[geocentrism] Re: Uranus
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:37:22 +1000
Allen, forget the moon. Get back to the simple demo of the spinning top. No
earths no uranus's. no forces. A simple mechanical motion of the top. Spin
one yourself, and see that it will show the same face to the centre, at any
rpm, so long as the orbit is the same rpm..
I'm not asking you to prove anything. Just admit that what you see is Two
distinct and separate motions of the ball on this spinning top. It is of no
concern what forces I use to make it spin, electric gravitic magnetc, none of
that need concern us.
Stay on track..
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:22 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
Now, you need to answer my chalenges to you...
If you stop the earth’s orbit and could still see the rotation, then
what do we have to do to isolate it from the orbit? in my diagrams the one
motor we know to be "synced" with the orbit..is not energized with any
force...
How do we stop the orbit and show the rotation?! If you cannot
demonstrate that then you have no objective way to claim there are two motions
or rotations….If you cannot isolate the two motions from each other it is
because you can only lay claim to one motion. The motor that is not energized
is not in rotation when the orbit is stopped and thus no claim that it is on
rotation when it begins to orbit particularly since your argument is based one
the presence of a rotation as detected by a rotational force that we have
already shown does not and cannot exist greater then 0 wrt the orbital RF
The only way to observe a relative rotation wrt the moon…..it is for an
observer to float above the moon with the moons orbit but in translation wrt
the same stars the earth does…..That does not demonstrate a rotation of the
moon!...That is introducing another motion to create a relative appearance of
motion……how do we know?.... That observation post would no longer be the
absolute observation point because a observation point must be absolute
(without motion) and the common point of reference to all the motions within
any given reference frame under observation. The observation point does not
move …… it is the absolute within the reference frame from which all motion(s)
are observed!?........ It cannot go flying around otherwise you have to create
yet another observation point that is not moving, further out to see and or
know that the other is moving and as such to view all those motions together
and wrt each other…......….And If you do all that, then you can still see that
the moon is still not in a rotation, because there is no way to isolate it from
any of the other motions under observation! There is simply no way to get a
rotation out of the moon without assuming something that cannot be demonstrated
or defined in any meaningful way.
--- On Tue, 12/9/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 7:49 AM
Philip M
Even as you were writing it, you were wondering what that
slippery old eel -- eh! Allen -- would dream up this time, weren't you?
He's just so 'creative' isn't he?
Paul D
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 9 December, 2008 3:20:09 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
Phil,
O'deary....i can live with a YES..to everything up to
this point.....
From here I want you to relook at this demonstration
from the beginning and alter
the rate of rotation of the top to spin at 100 rpm, and
keep the orbits at 100 orbits per minute. They are synchronised. This is the
only change we make.
Will the ball now present the same face to the centre
of the orbit? Difficult for anyone to visualise?.
then try it with the spin of the shaft just One rpm and
the orbit just one orbit per minute.
Of course the answer is yes. And we have two separate
motions."
NO!......You not going to like this at all and it is
sure to keep your (not mine) debate going until either someone intellectually
honest from the MS side of the aisle explains it to you, or you start to
consider the forces involed........but the short of it is Phil, the only way to
get your 100 RPM between your orbit and your spin to “synchronize”…is to
continue to reduce the force applied to the spin of the ball until such time as
there is a net zero spin force and a net zero spin rate wrt the parent body and
the satellite….Phil, I’m sorry but this is fact that is can demonstrated even
using your own basic apparatus for your own experiment, no matter what RPM and
orbital rate you use....(note there must be some "engine" in both the orbit and
the spin of your apparatus to cause thoes motions i will reference that force
since the nature of forces are what you are not understanding..) I will attempt
to show this to you without going into all the techno jargon….but first I want
the “shock” of what I just said to wear off so you will be able to think with a
clear mind…..…so…go ahead and get it out all of your system , ..let it all
out……I know the things I just said are outrageous to your scientific mind!…..
If you can pull yourself from the shock of my
outrageous statements, and hold back your fury long enough to tell us,…. no
trick question, I will give you my answer first……think about it….Is it possible
to have two identical motors (Forces)under identical environmental conditions
to produce the same effects with different energy inputs/outputs and rotation
rates of the two motors…?
I would of course say no and expect anyone one else to
say the same since if the RPMs or energy inputs are not the same then either
the environmental conditions or the effects and or both are not the same…thus I
would say if the effects are the same for two identical motors then the
conditions are the same as well…..what say you?
If you disagree please tell us how we can have two
identical motors under identical conditions have two different effects …
If you agree then for the two identical motors to have
the same effects they must be in under identical conditions…….
--- On Tue, 12/9/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 7:16 AM
--- On Mon, 12/8/08, philip madsen
<pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 3:49 PM
Alan If I am a stupid student, then you are
like the incompetent teacher I have often known, who fails to help the student
understand. If I fail to understand it is the teachers fault not the stupid
students.
At least thats how I judged myself when in the
business of instructing classes.
I am having one last attempt. Pure mechanical
rotations no liberations, (am already liberated) what ever that is .
So may I take the chalk and in front of the
class ask the teacher to answer a sequence of questions over the following
diagrams . Please answer in the space provided, so that all the class of
varying stupidities may really understand.
Class lesson on motion
This diagram represents a disc top like kids
spin. It is set to spin at 500 rpm
This question may sound stupid, but for stupid
onlookers will you agree that the
Ball at the top is spinning 500rpm as well as
the arrow bearing at the bottom.
Tick YES or NO
Now we have set the top gyrating as happens
when it is put off balance.
The shaft is still made to spin at 500 rpm but
in addition the ball is now moving in
An orbit as shown by the arrowed circle above
it, at 100 orbits per minute.
Do you agree that as the shaft and bearing
point is still rotating at 500 rpm
the ball likewise is still spinning (rotating)
500 rpm.
tick YES NO
do you agree then that there are two motions of
the ball. One rotating at 500rpm
and the other orbiting (translating) at 100
orbits per minute.
Tick YES NO
So far everybody should have answered yes to
all questions.
From here I want you to relook at this
demonstration from the beginning and alter
the rate of rotation of the top to spin at 100
rpm, and keep the orbits at 100 orbits per minute.
They are synchronised. This is the only change
we make.
Will the ball now present the same face to the
centre of the orbit? Difficult for anyone to visualise?.
then try it with the spin of the shaft just One
rpm and the orbit just one orbit per minute.
Of course the answer is yes. And we have two
separate motions. Please note I have always said motions, not
rotations. the ball rotates, once and it orbits
or tramslates once. Two separate motions.
From here perhaps we can jump from simple
mechanics to celestial motions, and consider the moon.
Allen if you have an objection and must answer
No at any point down this page, please note your reason in the
appropriate place.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:21 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
Rotaion: A progressive Radial oreintaion to a
common point......?!
Gee wiz wiz Phil are you and Paul both having a
bout of stupenditis?!…Things move in a direction and way such that way that its
effects would follow the spokes on a “wheel” (Perfect circle or not) That is a
radial orientation!……That radial motion is defined wrt a common point aka the
hub of that same wheel!……… (like the center of mass or geometric center)
It is not that hard...in fact you might could
even say "it is self evident"!?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter
now.
Other related posts:
