[geocentrism] Uranus
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:02:47 -0800 (PST)
-Paul I deal with your latest .?!?... at the bottom..
- For those of a sound mind:......The simple test to know if you are indeed
looking a motion, or just counting the same motion twice or attempting to
divide 1 by itself and come up with two (which is erroneous one divided by
itself is still just one), is to stop all other motions, ..can you still see
the motion(s) in question or not?…..If you stop the moon's orbit can you see
either and both the up/down & left right liberation rotations?… YES …If you
stop either or both up/down & left right liberation rotations you can see the
orbit? YES…Now stop the orbit, what other then the liberation do you
see?……Nothing……. That is exactly what kind of rotational motion you have left.
If the moon were in rotation then when you stop the orbit you would still see
the moon spin on its axis.......that same test & principle will hold true for
any celestial body in the universe.....including Uranus....or any gas giant or
plasma field or anything else for
that matter.....
How can this be so difficult to understand?! I'm not the one obfuscating
here....
- Phil i don’t know what you are complaining about....
Paul asked me: "I asked you, with specific reference to Uranus, where is that
common point. You have responded -- your post below -- with a blizzard of words"
I answered that question ....... geometric center or Center of mass..of if
looking with the necked eye you see Uranus itself as a point source..(you can't
see its daily rotation with the necked eye)......the various axis of the
rotations lay at different angels wrt each other....
-Paul, seriously I'm not joking or making fun of you now ...all jokes
aside.....take this very very seriously...i mean it in the most sober way i can
say it.....are you really this "stupid" or do you just get a kick out of acting
this way?..If i am missing something here you need to get someone else to point
it out what you are asking me, and i will gleefully apologize for that
insinuation, coz right now you are talking yourself in circles making no sense
to me whatsoever.... you state:........"where is the common point of rotation
which holds true in each case and by extension, in ALL cases? If there is
a specific answer, an imbecile could do it in ten words or less.." This is now
the third time on top of all my other post where I answered all of this very
and exactingly specific "........." to geometric center point also a center of
mass" ......(NOTE: you may or may not have the same common point for any two or
more rotations, the common
point is determined by the progressive radial orientation, wrt what/where.)
This is not counting a "outside" observer..since a outside observer could also
be considered a common point since a common point is just common and or from
which all these motions can be observed....but that cannot go flying around
otherwise it is not common to anything….
its daily axis is 97.77 degrees from the annual....the common point for the
daily is the center of mass or geometric point...the primary common point for
the annual is the earth with epicycles they too have a common point that lay in
the center of that progressive radial orientation too...!?............ Im more
then happy to address how this relates to the moon..oh yea...just look at my
first paragraph......this is only the dozen or so time i have repeated this
information....!?
My definition is clear, simple demonstatable and holds true in all and every
case....
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 4:53 PM
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 3:06 PM
Allen it seems to me you are a wee bit guilty of argumentum ad hominem!.
Saying this or similar often
"because you are not here to learn, you are hear to espouse ignorance and
nonsense."
Paul asked, "What I need at this moment is for you to explain to me what you
mean by "... progressive radial orientation to a common point ..." and later
you can ""
Note just his simple piece first, Yet we get, 406 words of ...... what could
any one say.... Take this..
"Uranus is making a "daily" progressive radial orientation to geometric center
point also a center of mass point that lay in that axis of rotation ..or any
number of common points the axis lay through, that lay 97.77 degrees from the
annual orbit" The planet as a whole is making a progressive radial
orientation to the earth/sun with epicycles what that axis 90degrees to the
plane of that motion...those two axis lay 97.77 degrees wrt each other......
What part of this do you not understand?!
Perhaps to test your rational, we should invite anybody and everybody else on
this list to explain what you said in straight forward simple English
scientific terms. I cant! Before you attack us for being stupid.
Philip.
argumentum ad hominem
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself, his character, nationality or religion, or by
association, the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person (classic
definition):
1. ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the
argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
2. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion
the author points to the relationship between the person making the
assertion and the person's circumstances.
3. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person
notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.
Defense: Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or
falsity of the proposition being defended.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 3:11 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Fw: Uranus
Paul,
I answered your question specifically ..If you don't get it then i suggest you
reread it!... according to MS Uranus is making a "daily" progressive radial
orientation to geometric center point also a center of mass point that lay in
that axis of rotation ..or any number of common points the axis lay through,
that lay 97.77 degrees from the annual orbit….. We can identify those axis and
they lay 90degrees to the plane of the motion.......... The planet as a whole
is making a progressive radial orientation to the earth/sun with epicycles what
that axis 90degrees to the plane of that motion...those two axis lay 97.77
degrees wrt each other...... What part of this do you not understand?! Maybe if
you would pay attention to the "blizzard of words" you might get clue!? Each of
those motions are independent of the other..There is nothing scientific about
taking a motion and counting it as two motions...any one of Uranus motions can
be isolated and observed
if any of the other motions are stopped....The motion you keep trying to
ascribe to the moon is the orbit, take the orbit away and there is nothing to
observer (except the liberation).... Paul, you are obfuscating all your post
are a waste of your time because you are not here to learn, you are hear to
espouse ignorance and nonsense. Logic observation and experiment clearly show
only one demonstrable motion, no additional second motion or rotation...only
one rotation with either the axis that the common point lay inside or outside
the diameter of the various bodies in question.. Counting the same thing as
twice does make two of them...nor is splitting it in half (in your head) mean
you have demonstrated two synchronous parts!? ..Now you either demonstrate the
moons supposed rotation isolated and separate, not dependent on the orbit or
you sir are just exercising foolishness either willfully or you just don’t have
the intellect for it. Either way I
don’t think anyone can help you with your problems. You demonstrate nothing
and even after I do you keep claiming, I’m the problem and there is logic and
science in your post!? Your arguments are utter nonsense and yet you accuse me
of not answering, obfuscating, and dealing with the issues… Either demonstrate
something or concede…or find someone who can debate me on this issue with some
better arguments then the foolishness you keep cling so dearly to?!
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 9:07 AM
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 6:10 AM
#yiv1662386152 #yiv1860679025 #yiv343033054 #yiv1740959284 #yiv852385382
#yiv424634183 DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}
Allen D
From Wikipedia courtesy of Allen Daves 67.131.20.93 we have -
A Rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That
common point lay within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees
perpendicular to the plane of the motion.
I asked you, with specific reference to Uranus, where is that common point. You
have responded -- your post below -- with a blizzard of words which addressed
everything except the question I asked. Please think of me as being as stupid
and as ignorant as your posts frequently intimate -- where is the common point?
Indeed, what is the common point?
Please note that I am not interested in every single particle in Uranus,
billions of quarks and leptons, individual atoms, stars at night, Galaxies with
billions of individual stars in them or riders on white horses, or indeed
horses of any other colour, with or without riders.
I will also excuse you your intemperate but inaccurate list of things which it
is your conjecture that I need.
What I need at this moment is for you to explain to me what you mean by "...
progressive radial orientation to a common point ..." and later you can build
on that to explain to me how it bears upon the rotation rate of Uranus and the
Moon.
Paul D
From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 6 December, 2008 9:46:36 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
My problem is ' ..' common point ...'. Where is it?????
You deny the Moon is rotating on its axis while it revolves about its primary
yet here you talk about Uranus' rotation and its revolution having separate
axes with no common point. Why do you see the Moon as being different?????
Paul D
Paul,
Dose Uranus have no Geometric center point?!..No center of mass?!..No center
point of EMR ? ..No gravo-inertial center?!. ( MS uses inertial reference
frames..the center point of that frame… to define motion wrt..I wonder how they
do that and if it might apply here as well…ummm) .. Is every single particle
in Uranus moving wrt each other, how do you know that?! Can we not consder
Uranus a whole rather then just billions upon billions of quarks and
leptons..?!...how do they move int he individual attoms?!......Why not ask
about those stars at night that are actually Galaxies with billions of
individual stars in them…do they have a center at all?....Or is it that we
consider them point source lights(EMR)?…..does It matter?.....How would have a
rotation without something going in around something else in progressive and
radial orientation to it? I think that is far more interesting and relevant
question then the obvious obfuscation, you accuse me
of, but are in fact now engaging in.... If you dont know where the common
point point is then have no business arguing geometical conepts that are not
dependent upon dimention......
Admit it …you need the confusion, the anarchy, the chaos and disorder, the
completely random universe, you cant get enough of it, you eat it like
candy.......its siren call is that of the embrace of a sweet lover for you
isn’t it….I mean ....without it….....well that just leaves love for that Jesus
God Guy…
Don’t worry Paul you can go to sleep now, that sword that proceeds out of the
mouth of the rider on the white horse long ago began its work and has already
done its work on you as it has on all the nations….only a little more killing
left to do………
--- On Sat, 12/6/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 1:43 PM
--- On Fri, 12/5/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 10:34 AM
Paul,.
.."I've asked if you would explain what is meant by "Progressive radial
orientation to a common point' with particular reference to its application to
the rotation and revolution of Uranus and the identification of that common
point in that instance"
I'm not sure what the problem is...its spin/Daily/internal common point lay in
the axis that is at 97.77 degrees to the orbital plane, the orbital plane has
its own axis of orbital motion........one axis for "daily" rotation and one for
"annual" orbital rotation....one axis for each progressive radial orientation
to a common point.......Any and every axis lay 90 degrees to the plane of the
motion in question.....the motions must be independent of each other and
isolatable from each other otherwise you are just counting things more then
once and calling them two.....but every progresive radial orientation to a
common point will have its own axis.......The number of axis for Uranus or any
body for that matter is only limited to the amount of rotational motions
present...
"the lengthening list of items which you refuse to address" I dobut i could
ever address all the items you would like me to...im forced to focus on the
most relevant and fundimental ones.....coz i dont think i will live to be older
then a 100 or so years and I have already used quite a few.....but dont worry
too much,.....I don't think it is nessisary to look at every atom in the
universe or vistit every part of the universe before you and I can both claim
victory in the assertion that atoms are very small and the universe is very
large...
--- On Fri, 12/5/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Moon Rotation
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 6:04 AM
Allen D
You said --
Paul, The curt remarks I referred to are made by me. My post are at some times
more disciplined then others but don’t let that bother you. I’m not playing
dumb, not at all. I am just giving you and others ample opportunity to say
"less then brilliant" things of which you and Phil have not disappointed me
with…I then remark in very, perhaps extreme sarcastic manner. I’m sorry you
can’t see beyond your own logical contradictions, …. but then again you never
did get the whole gravity= inertia thingy either…..Note I did not start out
that way but I keep coming to the same conclusion about most not all but
certainly most of your arguments, they are focused on "claiming victory" not on
evaluating the possibility that they are completely wrong. ….. As I said before
this thread will just go in circles. It will most certainly not progress your
learning at all because ..well we all know why…….but my point is not so much
for me to convince you
of your error. You truly believe in your own folly and will not be shown
otherwise! It is to offer others a chance to understand and evaluate the real
world and the kinds of people that live in it……..
'... claiming victory ...' Yes -- it could be so construed. I however see it as
an attempt to contribute to your education in reality. By contrast, your
position is characterised by avoiding admission of error at any cost. The most
demeaning of mental gyrations is not beneath you in this endeavour.
'... that they are completely wrong ...' Well I've asked if you would explain
what is meant by "Progressive radial orientation to a common point" with
particular reference to its application to the rotation and revolution of
Uranus and the identification of that common point in that instance. This is
only my second request so it may be too early to add this question to the
lengthening list of items which you refuse to address but I suspect it is none
the less destined for that distinction.
Paul D
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now.
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now.
Other related posts:
