[geocentrism] rotation

 If i take the common point of progressive radial orientation and move it from the center of the diameter of the body in question, does not mean that magically a second axis spontaneously appears....if we go further and move that common point away even further outside the diameter of the body in question ....there is no magic spontaneous secondary rotation....there is only one whether the common point of progressive radial orientation lay inside or outside the diameter of the body in question...simply moving the common point of progressive radial orientation from the center of a body does not create anything!   

-Motion has to be relative to something

-Force is not motion

-what you claim as rotation cannot be isolated from the orbit....you are only counting the same thing twice and or taking one thing and cutting it in half calling it two!?......Counting the same thing twice does not make two...cutting your car in half in your head does not mean you have two halfs of a car....The moon does not have two different motions it only has one it is called the orbit...the orbit is not dependent on any "synchronous" rotation. The moon is making a progressive radial orientation to a point that lay outside the diameter of the moon ..Phil..there is no difference between having that point inside or outside the diameter of the moon it is still only one motion. if it had a progressive radial orientation to some other point that lay internal to the moon like its librations then that motion can be demonstrated without the other motion...but phil ..simply because the common point lay outside the moon dose not necessitate a second common point..there is only one not two....

Your experiment and post changes nothing wrt the moon or anything wrt motion or rotation....for that matter...
--- On Sat, 12/6/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 4:31 PM

--- On Sat, 12/6/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] rotation To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 3:47 PM   I was reluctant to continue this theme, if it was not for it being important to the understanding of celestial mechanics, important if we are to have credibility in the subject of geocentrism.  Allen confused and refuted the issue, by mentioning force is not motion. In my numerous ventures into finding that "free" energy, I did a magnetic experiment which I hope clarifies what I'm saying.   A rotational force applied will not make motion if the axel is locked. But this does not mean the axis of rotation does not exist. It is a force vector with a quantity which can be expressed as stress.   In the accompanying diagram, I had a magnet, the blue N red S rectangle .  which could spin on the axel shown, which was on the periphery of the yellow wheel also free to spin.   The direction of the magnetic cross field is such that a turning torque is applied to the magnet. If the magnet bearing is free, the magnet will turn clockwise. The yellow wheel remains stationary .. we have one axis of rotation.   However if the magnet bearing is locked, this same torque will turn the whole wheel clockwise. We have two axis of rotation in the same clockwise direction. One is a force vector centered on axis of the magnets achieving its rotational motion by means of translation, and the other of course is fixed on the axis of the wheel centre.   Let us slightly unlock the magnet bearing . In this case some of the energy will turn the magnet on the wheel, and some will turn the wheel..  In this case you must accept that there are two mechanical rotations..  Why is it so difficult to accept when the rotations are synchronised, as in when the bearing is locked?  To me this _expression_ is common in the electrical industry when referring to the rotor as becoming locked in synchronism with the rotating manetic field.   Things do not change just because the force is mechanical rather than magnetic. We could be discussing fluid drives, where the the viscosity is the differential.  Yet even in a solid there is elasticity. the rotational forces on the molecules at the periphery  of a system will indeed stress (a movement) in the rotational direction, just as my magnet above.   Yet in the moon, where Allen refuses to budge, we have a free synchronous independent rotation which is synchronisd with the orbital rotation, (yes an imaginary wheel,) The moon has two motions..  one of the translation of its mass around a central axis... and at the same time it has a physical rotation around its own axis in synchronism.. , one that slips into and out of synch at various times ever so slightly.   I have shown by these experimental proofs,  how forces of rotation exist during this synchronous phase, reflected in actual movement or stress within the molecules of materials.. on my earth bound model..  Surely Allen you are not going to resort to claiming I am wrong as regards the moon, because we cannot go there and measure this centrepetal  stress in the rocks?   Philip.