[geocentrism] Re: rotation
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:45:03 +1000
Allen I understand . Its one of those things you cannot see. I was the same
when it took me a long time to prove to myself that 1 divided by 0 was
infinity. I insisted it was 0 with 1 remaining.. then one day i worked it
out... Whamo it was all clear..
This will happen to you when you get a little older. Ask your teacher ..I might
think of a clearer example one day.. I am assuming you have completed Junior
geometry...
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 10:34 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] rotation
Phil,
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.
Other related posts:
