[geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 06:35:24 +1000

That's just obfuscation and I will not be obfuscated..   Paul. 

AAAAH!  So that is what the word was... I made up obstropolis, coz it sounded 
right..I'll send the word to Cambridge and oxford to see if I cant get it in 
the dictionary..  .  Phil
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:20 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation


  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.

Other related posts: