Philip M From philip madsen Sun Dec 21 01:36:21 2008 a combination of rotation and translation, as described previously.. not two different rotations. Phil This point leaped off the page at me also. And your other tour de force this thread -- From philip madsen Sun Dec 21 01:36:21 2008 -- said it all for me. ... and you said you were retiring! Damn you eyes sir! |[:-) Paul D ________________________________ From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, 21 December, 2008 1:57:10 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus Bernie its ok to use rotation or revolution in a barn dance. But in discussing mechanics, where a difficult combination of motions is involved, the car differential comes to mind, as shown already, your example below is not correct. Even I could and have often said the moon rotates around the earth, or the earth rotates around the sun, but that is not scientific. but in general ordinary people know what I mean. . This laxity , once condemned, is common to quite a lot of word usage today, that is not acceptable in science. Yet quite acceptable on the Ballroom floor.. I could imagine the looks one would get if the instructor said "I want you to do one spin per beat as you translate yourself around he floor in 50 beats. !!! Progressive rotation. What the instructor is describing in truth is a body having a combination of rotation and translation, as described previously.. not two different rotations. Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: Bernie Brauer To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus Two Sides of the Body The body has two sides: The left side and the right side (see diagram 1-1). These two sides of the body have a constant, ongoing relationship as you move. diagram 1-1 Rotationally speaking, each of the two sides of the body can do one of two things: * Move Forward * Move Backward * Remain in Place The quality of rotation relies on which of these three actions each of the sides of the body takes. Based on this, the resulting action of the body as a whole can be pure progression, pure rotation, or a combination of both. EXAMPLES Example 1-2 When both sides of the body move forward equally, the result is pure progression. Example 1-3 When one side of the body moves forward while the other moves backward, the result is pure rotation (on the spot). Example 1-4 When both sides of the body move forward with one side moving faster than the other, theresult is progressive rotation. Two Types of Rotation For our purposes, we will be thinking of rotation as being one of two varieties: * Spot Rotation * Progressive Rotation SPOT ROTATION Spot rotation occurs any time the body turns in place, without traveling. In most cases, this means that the body weight remains over one foot. It is possible to have spot rotation with the weight held between the feet (as in a "Twist Turn") or shifting slightly from foot to foot (as in a "Fleckerl"), but for this lesson we will be focusing more on the rule than the exceptions. Just think of spot rotation as rotation which occurs over a fixed point in space. PROGRESSIVE ROTATION Progressive rotation occurs as the body is traveling, and therefore takes place between steps, or over a series of two or more steps. Chainé turns, Pivots, and even the Waltz Box Step are all examples of progressive rotation. More here: http://www.ballroomdancers.com/learning_Center/Lesson/2/Default.asp?page=1 --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 2:55 PM Continuous versus Progressive "The progressive aspect expresses the dynamic quality of actions that are in progress while the continuous aspect expresses the state of the subject that is continuing the action. For instance, the English sentence "Tom is walking" can express the active movement of Tom's legs (progressive aspect), or Tom's current state, the fact that Tom is walking rather than doing something else at the moment (continuous aspect)." --- On Sat, 12/20/08, allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 2:25 PM Paul, One the one hand you proclaime it is “too much/too little -- too late” .…while in the same post challenging me to answer you ....practically daring me not to answer you on pains of not being able to be coherent…...Then......Whenever I answer you, then you accuse me of browbeating and obfuscation.........If I do not answer you, then you accuse me of avoiding the issue!? ….. You claim to extend your hand and that I keep biting, when the reality Paul is just the opposite…I answer and address and offer, it is you who keep biting the hand that feeds…….. If you are really interested then deal with what I have already given you…….If you don’t understand the words “A Progressive radial orientation to a common point” as it related to the numerous examples I have already provided and the applications to the real world and the experiments we have discussed..... then I don’t think anyone can help you in your tireless and charitable labor of perseverance..… --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 10:39 AM --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 5:57 AM Allen D It's too little -- or perhaps that should be too much -- too late. How many times have I held my hand out to you, and how many times did you bite it? Here's a test. Try to explain to me what is meant by "Rotation -- a progressive radial orientation to a common point," in not less than three paragraphs and not more than 100 words, with no spelling errors and correctly punctuated. If you can do that, then you'll get some idea of what it takes to communicate rather than to brow-beat and to demonstrate consideration for your fellow man. The preceeding three paragraphs contain 99 words. Paul D ________________________________ From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, 19 December, 2008 4:17:39 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Uranus Common guys …I can’t not believe it is this hard for you…unless it is willful…. I understand your arguments...all you do is keep coming at this issue with two basic arguments… 1. "Purely Geometrical"….which is not even possible in reality because "pure geometry is "pure imagination".... but I addressed it as "pure geometry" in Parent “1” & the plate diagrams which leads to physical absurdities in that it prevents any quantifiable and objectively meaningful definition applicable in the real world.....as well as the fact that real rotation has real requirements not just imaginary “pure geometry”… Or 2. Rotation due to a force…which has more to do with reality then just a pure geometrical concept….I address this approach in th motors snyc and tether ball diagrams... You canot jump back and fourth between these two approaches taking what you like and ignoring the rest of "the baggage" each carries with it...when it suits you .....you can take either, OR, or both but not the cherry picking you attempt in your reasoning.... In our experiment….whether or not the motor is welded to the orbital plate or if it requires just has .5ftb of torque to rotate either from energizing the motor or from centrifugal force generated by the orbit…there is no motion until such a force is produced from either of those tow possibilities to overcome what is by definition a reissuance to move or rotate… now if the condition that produces a sync is one where the resistance is greater then any force to cause it to rotate then how on earth can you suggest that it is in rotational motion. It leads to contradictions and paradoxes. Namely what you are putting forward is that while in one motor is not able to rotate due to some resistance the other motor overcome that resistance and is also equally in sync….you cannot have one motor in a forced rotational motion while the other motor is without force and by definition prevented from rotation and claim those are the two conditions are one and the same…you cannot have a motion equivalent to a non motion wrt the same things namely, the orbital plate…….. if before the orbit begins one motor is spinning at 200rpm and the other is mechanically prevented from rotation then you cannot claim that you are going to reduce the one to 100rpm and be in sync with the motor that is mechanically prevented from rotation…The only way to achieve snyc is to reduce the energized motor to the same state of the motor that is mechanically prevented from rotation before we began….If the condition of the mechanically prevented motor is one of no rotation before we began and after we stop the orbit then there is not logical claim to motion during except in your purely geometrical sense but as I have already demonstrated that Leeds to physical absurdity as well as technically incorrect since rotation real rotation requires a force and we are addressing it as such in this experiment…... Just because you have a centrifugal and or any force acting upon the other motor does not mean it will rotate unless the force is greater then the reissuance to that force…in the motor that is not energized the only source for forces comes from the centrifugal effects of the orbital motion. However, again if the force is not greater then the resistance to that force there will still be no rotation before, after and as such no logical claim it exist during. The only logical claim based on the observation is that one motor is prevented from rotation due to friction or insufficient force and as such the other energized motor will and must mimic that same condition in order to manifest the same effects…If the one has not rotation then the other cannot either, if they are doing the same things…. If one motor has insufficient force to cause a rotation then the other motor must also have insufficient force to cause a rotation. Otherwise there is no way the two could be doing the same things wrt the orbital plate. There is simply no logical way to claim a rotation when your arguments 1. “ pure geometry” does not describe reality and 2. There is no demonstatable force sufficient to overcome resistance and cause motion --- On Fri, 12/19/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: If there is no motion before and no motion after the orbit then what is the claim of rotation based on during the orbit…the “rotation” you both keep referring to is the orbit. There is no second motion except in your head particularly since there is no way to define it except in imagination that is absent of facts in reality.. The only logical claim is that there is a prevention of rotation in our experiment not a rotation...subsequently that is the only demonstratable claim we can make for the moon.....something is preventing it from rotation not causing it to rotate....you cannot assume the very thing you are trying to ascertain as evidence for itself.... From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 7:44 AM Common guys …I can’t not believe it is this hard for you…unless it is willful…. All you do is keep coming at this with two basic arguments… 1. "Purely Geometrical"….which is not even possible in reality because "pure geometry is "pure imagination".... but I addressed it as "pure geometry" in Parent “1” & the plate diagrams which leads to physical absurdities in that it prevents any quantifiable and objectively meaningful definition applicable in the real world.....as well as the fact that real rotation has real requirements not just imaginary “pure geometry”… Or 2. Rotation due to a force…which has more to do with reality then just a pure geometrical concept….I address this approach in th motors snyc and tether ball diagrams... You canot jump back and fourth between these two approaches taking what you like and ignoring the rest of "the baggage" each carries with it...when it suits you .....you can take either, OR, or both but not the cherry picking you attempt in your reasoning.... In our experiment….whether or not the motor is welded to the orbital plate or if it requires just has .5ftb of torque to rotate either from energizing the motor or from centrifugal force generated by the orbit…there is no motion until such a force is produced from either of those tow possibilities to overcome what is by definition a reissuance to move or rotate… now if the condition that produces a sync is one where the resistance is greater then any force to cause it to rotate then how on earth can you suggest that it is in rotational motion. It leads to contradictions and paradoxes. Namely what you are putting forward is that while in one motor is not able to rotate due to some resistance the other motor overcome that resistance and is also equally in sync….you cannot have one motor in a forced rotational motion while the other motor is without force and by definition prevented from rotation and claim those are the two conditions are one and the same…you cannot have a motion equivalent to a non motion wrt the same things namely, the orbital plate…….. if before the orbit begins one motor is spinning at 200rpm and the other is mechanically prevented from rotation then you cannot claim that you are going to reduce the one to 100rpm and be in sync with the motor that is mechanically prevented from rotation…The only way to achieve snyc is to reduce the energized motor to the same state of the motor that is mechanically prevented from rotation before we began….If the condition of the mechanically prevented motor is one of no rotation before we began and after we stop the orbit then there is not logical claim to motion during except in your purely geometrical sense but as I have already demonstrated that Leeds to physical absurdity as well as technically incorrect since rotation real rotation requires a force and we are addressing it as such in this experiment…... Just because you have a centrifugal and or any force acting upon the other motor does not mean it will rotate unless the force is greater then the reissuance to that force…in the motor that is not energized the only source for forces comes from the centrifugal effects of the orbital motion. However, again if the force is not greater then the resistance to that force there will still be no rotation before, after and as such no logical claim it exist during. The only logical claim based on the observation is that one motor is prevented from rotation due to friction or insufficient force and as such the other energized motor will and must mimic that same condition in order to manifest the same effects…If the one has not rotation then the other cannot either, if they are doing the same things…. If one motor has insufficient force to cause a rotation then the other motor must also have insufficient force to cause a rotation. Otherwise there is no way the two could be doing the same things wrt the orbital plate. There is simply no logical way to claim a rotation when your arguments 1. “ pure geometry” does not describe reality and 2. There is no demonstatable force sufficient to overcome resistance and cause motion --- On Thu, 12/18/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: If there is no motion before and no motion after the orbit then what is the claim of rotation based on during the orbit…the “rotation” you both keep referring to is the orbit. There is no second motion except in your head particularly since there is no way to define it except in imagination that is absent of facts in reality.. The only logical claim is that there is a prevention of rotation in our experiment not a rotation...subsequently that is the only demonstratable claim we can make for the moon.....something is preventing it from rotation not causing it to rotate....you cannot assume the very thing you are trying to ascertain as evidence for itself.... From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Uranus To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 10:59 PM If you don’t understand what I am saying please get someone who can actually debate this issue with me…. Allen Perhaps someone with autism... I saw an interesting experience of autistic children experiencing new life with dolphins.. They taught thes kids how to relate affectionately with their parents.. I thought that marvellous.. I saw sea lions today acting like the lovliest and most loving of dogs. It was claimed that they were endangered with only 2 or 3 thousand left.. Thats in keeping with the consummation I suppose. Philip. ________________________________ Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look. Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox