Thank you Philip, This is not a subject I followed and therefore know nothing about. However I will consult those who know more about it than me - Neville perhaps or the Roberts'. Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: philip madsen To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 11:34 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes? Repeat for Jack and Allen; Regner asked the question if you all remember, what happens to a spinning bicycle wheel, if you try to turn it sideways.. In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system. Newtons laws are demonstrable and satisfactory for dealing with motion, if not the reason why, at least the properties as experienced. Hold the axel firmly with wheel edge in front of your nose whilst the wheel is spinning rapidly. Now try to rotate your body. A spinning flywheel is stable and resists angular rotation around its axis of rotation . You can test this principle as Regner suggested. . The bicycle depends on this principle to work. A bicycle wheel that is suspended vertically and powered to rotate continuously, with the axel pointing east- west. in a frame having no resistance to rotation in any direction , (set in gymbol bearings) will maintain it orientation vertically for ever, except , because the earth is rotating one revolution per day, this frame will not turn with the motion of the earth. Consequently if you are looking at this wheel edge on from the North, you will see the frame with the wheel turn slowly clockwise , making one complete turn per day. If it was vertical on 12 oclock at noon, it will be pointing at 1 an hour later, and so on. If the world was not rotating with any angular movement, this flywheel would remain in the vertical orientation . We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do we keep running away from it? Long range ballistic missile computers using inertial guidance systems must program in this rotation to stay on course.. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Daves To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:37 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes? uh yea ..im at a loss here to phil........how does that prove HC again..? Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: OK Philip, What's the relevance, please explain? Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: philip madsen To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:10 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Regner concedes? If Regner conceded and accepted that the geocentric proof of geocentrism Jack asked Paul? Jack, Regner never will concede such a thing.. He asked the question if you all remember, what happens to a spinning bicycle wheel, if you try to turn it sideways.. In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system. I told you all this yesterday.. We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate.. I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that. Philip.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 4/11/2007 11:05 AM