[geocentrism] Re: relative motions.

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Deema

To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:18 PM

Subject: [geocentrism] Re: relative motions.

Philip M
Sorry -- I often overlook the obvious. Well, it was obvious to me -- when I was looking at it. It is just the platter and the support bearing on a spider mounting frame. Just the two pieces. I held the frame and the platter was free (no belt). It goes without saying that I did my best to hold it level.

Paul D

---

From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January, 2009 2:07:12 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: relative motions.



Thanks paul, I will need to analyse that, as it does not seem to equate with my experience..  I have to ask, has the turntable belt been removed to prevent it turning the motor? Philip.

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Deema

To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:06 PM

Subject: [geocentrism] Re: relative motions.

Philip M

You will remember my mentioning that I have a heavy 12" turntable the platter of which tips the scales at 2770 g. I've just had a play with it and found that if I turn CW, the platter appears to me to be rotating CCW. Now if I made a 90 deg turn and stopped, I found that the platter was no longer pointing where it was when I started the turn but rather some radial distance CW. Friction. However the really interesting bit is that when I stop, the platter keeps turning CW for a short time. This is due to the radial acceleration imparted by my turning through the agency of the aforesaid friction. Presently the platter does come to a stop.

 

If I rotate 360 deg and stop, the platter turns further than in the 90 deg example. It was accelerated for a longer time -- what else would one expect? Of course because the friction is still acting, this time to de-accelerate, it doesn't return all the energy so one cannot draw any quantitative inference from this.

 

Don't worry about Allen's disparaging of table tops. He has already conceded that the laws of physics are universal thus if it is so in space it is so on the top of a table. Anyway, when I used the above described platter to illustrate a similar argument, he replied that if I leave it on the ground it still doesn't rotate, as though this somehow explained the willingness of the platter to resist my turning. I wonder where he gets these patently absurd notions?

 

Paul D

---

From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 January, 2009 12:07:01 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] relative motions.

Allen has already indicated that he will not accept any demo that is done on the kitchen table, as applicable to space so therefore this is not for he.  But I will claim whilst recognising that constants will vary, it does apply universally. Basic mechanical laws are universal. To avoid any anticipated reactions to that, I will add “CONFINED TO THE SOLAR SYSTEM” It’s a basic principle I want to demonstrate, and apply it to this world in space.

Consider we are looking down on the world from the N polar axis. 

 

 

This is the wheel at midday. The yellow square mark is ponted in the direction of  the sun. Note that there is no external force applied to this wheel which is free to rotate. It has considerable inertia due to its mass.

In this second diagram the world has turned 90degrees

 

In this picture, the world has turned 90 degrees or 6 hours later. I can gaurantee that the yellow dot on the wheel will still be pointing in the direction of the sun as shown. It has remained motionless in space whilst it was translated to its new position. If you were on the platform supporting the wheel you would see it appear to rotate 90 degrees. This is an illusion because it is actually you and the platform that has moved.

 

Before anybody picks it up, I will say I have not tried it with a wheel so fixed yet.  I doubt we would see anything because a frictionless bearing is difficult, and in 6 hours even this friction may be enough to turn the wheel..  Maybe not.  But I have done it on a model on the kitchen table at a faster spped..  the principle is proven

 

Why.  When I said illusion, it works both ways..  It does not prove the world turns, but according to my theory, and the Bible, it proves there is a relative movement between the universe and the world, which cnotrols the inertia. i.e.  either way, there IS angular motion.

 

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.