[geocentrism] Re: Uranus
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:28:45 +1000
Thanks for confirming me Allen.. I'm just on the outside of this particular
tempus temper illigitimo!
It s not that I do not understand what you are saying, if you said (wrote)
anything understandable, its just that I cannot even read with any
comprehension what you write. In theology yes, but in science, you are from
another world. Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:10 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
Why wait Allen.. I'm sure you could write your answer now!..
Phil,
I have already given my answer you guys cant seem to answer it
period, you have not as of yet......... or maybe you just don’t want to…?!
Address the baggage you guys so desparitaly do not want anyoone to consider
with your definitions, aplications and approach to rotations... Arbitray
picking of axis and dismissal of other posibilites even though they are equal
to the one you picked...... is only selective tunnel vision not objective
science........where is the objective criteria for any rotaional axis in your
argument what makes one point in infinate space more valid then any other in
your approach to rotation......?! You guys dont even seem to see just how
ridiculous your arguments are....
Your approach logicaly leads to all infinities all valid, as of yet you
have given us no reason other then you say so that one is more valid then the
other.!? ...How is your approach simple or even fundimental?..How is your
picking of one axis in your system that is logicaly just as equaly valid as any
other infinate number of posible axis in space or "solids" using your criteria
not just arbitary cherry picking?..how is that scientific?!..how is that a
demonstration of anything objective based on LOE?!....Look at your own use of
Rotaion where is the axis and how do you know objectivly not just your arbitray
"here it is" ignore the others because "we say so"?!.....What is the objective
criteria that eliminates all unessisary physical abserdities athat are just as
valid in your approach..?..simply sayihg they are not or picking one above the
other and saying "this is the one"
is not science it is your attempt at brain washing others to see what
and only you want them to see...
1……..If the disk of parent “1” is rotating or ”spinning” how many
common points or axis of rotation exist for it?.. If the axis did not exist
before you cut it out why or how does it exist after you cut it out?....the
fundamentals are the same as long as there is some force or cause to keep it in
the same orientation after the cut out as it had before the cutout……. How are
you going to define where the or any axis is defined….... At the molecular
level? ..the atomic level?...the quantum level?.....if the disc has one axis of
rotation then your whole arguments fails to even get off the ground. If on the
other hand you claim that there are more then one axis then any number of
infinite axis of rotation exist in the disk parent “1”…This is what your
argument leads to and you have not addressed it nor can you…..You are left
without any meaningfully relationship to anything observed in reality, And the
only thing you have left then are imaginary "infinities"! The definition I use
has a objective distinction between motions and avoids objectively and
demonsratably imaginary infinite infinities ..
I''m not the one who is complicating things, I have addressed any and
all scales particularly meaningful ones that “imhotep” would have used…your and
Paul’s position does not and is not capable of making any distinction between
any scale nor can it produce any meaningful and objective definitions without
pure cherry picking of what you want us to see and ignore all of the
absurdities that your ideas lead to…that is not science that is just you
proclaiming look here and now where else….never mind the man behind the
curtain…there is nothing to see here…..you don’t see the absurdities that your
argument leads to because it is not capable of making any objective distinction
other then you want us to look at this axis and igore all the others that are
just as valid under your very definitions….that is not consistent ...
.......any definition used to create the axis you keep referring to logically
demands a axis for every single and infinite ,"infinity" you can imagine. at
any "practical scale" you choose imhotep or not :-).....why? ....because what
defines one just as equally defines all the others.....The error is that you do
not see that your application and definition and use of rotation and its axis
applies equally to every infinity you can imagine. you have no way of claiming
an objective separation between your axis and infinite axis. The key point is
that cannot just arbitrarily pick one axis out of all your possible infinities
and call it an objective analysis of anything....cheery picking your
observations and results and then calling everything else "error" is simply
silly!....If you cannot separate out the motions and still observe the motion
then it does not exist......period firmament or no firmament ..as the force
examples all show there is and can only be a logical claim to a prevention of a
rotation, not a rotation due to any demonsratable force. it always comes down
to what you imagine could be vs what you can actually demonstrate.........
2. Parent 1/Cutout A -- is not an accurate analogy for the Moon in its
orbit or Uranus in its orbit. An orbital plane has no mass. Though I can't do
these calculations, of one thing I'm sure -- the total energy of the system
would remain constant.
The principle is the same ?! what connects any solid?...force not
solid!?....The only question is one of "rigidness" Or elasticity but in all
cases these are one and the same things fundamentally….. Why?...…even the atoms
and individual molecules in a “solid” are only held together with nothing more
then “force”. the electrons are held to the atom via force and yet they make up
your "ridgid" bodies. Gravity itself is a force the only difference is that it
is a weaker force and the only other difference is the scale of the distance
between the molecules verse the distance between the orbital bodies and the
scale of the force that holds them together and or permits any elasticity………The
fundamental relationships are the identical! You need to fully grasp that fact
first.......
3. Parent 1 is assumed to be a disk of negligible thickness and of
uniform density). That can be considered true as long as you keep in mind all
things are only a matter of scale…..That is not just a “minor point”…that is
important to understand not only for simplicity sake but it is a key
fundamental point to understand the world around you. A perfectly smooth sphere
is only perfectly smooth at your scale, a wheel is only perfectly balanced at a
given scale……The orbital plane of the earth moon system can be considered to
fully encapsulate all of the earth and all of the moon at scale……… Otherwise,
at larger scales we would have to complicated things with individual parallel
planes for each molecule atom and quantum state in the body under
consideration, this would lead to the infinite axis of rotation for every sigle
molecule, then atom then quark and leptons and all the empty space in between
as well!???…..This is the physical absurdity and failure of fully understanding
these things that you and your arguments keep trying to bring us to…... However
I have demonstrated the simplicity and practical applications of Fundamentally
concepts.
--- On Fri, 1/9/09, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 2:31 PM
With eager baited breath, I stand watch.......Allen
Why wait Allen.. I'm sure you could write your answer now!..
Heres how it will go.
oh wait....I have to ask because in your universe things can
both exist and not exist wrt the same things in the same context all
simultaneously or are you saying that you realy have demonstrated soemething
but it is just not a demonstration as such..??? .......ummm...You are either
supporting my position in your last post and conceding the fact that you have
not demonstrated anything ..........or,... ...........Oh well,........ you
think I'm are seeing and or looking for cluse to your demonstrations that you
now admit are not realy demonstrations...?? either way, you and I should both
now be able to claim a victory in our agreement that you have in fact not
demonstrated anything .....I just wish I could get you to see the same clues
Iʼm seeing , but then again a man who buys his own lies is likely to have
difficulty in seeing the problems with those lies..... ......I think your
right about this.... I'm most certianly "picking up on clues"
WOW!
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:23 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Fw: Re: Re: Uranus
With eager baited breath, I stand watch.......
--- On Fri, 1/9/09, Allen Daves
<allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 8:09 AM
--- On Thu, 1/8/09, Paul Deema
<paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 9:56 PM
Allen D
You are not in the right book let alone on the
right page. No signs of lateral thinking at all.
Never mind -- it will all be made plain soon.
Probably in the next week or two.
When I am ready.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------
Stay connected to the people that matter most
with a smarter inbox. Take a look.
Other related posts:
