care about is that it is so.
The arguments and demonstrations I have put forward stand on their own.
Yes they certainly do -- way out on their own. Totally alone. Unheralded,
unheeded, unwanted, unneeded. This is because they only have utility in your
own mind whatever they were.
A progressive radial orientation to a common point ...... In fact does make
those two definitions redundant!?
I wonder if anyone else here claims to understand what this means? I certainly
do not and you have made no effort to alleviate this ignorance. Personally, I
think it is nonsense, which may just be the reason you keep repeating it but I
think that you think that it is profound. Why don't you try explaining it to
us? In particular, you could explain its application to the example presented
by Uranus as it applies to Uranus' rotation and revolution. (See elsewhere for
definitions of these two terms).
If the plate was the only object in the universe how could you claim it was
spinning on it own axis?!.....oh the observer.....
No -- the observer has no part in it. Without an observer, the spinning plate
would still be spinning, which could still be determined from the plate with no
outside reference. And counting the molecules, the atoms the sub atomic
particles et al will make no difference. That's just obfuscation and I will not
be obfuscated.
Finally -- your illustration "Slide3.png". Your ultimate comment "...
particularly if all motion is relative motion," says it all because of course
all motion is not relative.
Paul D
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline
Other related posts:
