The Moon Does NOT Rotationally Revolve Around its Axis!! 

 

                                                             Moon Movement by Allen Daves

 

 

Allen Daves

 

2. Your arguments are a joke! . . . where is the Moons magic rubber band? . . . for that matter where is the Moon's magic rubber band's point of reference in the universe for its magic rubber band? The Earth . . . well no . . . coz the only progressive radial orientation that any point on the Moon makes lay in the Earth . . . so where is this point of reference you attach your magic rubber band to?! . . . Hey, fellas . . . any absolute Reference Frame is a Geocentric Universe position not Acentric Universe!? 

 

"As has been mentioned previously by others, it doesn't make a jot of difference what you believe, or what others believe -- what matters is what is."  Yea, I think I have pointed this out once or twice.

 

What point on the Moon can you show a progressive radial orientation to some other point that lay in the Moon itself rather than at the Earth . . . oh that’s right . . . you can't . . . coz it does not exist in reality! . . . it only exists in your magical world of ridiculous imagination.

 

I don't think we have to answer your imaginary foolishness until you can answer a simple question about reality . . . You guys are confusing yourselves with your own logic ( lack thereof ) and you don't have a proper understanding of what rotation is . . . real, reproducable, demonstrable rotation in the real world not magic rubber bands and nonsense!

Allen Daves

 

3. I think you have it backwards . . . if there was a rubber band on the Moon where is that band attached to? . . . it most certainly would not twist wrt the Earth . . . go back and read the example of the ball on the stick . . . you can find them at a kindergarten . . . cars on a race track do not rotate either they only have one common point from which any part of the vehicle makes a progressive radial orientation to . . . it's called center field! there is no rotation . . . maybe you should start again at kindergarten because your post is nonsense.  

 

I address all those other issues as well, on rotation and your acceleration questions . . . Refresher:

Reproducable accelerations are always in every real experiment ever performed detectable via optical gyros . . . that goes for your "TWO CYLINDERS" . . . oh yea I already answered and addressed all of this months ago . . . putting a different wrapping paper on it does not make it any more valid.

 

You are the one who is asleep, inconsistent and completely out of touch with your own failed sense of reality versus your feelings . . . you keep appealing to observation and reality but when it is shown to you, you jump back to imaginary rubber bands and frames of reference that are not even valid in your own arguments!? . . . where have you

been?! . . . what forum did you wake up and think you or anyone here has produced any kind of argument that has not been totally and soundly defeated in both logic and experiment . . . this is Earth . . . come down to it . . . the dream is over.  : ~ )   Allen Daves

 

4. Common guys . . . you're beat . . . how many times do we need to beat this dead horse? . . . you only demonstrate one thing . . . that people like you cannot see truth or a contradiction of one's own positions no matter how obvious or plain we make it.

 

Evidence!! . . . where?! . . . you cannot claim the Moon would rotate if released from its orbit without first ASSUMING the AC dynamics is true first and that the Moon is not fixed in the Firmament!!! Making assumptions about the very nature of physics and physical constructs of the universe that is in question is not Evidence it is called circular fallicies!!  I would have thought that would have seeped in by now.

 

A rotation . . . any demonstrable rotation is a progressive radial orientation to a common point . . . Your arguments are inconsistent and self-defeating. NOTE:

 

Your  “common point” cannot go flying and moving all over the universe like some sort of  “Nexus” from

Star Trek . . . otherwise,  it is not  “common” to anything! This holds true especially in abstract mathematical “points in space” . . . and if it is not a “point in space” but rather a point tied and common to any given material object then any rotational motion of that object is only relative to some other object and thus as before the only progressive radial orientation to a common point lay outside the Moon at the Earth ( you know . . . the other object the relative motion is measured against!? ) Do remember that any motion of an object can and must be relative to other objects

not itself!?!?! . . . If  the relative positions between two particles of sand on the Moon do not change wrt each other then there can be no claim to relative motion! Another outside body such as the Earth would be necessary in order to claim that those two particles of sand have a relative rotational motion wrt each other as indicated by the relative amount of the changes in distances at any given moment in time . . . ( i.e. the any two riders on a merry-go-round ) . . . If all that were not true and “common points” can move nilly-willy all over the universe then there can be no such thing as a meaningful definition or understanding of motion because all things are both moving  and not moving around clockwise and counterclockwise, up, down, left and right wrt each other and everything else all simultaneously . . . if that were the case then there is no such thing as motion period, for it could not be defined in any meaningful way since any point of reference used to isolate and define a particular kind of motion could be and must be considered to exist in all locations of every part of the universe simultaneously!? You can’t have it both ways . . . your point of reference cannot move otherwise it has no meaning as a point of reference! This is true for inertial frames or absolute frames . . . you guys are imagining and trying to create a whole new Kinematics . . . one absent of any geometrics!?  Allen Daves

 

5b. No one is questioning that some kind of rotation exists somwhere out there wrt these two bodies . . . The point of contention is what is rotatiing around what; where does the common point on that axis of rotation

lay? . . . An orbit is a rotation but it is a rotation who’s axis lay outside the body in question versus a typical rotation where the axis of the rotation lay inside the body in question . . . internal to the Moon rotation on the Moon's axis or rotation around a common point that lay outside the Moon . . . orbit around an axis at the Earth.

 

5c. Counting the same motion twice does not mean there are two motions. There is only one motion and only one can be objectively demonstrated and defined. Your argument is nothing more than taking the same motion and counting it as two different motions . . . sure you can do that . . . but just becuse you count all the money in your wallet twice does that mean you have twice as much money?!  Allen Daves

 

6. a. I'm not assuming anything, only pointing out that you can't rest your evidence on assumptions . . . that was an argument of your position not mine . . . I did not attempt to use what the Moon would or would not do if it were suddenly released from its orbit . . . only pointing out that neither can you.

 

6b. I chose that defining because it succinctly captures the essence of a rotation . . . but merely having a rotation does not tell you what is in rotation around what and therein lies your problem . . . the rotation exist internal or external to the body in question or both simultaneously . . . I can objectively define and demonstrate them . . . you resort to counting a motion twice and calling it two motions . . . otherwise you have to demonstrate the distinction between the motion . . . it is that to which you have not done nor can you using your approach . . . I have proven my affirmation by demonstrating the converse of it to be in error . . . that is an indirect proof but logicaly valid until shown otherwise.  I'm sure if you pick up several dictionaries you can find any number of definitions . . . that does not mean the definitions are not relevant or valid. A progressive radial orientation to a common point is a rotation by nature. I have already affirmed and demonstrated that every rotation has those common elements . . . no your problem is demonstrating how that particular definition is not valid or relevant or somehow in error. Some things are self-evident . . . If you don't agree that this is . . . ok, fine . . . now demonstrate the folly here. They say answers are easy to find, asking the right questions is the real

difficulty . . . maybe it is because you don't properly define your terms first as one of the reasons you can't seem to objectively show the "real truth" you are trying to demonstrate.  Allen Daves

 

7. All motion is relative to something other than itself . . . the discussion is the rotation of the Moon . . . with respect to what does it rotate if it rotates? . . . the Earth?! . . . NO it has not changed in orientation wrt the

Earth . . . thus it cannot be said to have a relative motion wrt Earth!? No relative motion, no real rotation!? Imagining that you are an omnipotent god looking down from the heavens over Earth is not science, nor is that objective nor is that an objective definition and demonstration of the existance of a real motion. Merely counting the sacred cows twice does not mean you have twice as many sacred cows as before . . . Motion is only motion relative to other REAL bodies not imaginary ones!? . . . without the reality of another body to have relative motion wrt,  then there can be no logical or valid claim for a motion that is dependent on something that does not exist!?  This is the difference between reality and imagination . . . creating imaginary frames of reference and moving them around using imaginary physics does not constitute a motion in reality . . . You are confused and confusing demonstrable reality with pure imaginations of nonsense.  Allen Daves

 

8. What defines and constitutes a rotation is the point and question at hand. 

I have no doubt you and others have not agreed to the arguments I put forward . . . But my definition is demonstrable, reproducible and is applicable to every rotation ever produced . . . and oh yea . . . does not depend on counting the same motion twice or failing to distinguish between various motions . . . that is the power of that definition. Your argument against my argument thus far is the fact that Google and Mainstream Science do not disagree but you feel they do not have a consensus or concur on it either?? 

 

Yes, l that is a definition I coined . . . make no mistake about where it came from! . . . If you don’t like my argument then demonstrate the flaw . . . don’t just quote the ignorant masses.

 

Dealing with the arguments for or against what constitutes rotation and how that relates to the Earth/Moon system is the task at hand . . . There is no need to tell us that you don’t like it; you don’t agree; Google can't find it; others may or may not agree . . . we already know that!! Thus, the necessity for discovery, examinations and argumentation.  Allen Daves

 

9. No, we only have a problem with invalid physics and definitions . . . However, if you would bother to look at the definition of rotation used in common sources, you can find the same elements in the standard off-the-shelf as the one I coined . . . Newtonian physics is not an absolute, if you knew anything about physics you would know it has many known problems . . . in fact the whole point of discovery and development demands new ideas, new approaches and new examinations of the data . . . What planet are you living on?! . . . your criticism of my definition of rotation is not just out of touch with many MS definitions but completely out of touch with the whole point and purpose to challenging ideas for the sake of science and progress!? . . . Deal with the arguments and quit complaining because scientific methods process does not meet your approval when used by me!?

 

If your arguments had any validity then any science ideas would be trashed before they are even evaluated simply because they are as you say someone’s private invention . . . The only problem we have is you complain too much and refuse to deal with the issues . . . If my definitions and arguments are bad . . . then demonstrate it and quit complaining because it is a new or different approach!  Allen Daves

 

10. The reasons why and the forces involved in producing that change are irrelevant to the fact that the change has taken place . . . now if you could just show us a point on the Moon that changes wrt some other point that lay in the Moon you would have it licked . . . the problem is motion, any kind of motion must be relative to something else and in consideration of all other things . . . well the Moon does not change orientation wrt to Earth . . . only wrt the background stars . . .  the Earth is the pivot or common point of those changes . . . you can't have a rotation if there is no change wrt something else . . . and how many other things and where they are located wrt each other determines where and what the common point or axis of any and all relative rotations are . . . if you do not have a relative rotation you certainly cannot have any real rotation. Mainsteam Science does use the Graviational Fields as frames of reference for motion and lack thereof . . . that is why they call them inertial reference frames . . . you know grav and inertia are one and the same in MS . . . but all that goes back to the acceleration points I raised and the difference between relative and absolute motion . . . is there such a thing? . . .  we say yes . . . Acentric Universe says not . . . experiment and logic are on our side.  Allen Daves

 

11. What you keep missing is the fact that every rotation has a single axis on which it rotates and that axis is defined by the relative motion between the object in rotation or orbit and something else . . . If you spin a top ( Moon ) it is in rotation on its own axis . . . wrt you . . . it is not orbiting you?! . . . how do you know? . . . If the top ( Moon ) is orbiting you it may or may not be in rotation on its own axis . . . what makes that determination in both cases - orbit or spin - is that the points on the toy top ( Moon ) make a progressive radial orientation wrt something . . . did you get that? . . . the individual atoms, molecules or something on the toy ( Moon ) must be making a progressive radial orientation wrt something else or to each other as defined by something else external of the toy such as around each other wrt you the observer . . . . . . if there is not a change wrt to each other as defined by that something else then there can be no claim of rotation! . . . if all particles on the toy top ( Moon ) are doing the same things wrt each other as defined by all other objects then how do you claim there is more than one rotation? . . . The fundamental problem you have is how do you make a formal distinction between one rotation and two . . . or even three or more . . . how do you know how many rotations exist at all period? . . . resting your laurels on your ambiguity and inability to make distinctions is hardly something to be proud of, and yet not only do you seem proud of your lack of achievement but you brag about it to each other . . . look how smart you and him are, you two can imagine things so mixed up that you can’t define or make distinctions about anything!? . . . Einstein talked about that . . . something to the effect of . . . Any idiot can make things more complicated, but it takes real genius to go in the opposite direction . . . Your definitions will not and are not capable of making these or any distinctions . . . mine can.  Allen Daves

 

12. You are getting lost in your own exotic experiment(s) and are completely losing site of . . . WHAT IS AND IS NOT A ROTATION ( as it relates to any motion ) . . . I am dealing with the issues, the problem is you think that your experiments demonstrate something other than a change wrt something else!?

 

"But when the Moon moves through 90 degrees of orbit, it simultaneously turns 90 degrees to keep its nose facing the centre of the orbit. This is called synchronous rotation."

 

Synchronous means more than one . . . OK . . . that is what we want you to demonstrate not merely assert

exists! . . . You are claiming two separate rotations . . . we know what the first ( orbit ) rotation is wrt the Earth . . . Now what is the second rotation wrt?! . . . counting the same rotation twice does not mean you have two different

axis . . . those axis are defined by the relative positions and motions of all the other bodies . . . so where in the universe can you go and show us a body where any point on the Moon is making a progressive radial orientation to another point on the Moon . . . hint take that toy and spin it . . . it is in rotation on its own axis wrt you the observer . . . now where in the universe can we go and observe that for the Moon!?!?!?  You cant' demonstrate it because it does not exist either in imagination or reality! Until you can answer that there is nothing for me to address . . . I have already answered and demonstrated objectively that the rotation cannot be claimed or demonstrated based on any consistent, objective criteria! . . . not as matter of proof but for crying out loud maybe you should consider that . . . EVEN OUR RESIDENT MAINSTREAM SCIENCE EXPERT DID NOT AGREE WITH YOU . . . so I don't know how you are claiming you are looking at it from the HC perspective?! . . . maybe just maybe, I’m not the one who is “out of his depth”.  Allen Daves

 

13. The two systems must be geometrically equivalent, otherwise there is a problem with one or the other or both. Since motion is relative to other bodies, this includes rotation . . . The correct answer, wrt the rotation of the Moon, must then be identical to both systems.

 

This is particularly true when we consider the question of where to draw the perimeter - at the Earth/Moon system or the edge of the solar system, how about at the Galaxy . . . if we are considering the motions of any of those particular sets we cannot go outside them to extrapolate additional relative motions for rotations. Thus all motions must be considered relative only to all other bodies in the system under consideration. If on the other hand we use the relative rotation of all matter in the universe then we are back at the same spot we began. Every motion must be relative to something else this holds true for rotational motion as well, Otherwise, what defines it?  

 

The arguments and demonstrations I have put forward stand on their own. I will point once again to my previous and attached here diagram . . . There is only one rotation there, because only the relative motions of any parts to it can be considered with respect to the whole . . . If I include an observer then the perimeter of the evaluation extends but not the criteria for what is and what is not motion. Albeit I’m sure folks with vivid imaginations can certainly envision billions upon billions of rotations, one for each molecule around their own axis in the plate as well as the very center molecule in the plate, which is the only thing in rotation on its on axis in the plate and this is defined by the rest of the molecules in the plate . . . This would no doubt not create any problem for you two. Even though every other molecule in the plate keeps the same orientation wrt that center molecule which is rotating on its own axis.  They are however now left without a clear definition of what motion is, since there is no relative motion between the molecules in the plate and the center molecule. Yet they are claiming  motion exists . . . but with a very novel idea . . . ummmm . . . motion without being relative.  Allen Daves

 

14. You state: "In the following, in line with accepted practise, rotate means turning about an axis which runs through the body's centre of gravity, while rotation means the centre of gravity of the body turns about the barycentre between it and the body about which it orbits. ( These definitions would of course be redundant if Allen Daves would accept commonly accepted terminology)."

 

A progressive radial orientation to a common point . . . In fact does make those two definitions redundant!?  You're missing the key element of motion which is relative to something and rotation is a motion not just an imaginary

axis . . . you can draw axis all day long but to show any given motion it must be relative to something else. You can't count the same relative motion twice and call it two different things . . . one plus itself does not equal two. To be simultaneous you have to have two of something . . . now define each of those independently. You cannot just look at a single motion and call it two different motions without any objective definition any more than you can look at a car and claim that it is not a car but rather two car parts simply because you can imagine the car cut into two sections!?  

 

Your application of “commonly accepted” definitions violates the very principle of motion itself. It is not that all your commonly accepted definitions are wrong . However, the way you use and attempt to apply them is very wrong. The definitions themselves are mostly just very weak and vague, although some involve technical errors when you try to apply them. But just because a given definition may be vague does not mean you can use or apply it any way you want to, nor does it mean that is all there is to it.  You and any definition you choose to use must consider more than just itself and the immediate arguments under consideration . . . That is the reason why I coined the definition I did.  It uses many of the same elements in many of the ones you refer to. However, my definition does not leave a vague door open for misapplications and contradictions between what does and does not constitute motion(s). The way you apply and some of the ones you use most certainly do.

 

If you are going to use centers of gravity and barycentres then you go back and read my post on inertial reference frames and accelerations in the lab and “real world” . . . The forces under consideration:

a. cannot be distinguished from the orbit in any meaningful way . . . counting twice does not mean you have twice as much . . . and if you don’t have twice as much you can't claim you have two!

b. Real experiments can be performed to show absolute versus relative motion and given that there would be no real motion then, no real motion equals no real rotation, particularly since any motion must be relative to something else.

Allen Daves

 

 

 

 

Note:

If the plate was the only object in the universe how could you claim it was spinning on it own axis?! . . . oh the

observer . . . well then we must acknowledge the fact that we must consider other objects in our frame of

reference/universe to determine if any motion including rotation exists or not . . . the molecules in the plate do not rotate wrt each other . . . and the axis in which all molecules rotate around is the center of the plate . . . there are no billions of billions of axis and rotations for each molecule, they only have motion wrt the same thing the center of the plate has which is the observer. Thus the only axis of rotation is the Center molecule, if you extend the axis beyond that it would encompass all those billions of molecules but it does not give them each their own individual axis upon which to rotate! There is only one axis whether you consider the axis as a mathematical line ( having no dimensions) or as having the diameter of the plate itself, the net effect is the same . . . only one axis not billions!  

 Allen Daves

 

16. The fact there is more than one is inherent, intrinsic, integral part of the meaning of synonymous! You cannot separate that fact any more than you can separate the fact that a living human has water in them! If they are

alive . . . then that means water is present!

 

Come to the table with some reason . . . you are just attempting "linguistic acrobatics" now . . . if you have a plate, drill a hole in the center and put it on a drill there is only one axis of rotation . . . you may consider that axis to be a mathematical line ( having no dimension ) or you can also consider that axis to have the same diameter of the plate itself . . . the net effect is the same . . . one axis of rotation . . . not billions of axis for each molecule in the plate . . . one axis not many . . . counting the same thing twice does not mean you have two of them!  Allen Daves

 

17. "The Moons axis is several degrees off that of the Earth! . . . does that make two LOL?"

Yes, that is two. One axis for each progressive radial orientation wrt something else . . . note the things that are in progressive radial orientation do not have that wrt the same things . . . That axis librates back and forth and there is another that librates up and down . . . that is three axis . . . only 9 trillion trillion more to go . . . that is if you take your approach with every particle of the Moon . . . ummmm . . . none of those axis even run through the same plane . . . That motion is not the same motion as the/any motion of the orbit, and that is the point . . . How do we know? . . . because there is a change and progressive radial back and forth wrt to a common point that lay through the moon itself . . . that is not difficult to see or confuse, That common point lay within the moon the other common point lay outside the

moon . . . they are both wrt the observer within the Earth/Moon frame of reference . . . One is a progressive and regressive radial orientation to a common point that lay on the Moon itself and the other is a common progressive radial orientation to a point that lay at the Earth itself . . . The observer never has a problem making that distinction and apparently you do not either . . . The distinction can be clearly made within the frame of reference under consideration ( Earth/Moon system ). We cannot go outside our frame of reference to give ourselves a reference frame ( remember me saying that? ) . . . The observer sees the Moon make a progressive radial orientation wrt the observer, he can also see an ADDITIONAL MOTION in the Moons libration. There is a difference between two different motions verses just one motion that is called two . . . by now you should see the difference . . . well maybe not you two, but anyone else examining these posts should have no problem seeing two different motions that are defined independently of each other, not just a single motion that you keep trying to “cut in half” like cutting that car in half I mentioned

earlier . . . seeing a car does not make it two halves of a car simply because you can imagine it cut in half . . . there is one car and one motion, that motion as is any motion is defined by the relative changes wrt the observer and or any third bodies. However, the same changes wrt those same bodies and or observer cannot be called two different changes simply because you count those same relative changes wrt the same observer once and then again wrt the third

bodies twice even though they are the same exact change for both the observer and the third body . . . The same

relative changes wrt the same observer or bodies is not two different changes . . . counting the money you have twice does not mean you have twice as much as you did when you counted it the first

time . . . one plus itself is not two . . . the relative changes can only be counted once not twice wrt the same

observer or 3^rd bodies . . . motion any motion to be observed must be relative to something else . . . That something else is called the observer or other bodies that the observer sees, wrt each other, all within the same frame of reference under consideration.

 

The curt remarks I referred to are made by me. My posts are at some times more disciplined than 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 than brilliant” things of which you two have not disappointed me with . . . I then remark in a 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. 

 

Again . . . "Rotation needs no observer. It is a self evident truth as defined"  The fact I am the king is

self-evident too!? . . . do you hear yourself . . . what is that self-evidence based on? . . . Rotation is a motion, motion must be relative to something, an observer or some other body otherwise it is not a motion . . . further, if it is it not observed one would have to question how is it then being discussed since otherwise, we would have no way of knowing that it was relative to anything . . . ummm.  Allen Daves

 

18. "You have used a plate or disc to imply that it is not possible to have two axis in parallel --- i.e. you say that these are the same rotation and axis."

 

No, you most certainly can have axis that run parallel . . . but in order to claim two motions you have to have two sets of relative changes wrt something . . . how do you know when you have such a thing? The the up/down motion of the Moons libration on that axis can be shown without having any of the other motions of the other axis and calling it two? . . . it must be an independent motion, otherwise you are only taking one motion that cannot be isolated or distinguished from the other and calling it two motions!? The back and forth of the Moons libration can be isolated and is not dependent on the up and down axis nor is it dependent on the Moons orbital motion . . . Those are three axis each with their own independent relative progressive radial orientations wrt the observe/Earth.

 

Succinctly: All you have to do is show us how you can produce the Moons supposed rotation without the

orbit . . . YOU CANT!!!  Without the orbit there is no motion or rotation!!! . . . what you are calling two motions cannot be isolated or distinguished from each other, you cannot show the Moon to rotate on the same axis that it orbits without having the orbit . . . counting the same thing twice does not mean you have two of them . . . there is only a progressive radial orientation to a common point that lay in an axis that runs through the Earth . . . the orbital axis and the two axis of the Moons libration are all clear and distinct from each other, your rotation does not exist without the orbit . . . IT IS THE ORBIT! . . . if the Moon were in rotation on a parallel axis to the orbital axis that motion could  be demonstrated without the orbit . . . but it cannot . . . because only one motion

exists! . . . counting one cow twice does not make two cows . . . counting one rotation twice does not make two rotations . . . motion is relative to something else . . . but a motion that uses the same identical changes wrt the same identical bodies is just the same motion . . . NOT TWO!

 

PS You see contradiction and conflict in my words because you are so accustomed to accepting contradiction in your reasoning that when given clarity, . . . all you can see is a contradiction . . . You are so entrenched into utter confusion that clarity appears to you as confusion and confusion as some sort of enlightenment!?

Allen Daves 

 

19. Three axis . . .  

1 up/down libration

1 side to side libration

1 orbital . . .

You claim a fourth one through the Moon that lay parallel to the orbital one . . . let's see . . . Each of those three exist and move independent of each other. Take any of those three that I show away and you can still see the other 2 move . . . . . .

 

Now . . . If you take the orbit of the Moon away there is no rotation . . . because the "rotation" you keep referring to is the orbit! . . . Take the Earth away and you still have all of the Moon's librations as well as a Moon in orbit around a point that lay where the Earth used to be . . . but now  take the orbit away and you have no

motion! . . . the Sun will still see an orbiting Moon if you take the Earth away . . . but if you take the orbit itself away . . . no motion and no rotation . . .No distinctions between your rotation and the Moons orbit, then you're only counting the same motion twice and calling it two different motions . . . but it is only one

motion . . . . . . counting your cows twice does not mean you have two different cows . . . even if you can imagine it!!!

 

"I can still claim it is rotating without an orbit with respect to the Sun"

The Sun, my boy, is irrelevant!

 

Checkmate, ol' mate. This horse is pretty dead, beating more won't make it come back to life . . . sorry if you two can't see it . . . but the Hellbound-lost can't see it either, no matter what you show them . . . !? Allen Daves 

 

20. Does Uranus have no Geometric center point?! . . . No center of mass?! . . . No center point of EMR

( Electromagnetic Radiation )? . . . 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 consider Uranus a whole rather than just billions upon billions of quarks and leptons . . . ?! . . . how do they move in the 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 you have a rotation without something going in around something else in progressive and radial orientation to it? I think that is a far more interesting and relevant question than the obvious obfuscation you accuse me of but are in fact now engaging in yourself . . . If you don't know where the common point is then you have no business arguing geometrical concepts that are not dependent upon dimension. Admit it . . . you need the confusion, the anarchy, the chaos and disorder, the completely random universe, you can't 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, 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 . . . . . .  Allen Daves

 

 

21.  If I take the common point of progressive radial orientation and move it from the center of the diameter of the body in question, that 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 orbital revolution . . . you are only counting the same thing twice and/or taking one thing and cutting it in half and 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 halves of a car . . . The Moon does not have two different motions, it only has one and it is called the orbital revolution . . . 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 . . . 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 simply because the common point lay outside the Moon does not necessitate a second common point . . . there is only one revolution not two.  Allen Daves

 

22. I answered your question specifically . . . If you don't get it then I suggest you reread it! . . . according to Mainstream Science, Uranus is making a "daily" progressive radial orientation to a geometric center point also to 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 axes and they lay 90 degrees to the plane of the motion . . . The planet as a whole is making a progressive radial orientation to the Earth/sun with epicycles with that axis 90 degrees to the plane of that motion . . . those two axes 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 a 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 orbital revolution, take the orbit away and there is nothing to observe ( except the libration) . . . You are obfuscating, all your posts 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 twice does not 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 Moon's supposed rotation isolated and separate, not dependent on the orbital revolution 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 have demonstrated nothing and even after I do you keep claiming that I am the problem and that there is logic and science in your post!? Your arguments are utter nonsense and yet you accuse me of not answering, obfuscating, and not dealing with the issues . . . Either demonstrate something or concede . . . or find someone who can debate with me on this issue with some better arguments than the foolishness you cling to so dearly!!

Allen Daves

 

23. 

For those of a sound mind: . . . The simple test to know if you are indeed looking at 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 orbital revolution can you see either and both the up/down and left right libration rotations? . . . YES . . . If you stop either or both up/down and left/right libration rotations can you

see the orbital revoluton? YES . . . Now stop the orbital revolution, what other than the libration

do you see? . . . Nothing . . . That is exactly what kind of rotational motion you have left. If the Moon

were in rotational revolution then when you stop the orbital revolution you would still see the Moon

spin on its axis . . . that same test and 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.  

 

You asked me, "With reference to Uranus, where is that common point."

I answered that question . . . geometric center or center of mass . . . if looking with the naked eye you see Uranus itself as a point source . . . ( you can't see its daily rotation with the naked eye ) . . . the various axis of the rotations lay at different angels wrt each other.

 

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 that 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 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 posts where I answered all of this very and exactingly specific . . . "the geometric center point also a center of mass" . . . ( NOTE: you may or may not have the same common point for any two or more rotational revolutions, 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 demonstrable and holds true in all and every case.  Allen Daves

 

 

 

 

 

"From here I want you to relook at this demonstration from the beginning and alter the rate of rotationof the top to spin at 100 rpm, and keep the orbits at 100 orbits per minute. They are synchronised. This is the only change we make. Will the ball now present the same face to the centre of the orbit?   Difficult for anyone to visualise? Then try it with the spin of the shaft just One rpm and the orbit just one orbit per minute. Of course the answer is yes. And we have two separate motions."

 

NO! . . . You not going to like this at all and it is sure to keep your ( not my ) debate going until either someone intellectually honest from the MS side of the aisle explains it to you, or you start to consider the forces

involved . . . but the short of it is, the only way to get your 100 RPM between your orbital revolution and your spin to “synchronize” . . . is to continue to reduce the force applied to the spin of the ball until such time as there is a net zero spin force and a net zero spin rate wrt the parent body and the satellite . . .  I’m sorry but this is a fact that can be demonstrated even using your own basic apparatus for your own experiment, no matter what RPM and orbital revolution rate you use . . . ( note there must be some "engine" in both the orbit and the spin of your apparatus to cause those motions, I will reference that force since the nature of forces are what you are not understanding ) . . .  I will attempt to show this to you without going into all the techno jargon . . . but first I want the “shock” of what I just said to wear off so you will be able to think with a clear mind . . . so . . . go ahead and get it out all of your system . . . let it all out . . . know the things I just said are outrageous to your scientific mind!

If you can pull yourself from the shock of my outrageous statements, and hold back your fury long enough to tell us . . . no trick question, I will give you my answer first . . . think about it . . . Is it possible to have two identical motors ( Forces )under identical environmental conditions to produce the same effects with different energy inputs/outputs and rotation rates of the two motors??

 

I would of course say no and expect anyone one else to say the same since if the RPMs or energy inputs are not the same then either the environmental conditions or the effects and/or both are not the same . . . thus I would say that if the effects are the same for two identical motors then the conditions are the same

as well . . . what say you?  

 

If you disagree please tell us how we can have two identical motors under identical conditions have two different effects.

 

If you agree then for the two identical motors to have the same effects they must be in under identical conditions. Allen Daves 

 

25. I guess we will find no intellectual honesty here . . . The difference is I can

demonstrate . . . you two only imaginate, and damn the observations . . . Since you are asserting a force is present  to cause a rotation, one need only show that no force is acting on anything to destroy your whole case . . . But I will go even further and show that you cannot reach a 100 RPM spin rate without reducing the RPM to 0 . . . You cannot appeal to a supposed rotational motion that has no force acting on anything to produce it since force acting on the body that would cause spin rotation is your underlying premise. 

 

Your assertion is that there is a present force that is acting on your ball to keep it synchronized with the

orbital rate . . . This is not even possible . . . I will explore this in more detail as the second part of the proof . . . however understanding it can be found in . . . Mainstream Science which refers to the orbit of the Moon not as a rotational force that is constantly rotating the Moon to keep it the same-side facing . . . but rather a gravity lock . . . or a force that prevents the Moon from rotation . . . that is the fundamental difference between your thought experiment and the reality. There is no force present to cause a rotational motion, there is only force that prevents a rotation aka gravitational lock of an orbit. In your experiment you must reduce the force used to create your 100 RPS to the point that there will be no force and slow the spin down until there is no spin . . . to get them to "synchronize" . . . . . . Gravitational lock is akin to a tether ball where the rope attached to the ball and pole prevent the ball from rotating . . . not a rotational force being applied that keeps the same side of the ball looking at the pole at all times.  Allen Daves

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you stop the Earth’s orbit and could still see the rotation, then what do we have to do to isolate it from the orbit? In my diagrams the one motor we know to be "synced" with the orbit . . . is not energized with any force. 

 

How do we stop the orbit and show the rotation?!  If you cannot demonstrate that then you have no objective way to claim there are two motions or rotations . . . If you cannot isolate the two motions from each other it is because you can only lay claim to one motion. The motor that is not energized is not in rotation when the orbit is stopped and thus no claim that it is in rotation when it begins to orbit particularly since your argument is based on the presence of a rotation as detected by a rotational force that we have already shown does not and cannot exist greater than 0 wrt the orbital RF. 

 

The only way to observe a relative rotation wrt the Moon . . . is for an observer to float above the Moon with the Moons orbit but in translation wrt the same stars the Earth does . . . That does not demonstrate a rotation of the Moon! . . . That is introducing another motion to create a relative appearance of motion . . . how do we

know? . . .  That observation post would no longer be the absolute observation point because an observation point must be absolute ( without motion ) and the common point of reference to all the motions within any given reference frame under observation. The observation point does not move . . . it is the absolute within the reference frame from which all motion(s) are observed!? . . . It cannot go flying around otherwise you have to create yet another observation point that is not moving, further out to see and or know that the other is moving and as such to view all those motions together and wrt each other . . . And If you do all that, then you can still see that the Moon is still not in a rotation, because there is no way to isolate it from any of the other motions under observation! There is simply no way to get a rotation out of the Moon without assuming something that cannot be demonstrated or defined in any meaningful way. Allen Daves

 

 

27. Right. Earth rotation without Earth orbit is a non-model, as is Earth orbit without Earth rotation. This is why it is a foundational fact that heliocentricity and the host of assumptions built upon that myth--ending in the “science”-controlling Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm of the Pharisee Religion--all falls to pieces if we simply take observed and photographable star trail phenomena and refuse to allow the assumption of rotation as an explanation.  Not just heliocentricity, but the whole Paradigm collapses. True “science” ( scire: to know ) can never certify an assumption as “truth” over unfailing observation which denies the assumption.

http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_and_Structure%20Part%20IV.htm

 

All convictions about the Moon’s rotational behavior that are based on heliocentricity are ipso facto assumptions and religious non-science. But those convictions are merely necessary blather to cover up the greater—and relatively unknown mega-assumption—that reverses the observed Moon’s direction of orbit, assigns it a speed to get it where it needs to be to keep up appearances, and maintains with a straight face that this too is “science”.  Marshall Hall 

 

28. My diagram called "1force rotational sync" . . . specifically deals with your spinning top analogy . . . you can imagine those motors as spinning tops or spinning tops as motors since something had to cause the tops to spin the principles are identical . . . Any force you have in the energized spinning top will completely prevent the synchronization you are trying to achieve in the spinning tops . . . you absolutely must reduce and in fact eliminate all force and spin motion in the top to achieve sync . . . If you have no force, then you have no claim to rotational motion . . . particularly since you are invoking force as the cause and reason that you are claiming there are two motions . . . there is only one motion because you had to get rid of . . . completely eliminate the spin motion and spin force of the top to achieve that Sync you keep referring to . . . you are going at it backwards here . . . you think you are taking the rotation of the tops rotation and put it with the orbit . . . You cannot do that, that is a physical impossibility if in sync, those two are mutually

exclusive . . . I hope you fully appreciate that . . .  you have to and must eliminate any and all additional rotational force and motion to achieve the spin and orbital rotational sync . . . the experiment in the diagram proves that . . . you can have one or the other but not both the spin and orbit at 100 RPM at the same time . . . that is what I keep trying to get you to see . . . the experiment proves that what I am saying is true, try it . . . look at it, you cannot energize the spinning top to reach sync, you must de-energize and eliminate all addtional motion on that axis, you cannot add motion and force to achive your sync you claim.

Allen Daves

 

29. "My logic quite logically leads you into a trap that so horrified you, that you had to change the subject to the nature of forces."

 

Your argument not mine invokes force as the reason there must be a rotational motion in the top!! . . . Having a force does not mean you have a motion . . . that is what I said and it is till true . . . but you cannot have a motion without a force, particularly since that is the essence of your whole argument here for why there must be a rotation, because . . . a force is present . . . all I'm doing is showing you that no force can be present if they are in sync.

 

Your argument falls apart not mine . . . you have no force and thus no claim for motion.

 

"Well Allen DID NOT show why, at any rpm, even 500, and 500 orbits per minute, that the same face would NOT always point to the centre."

 

I did but here it is again . . . because the only one showing the same face to the center of the orbit is the motor or top that is not energized and not in motion!  Allen Daves

 

30. The top and motor that is in sync with the orbit . . . is the top and motor that is not rotating and not

energized . . . !!! . . . It is not energized nor is it in rotation before you start the orbit and it will not be energised or in rotation when you stop the orbit . . . thus there can be no claim  to a rotational force or a rotational motion when the only one demonstrated is the orbit . . . !!! How can this be so hard, look at the diagram . . . which top/motor is in sync? . . . the energized motor rotating at 100 rpm or the motor that is not energized and not in rotation?! . . . The only motor and top that keeps the same side to the center of the plate ( orbit ) is the motor and top that is not moving before the orbit begins and when you stop the orbit . . . !!! . . . On what basis are you claiming rotation and or rotational force exists during the orbit . . . ?!  The only force was in the orbit, the only rotation is demonstrated in the orbit . . . the progressive radial orientaion is to a point that lay outside the top ( orbit ) there is no progressive radial orientaion to a point that lay within the top. If it did . . . then it would and could not be in sync! . . . the fact it is in sync demands no force and no rotation present! . . . Rotational force was your argument not mine!! . . . I did not change the subject, I dealt with your arguments!!  Allen Daves

 

 

 

Look at diagram "1 force rotational sync.png" . . . one motor/top is not energized and not rotating it will keep the same side facing the center of the place at all times . . . before, during and after the orbit ( bottom motor is spun up ) of 100 RPM . . . The motor on the other side of the plate is energized and is first rotating at 100 rpm before the orbit ( bottom motor is spun up ) of 100 rpm begins . . . Now the orbit ( bottom motor will spin up ) of 100 rpm begins and causes the two motors to orbit the center of the plate on which they are mounted to . . . we already know that the motor that

has no energy and no rotation is keeping the same side to the center of the plate . . . but tell us about the other

motor, the one energized . . . It is now spining at 100 rpm even before we started the orbit and now the orbit is at 100 rpm . . . now . . . Tell us how fast and/or how much energy you are going to have to increase or decrease to get the energized motor to keep its same side in sync with the center of the bottom plate?

 

Hint:  as with the tether ball and the synchronous orbit of the Moon ( it keeps the same side facing the sun at

all times ) . . . there is no rotation or rotational force in either . . . There is only a force or resistance that prevents a rotation, there is no rotation and no cause for a rotation . . . Rotation is prevented not sustained in the Moon.

Allen Daves 

 

32. The same principle applies to geometrical rotation without respect of force . . . The only motor/top that keeps the same side to the center is the motor/top that is not geometrically rotating . . . and even if you were on the orbital plate while at 100 rpm you would still not see the motor/top rotate! . . . and if you stop the orbit of 100 rpm you will still not see the motor/top rotate! . . . There is no rotation . . . To have a pure "geometrical motion" it still must be relative to something else . . . if you are the outside observer you do not see the parts of the place make a progressive radial orientation to a point that lay in the plate, and if you are on the orbital plate itself you still do not see the top/motor make a progressive radial orientation to a point that lay in the top/motor itself aka

rotation . . . where do you see geometrical rotation?!  There is no geometrical rotation in any reference frame you lay claim to . . . either before the orbit is started, while it is taking place or when it is stopped . . . The geometrical rotation is only to a common point that lay outside the tops/motors in question . . . You don't have relative motion with respect to anything, so where is the rotation? . . . The outside observer sees all points on the top/motor make a progressive radial orientation to the point that lay outside the top . . . If the top were in rotation they would see that progressive radial orientation during the orbit, before the orbit, and after you stopped the orbit, but it is not there. You are simply trying to divide something into parts, and call them different things, that cannot be divided or separated into individual geometrical parts.  Allen Daves

 

33. You state: 

"A weightless sphere on a shaft also weightless set at 20 degerees off vertical axis spins once per period P.  It is rotating. It will have a mark indicating the starting point, pointing at the central vertical axis. At the same time in the same period P the sphere attached to the shaft still fixed at the bottom to the vertical axis,  performs a single 360 degree orbit of the vertical axis . During this orbit it will present the same face to the central axis"

 

You cannot have your weightless sphere in a rotation with period p while at the same time in orbit with the same period p and keep the same side facing the center . . .  that is a physical absurdity . . . The two are mutually exclusive . . . ! What you describe is "period p" +  "period p" every part of the weightless sphere will be

travelling twice as fast as the orbital motion itself . . . It will never ever, ever produce a synchronous

"period p" . . . one period plus the other period is two times period, not one period!!!  Allen Daves

 

34. What you describe is "period p"+ "period p".   No! During period p both actions take place together . . . read again, I said at the same time . . . concurrent. "At the same time in the same period P". Are you twisting my words?

 

Saying it is so does not demonstrate anything . . . Calling something “two of” does not demonstrate that

one equals two . . . I have already demonstrated not just claimed that:

 

i. There is no way to claim and or distinguish the rotation from the orbit . . . you can keep claiming it is a separate but valid motion, but as of yet you have not demonstrated how that is the case . . . counting the same thing as two different things does not make it so, no matter how much you believe it is two separated

things . . . If you cannot stop the other motions to isolate and demonstrate to us the rotation then it does not exist except in your head!!!

 

ii.  Wake up . . . claiming that:

“both actions take place together . . . read again, I said at the same time, concurrent. "At the same time in the same period P" are you twisting my words?”

That is what you must demonstrate, that is what you must prove not merely assert true as your proof that it is!! Claiming it is at the same time does not make it so. You have to demonstrate the motion exists in the first place. Your argument is akin to your “imaginary friend” is always behind something else and that is why we can never ever see him!!  I have no doubt you are convinced that he ( rotation ) exists, but merely claiming it is so does not demonstrate anything nor does it make it true.

 

iii. Geometrically a rotation is a motion . . . Motion, at least real motion . . . in the real world not your imaginary world of make-believe friends . . . requires:

a. Force and

b. Must be relative to something else

 

All you have offered us is motion absent of force or force that produces nothing relative to anything. 

Until you can demonstrate the motions without assuming they are there first does not make two rotations out of only one . . . one of anything does not make two simply because you can envision it! . . . I have proven that no such rotation can be demonstrated without first assuming that it exista!! You have no case except in your imaginary world of make-believe where things exist but cannot be seen because they are always hid by something else. What’s worse,  you give us absolutely no reason why it must be there in the first

place!! . . . Sure little green men could be living on the far side of the Moon and living in caves so neither we nor our satellites can ever see them . . . but:

a. What is the point of that “discovery/assertion".

b. How and when do you demonstrate that without assuming it is true??

 

Demonstrate something and quit making wild accusations and baseless assertions.  Allen Daves

 

35. I have no doubt that you two are convinced beyond all reproof . . . but as I said . . .  

 

i. Regurgitating popular ignorance . . . the very ignorance that is in question, is not a demonstration of your argument!?  It certainly is not a demonstration of error in mine . . .  

What constitutes motion and rotation is the question under scrutiny!! . . . barycenter or not there is still only one common point of progressive radial orientaion. 

 

ii. Real world not just imaginations shows only a prevention of rotation not a rotation in the plate/tether ball and rotation/orbit table . . . ummmm . . . there is only friction that can be demonstrated to prevent rotation not any rotational force . . . this is experimentally verified . . . but like so many things you guys prefer to imagine the opposite as "true reality". This goes for the Moon, the tether ball and all the atoms in that spininng top too.  :-)

iii. Experiment shows no rotation that can be isolated from the orbit . . . what you call a rotation

is the orbit . . . only one progressive radial oreintation to a common point that lay outside the body . . . In fact experiment shows that in order to sync the orbit and what you call the rotation is to take away all additional motion and force beyond the orbit itself.

 

The Moon . . . is making a progressive radial orientation to a point that lay outside the diameter of

the Moon . . . 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 could be demonstrated without the other motion, but, . . . punch line . . . IT CAN'T . . .  but simply because the common point lay outside the Moon does not necessitate a second

common point . . . there is only one motion and revolution not two.

 

But keep wishing guys . . . if you wish hard enough and use more of your imagination then maybe you will be able to create whole new universes with whole new physics and leprechauns, unicorns, dancing fairies and a real Santa Claus from the North Pole . . . although I guess Santa Claus does not count coz . . . we all know he really does exist in reality but he is magical and that is why we can’t observe him or distinguish him from the snow at the North Pole ...LOL...  Allen Daves 

 

36. The Moon and the tether ball do the same thing?? . . . ( keep the same side facing the center ) . . . and you claim you have shown me that I'm wrong!!! ...LOL... you really are living in another universe aren't you? Observation shows only force and or a prevention of rotation and yet you cling to the crazy idea that there is a rotation and by definition of motion a force that creates it . . . ummm . . . so what is the force called that rotates all those atoms in the spinning plate and top? . . . what force should we call that?! . . . imagining things that are not there and cannot be shown to exist external of your head is not science . . . it is called imagination . . . not observation and certainly not science!  Show us the rotation on its own axis with either a force and or without the motion of the orbit . . . otherwise you guys are just wallowing in ignorance . . . and willful at that.  Allen Daves  

 

 

 

 

"We are going around in 'circles' getting nowhere . . . "

 

I said this is where the discussion is "going" . . . ( pun intended ) . . . but I'm going to try yet once more to get you

to answer even a single challenge of mine to you . . . I keep having to address your challenges or otherwise my words mean nothing so you said . . . but you don't seem to see the point of addressing mine . . . ummmm . . . well here is a "turntable" type example see attached and answer!

 

"BUT IT WILL NOT BE SO. IT WILL HAVE TURNED 90 DEGREES AWAY FROM YOU . . . You can believe me I have actually done this

several times." . . . I know I addressed that many times . . . "

 

But to get them synchronous . . . that does not happen does it? . . . Therefore, you cannot lay claim to an effect

that does not exist when they are synchronized as your rotation . . . why? . . . because if they are synchronised

it does not exist!! If that persisted during the orbit you would see it and that would be a rotation in addition to

the orbit but to get them to synchronize you must negate that effect! . . . by the way does it rotate clockwise

or counter-clockwise? . . . ummmm . . . as I have pointed out . . . it takes a force to prevent that rotation . . . you still

show us no rotation in the same direction of the orbit . . . At best on a good day this could only be considered to

be a prevention of rotational motion not a demonstration of a rotation!!       Allen Daves

 

 38. "Guess what? The arrow head I painted on the turntable stays pointing at me!!!"

 

Guess what, if you take that same apparatus down on the ground and don't do anything . . . you still get  guess what? . . . no rotation! . . . we are looking for a progressive radial oreintation to a common point that lay within the body itself.

 

"That I believe is synchronism. Even more -- when I stop turning ( so I don't fall on my donkey ) the turntable is still turning!"

 

Congratulations, when you stopped you observed the inertial effects to CAUSE A ROTATION . . . oh

but wait, . . . it was not rotating earlier . . . because it was prevented from rotating by the mechanical friction!  Just like the the Moon is prevented from rotating while in orbit!!  In all your examples the synchronism is the fact that it is not rotating . . . if it were in rotation then it would not and cannot be synchronous.

 

The other savant shows us a rotation that is prevented and attempts to claim that prevention of rotation demonstrates a rotation!? . . . and now you offer us the fact that somthing did not rotate as evidence that it rotated?! . . . the diversion here is yours . . . now answer the challenges . . . your empty, vain accusations and words weary me.    Allen Daves 

 

39. The de-energized, non-rotating motor is the condition that existed before it starts to orbit AND after the orbit is stopped . . . Thus, the only thing that we can logically lay claim to is that its condition was non-energized and non-rotating during the orbit . . . this is particularly true since we can know beyond all doubt when and when the motor is and is not energized . . . Note: of the two motors, only in the motor that is energized and in rotation before the orbit can the motions be isolated from each other such that we can in fact demonstrate two separate motions rather than just claiming that two motions exist

when only one can be demonstrated . . . This is demonstrated by stopping the orbit and observing the

motions . . . otherwise one can only imagine a second motion not demonstrate two different motions . . . and if they are not different motions then you can't logically claim "two of one"!!!  Allen Daves 

 

40. "Is the motor rotor and disc attached FREE to rotate . . . ?"

No . . . what you are not fully appreciating is the fact THAT CONDITION "being locked to the stator"  IS THE ONLY EXAMPLE OF SYNCHRONOUS . . . , only a motor that has some kind of mechanical resistance or a ball that has a tether will demontrate synchronicity . . .  and that requires . . . no it DEMANDS a prevention of any additional rotation . . . That is my point! . . . of course it is "locked to the stator" if it were not then it would be free to move . . . Punch line: . . . It is only in this demonstration of something that absolutely cannot move, ( because it is "locked to the stator" )  that we find the synchronisity you keep refering to . . .

So what is demonstrated? . . . and what can only be imagined?

Anything is posible in the mind . . . but what have we just demonstrated?

We have just demonstrated something and it is the only thing we can demonstrate without imagining something that has no meaning outside of one's head.  Allen Daves

 

41. "not because 'how' is important, but because I need to be sure you really meant a locked stator/rotor."

What? I know it is not important, that is my point . . . "how" is irrelevant . . . whether welded or just plain old "mechanical resistance" it is one and the same condition wrt motion!! If you state that "how" is not

important then what is your question? . . . any way you lock it will demonstrate an identical

condition . . . NO ABILITY TO ROTATE!!  Allen Daves

 

42. If the experiment uses a non-moving part to demonstrate synchronicity . . . how on Earth can anyone claim that a moving part could ever show the same orientation and motion as a non-moving part in the exact same mechanical configuration doing the exact same things?!  How can you have a fixed position that

moves?! . . . How can you have two identical objects doing the same exact things while one is in motion and the other is not?!  How can you have a motion that is also equally a non-motion wrt the same things?!  Allen Daves  

 

43. Common guys . . . I can’t 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 . . . 

 

i. "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” and 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

 

ii. Rotation due to a force . . . which has more to do with reality than just a pure geometrical

concept . . . I address this approach in the motors snyc and tether ball diagrams.

 

You cannot jump back and forth 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 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 and just has

half a ft/lb 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 two possibilities to overcome what is by definition a resistance to move or rotate . . . now if the condition that produces a sync is one where the resistance is greater than 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 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 no logical claim to motion during except in your purely geometrical sense but as I have already demonstrated that leads 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 than the resistance 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 exists 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 no 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

 

i. “ pure geometry” does not describe reality and

ii.  There is no demonstrable force sufficient to overcome resistance and cause motion.

 

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 demonstrable 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!!  Allen Daves

 

44. "I thought that all people here were interested in TRUTH above all else."

 

I hate to break it to you but the reality is that most and even I have been guilty of this before, but most are more interested in confirming what they already think/know . . . or otherwise just learn something new that  "other people do not know" . . . If know I write difficult at many if not most times, but few are as eloquent as Martin is and we don’t always agree either . . . imagine that! . . . I wish more people understood and agreed with me too but they don’t and I know they never will . . . that comes as no big surprise . . . but perhaps through "the struggle" we get better at expressing and making our arguments better . . . Don't despair . . . just drudge along like the rest of us . . . besides, a relentless search for the truth requires . . . relentlessness . . . I too feel the exact same way you do sometimes . . . I honestly do not know how people cannot see what I am showing them . . . I really

can't . . . but if I quit what will I have accomplished then?

 

I see in your reasoning establishing anything that can be imagined as possible . . . Since you are able to see a given argument your reasoning basically decrees that the burden of proof is on any refutation or otherwise is thus moot, regardless of what assumptions you took to "see" that argument . . . You think if you can imagine a thing is true then the burden of proof is on logic, observation and experience to prove otherwise, never mind any assumptions used to imagine it . . . then it gets even worse, when you are shown LO&E that shows it to be in error simply attempt to interpret assert the LO&E with the imaginations of how it could be . . . always claiming that immagination is more reasonable than face value observations that tell you otherwise?! I spend so much time not because I like endless debate . . . I dread it . . . I’m searching for the thing that is keeping folk like you from seeing what’s plainly in front of your face . . . to know why and how you got that way such that I might be able to navigate the landmines of illogic, gaping holes of soundness and hopefully repair some of the

breaches . . . that sadness you feel is what Mathew 24:30 is taking about . . . light shining on the darkness exposing it with nowhere to hide:

 

30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and

beat their breasts and lament in anguish, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds

of heaven with power and great glory [ in brilliancy and splendor ].

 

also Isaiah 2:20:

20 In that day men shall cast away to the moles and to the bats their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship,

 

also Revelation 6:15-17:

15 Then the kings of the earth and their noblemen and their magnates and their military chiefs and the wealthy and the strong and [ everyone, whether ] slave or free hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains,

16 And they called to the mountains and the rocks, Fall on ( before ) us and hide us from the face of Him Who sits on the throne and from the deep-seated indignation and wrath of the Lamb.

17 For the great day of His wrath ( vengeance, retribution, indignation ) has come, and who is able to stand before it? 

Allen Daves

 

45. ( a ) "Rigid body" is not necessary to be part of the definition . . . and why you think it must be just demonstrates that you do not understand at all . . . there are plenty of bodies that are not rigid that can perform progressive radial orientations to a common point . . . that definition of rotation defines it even for non-rigid bodies as well as in two dimensional space.

 

( b ) I addressed what the common point is for each rotation - I was extremely specific for both a planetary rotational revolution as well as well as an orbital revolution. I even insinuated that you were stupid and offered to apologize if you would just get someone to explain to me what part of my answer did not answer your question . . . I have no doubt that you do not like the answers that I am giving and I go to a lot of trouble to explain why, but then you only accuse me of obfuscating and/or avoiding and/or not answering . . . I’m not going to repeat it all here again . . . if you want to play the village idiot that is your privilege.

 

If you don’t understand my definition then what are you objecting to? Every time someone attempts to

explain to you two what that definition means and/or how it is applicable to the everyday world, you just make more empty assertions and fail to address the arguments and then turn right around and claim you don’t understand . . . no wonder!?

 

We have arrived at a point in this conversation where your accusations about my arguments

are the only essence to any and all of your arguments . . . if you want to play stupid that is your problem . . . I will proceed with or without you . . . If you cannot understand enough of what I have given you to grasp even a morsel so as to address it . . . then by all means I’m more than willing to let you wallow in ignorance and play the dancing fool.  Allen Daves

 

 

Allen Daves 

 

47. I clearly stated what was meant by common point several times in several posts . . . I  also stated specifically in some of those posts that the daily axis tilt of Uranus is 97.77 degrees offset from

the orbital! . . . Why do you keep trying to make “points” that don’t make any sense whatsoever . . . either they have already been addressed specifically or are not relevant to begin with? . . . my diagram does not address the axial tilt between the two but all those posts when I answered this before do . . . The whole issue is moot to begin with since I clearly show them to be two different rotations with two different common points in the very diagram . . . I do not show them to be zero wrt each other in the diagram, beacuse I dont even address it . . . The two different rotations are under consideration not the angle displacement between the axis!  Whether they are parallel or offset wrt each other the principle will always be the same, always . . . I have addressed this over and over again . . . The common point defines any given rotation! . . . How hard can this be for you to see?  A rotation is the same thing in every case regardless of if the common point lay inside or outside the body in question it's the same principle . . . First grasp that concept, you must grasp that fact first before any headway will be made.  When you do you will see that not only is my definition correct but very powerful . . . where in the world did you get the idea that there must be one common point for every rotation in the universe? . . . I never suggested that except wrt to the observer himself since his observation post is common to all things under consideration . . . more to the point, why do you think that is even relevant? . . . I never said that or even implied that . . . I've covered all this so many times before . . . but in every case the principle is the same no matter what rotation you look at, no mater if the common point lay inside or outside the body in question . . . Look at parent "1" diagram it proves that what I just said is true . . . Folk can say spin and orbit all day long but fundamentally they are the same thing . . . they are just two different names/ types for the same

exact action . . . a spin is a rotation who's common point lay within the body in question whereas an orbit is just a rotation who's common point lay outside the body in question . . . again look at Parent "1" . . . it is all the same thing just different wrapping paper . . . thats all . . . when you begin to grasp that please let us know . . . my definition is correct and understanding the physics is my point, you're the one who is not understanding here  remember?  Allen Daves

 

48. "Your drawing also states that there are TWO different rotations."

 

IN URANUS NOT THE MOON! 

 

"This whole debacle has its origin if you recall, in your adamant assertion that in the case of the Moon

at least -- and by implication all similar cases -- there was only ONE motion." 

 

Uransus does not have the same motions as the Moon!! 

 

Your words from memory were, "It is an unnecessary complication [ to postulate two motions ]."

   

The Moon only has one rotation to a common point that lay outside the Moon itself at

the Earth - only one - how can you be so confused? . . . There is only one rotation for the Moon . . . Uranus has two rotations to two different common points . . . Uranus has one rotation to a common point at the sun ( outside Uranus ) and one rotation to a common point that lay inside Uranus . . . I was adamant then and I still am . . . you however are still clueless.

 

Uranus has two rotations  = 1. common point at sun ( outside the body in question/Uranus ) and 2. one within the body/Uranus itself.

 

The Moon has one rotation = one to a common point that lay outside the Moon itself at the Earth . . . that is the only rotation that exists for the Moon . . . the common point lay outside the Moon . . . that fact does not constitute two motions or two rotations. 

 

This has nothing to do with convenience of postulation . . . It is matter of fact only one rotation exists for the Moon . . . I have demonstrated the differences for both bodies and both types.  A progressive radial orientation to a common point is the same action no matter if the common point lay within or without a body in rotation.

Allen Daves

 

49. What makes you think any of this is relevant logically, mechanically or  conceptually?

The Moon is a sphere . . . on what basis are you claiming its axis is offset wrt the

orbital plane . . . every particle in the Moon lay in the Moon's orbital plane so what is the point of your diagram? . . . The axis & the Moon's "tilt" you are referring to that is offset is defined by the Moon's librations . . . That axis of the Moon's librations lay 90 degrees to the plane of that motion . . . I have already covered that;they are not under consideration;

nor are they in question as rotations ( they are ); nor are they even relevant . . . why? . . . because every particle in the Moon either does or does not lay in the Moon's orbital plane, the axis of the orbital plane runs through the Earth where the common point of that orbital plane lay . . . we know the Moon's orbit is a distinct and separate motion from its librations . . . one simply does not affect or define the other . . . The axis of the Moon's orbital rotation lay 90 degrees wrt the orbital plane . . . the other planes & axes of any of the Moon's other motions/rotations/librations are irrelevant wrt each other . . . The orbital plane defines the axis of the Moon's orbital/rotational axis not the Moon's tilt or librations or any other axis of any other rotation that the Moon could have even if it were to begin spinning in a complexly different direction . . . the new motion would be defined by the axis of that rotation and would not be affected by the Moon's orbital revolution in any shape form or fashion . . . regardless of any other motions the Moon has, every particle of the Moon individually or as a whole makes a progressive radial orientation to a point that lay at the Earth . . . any and all other axis of rotations parallel or offset do not change that fact no matter how many rotations exist for any given

body . . . The number and offsets for any number of rotations within a given body simply has nothing to do with whether or not the other rotations exist or not . . . The Moons orbital plane defines where the axis of orbital revolution is not the Moon's "tilt” . . . that “tilt” is defined by the Moons librations or back and forth rotations . . . one has nothing to do with, nor affects the definition of, nor affects the reality of the other . . . I don’t see how this can be so difficult for anyone to grasp either logically or conceptually.

 

You keep looking at things that have no relevance to the issue at hand . . . look at the diagram

Parent “1” it is a fundamental expose of the nature of a Rotation within a given body and as an extension any number of bodies that are “connected” via a solid substance or “gravity”, the principle is exactly the same . . . that diagram is relevant for any and all rotations even multiple rotations within a single body . . . The number of rotations and any differences that the axis have or lay wrt each other is irrelevant for what determines a rotation.  Allen Daves

 

50. You are making way too many assumptions about way too many things and you are not stopping to understand the fundamentals of what is under consideration . . . you have not yet even begun to understand the nature of what is under consideration here.

 

i.) "Parent 1/Cutout A -- is not an accurate analogy for the Moon in its orbit or Uranus in its orbit. An orbital plane has no mass. Though I can't do these calculations, of one thing I'm sure -- the total energy of the system would remain constant."

 

The principle is the same ?! What connects any solid? . . . force not solid!? . . . The only question is one of "rigidness" or elasticity but in all cases these are one and the same things fundamentally . . . Why? . . . even the atoms and individual molecules in a “solid” are only held together with nothing more than “force”. The electrons are held to the atom via force and yet they make up your "rigid" bodies. Gravity itself is a force, the only difference is that it is a weaker force and the only other difference is the scale of the distance between the molecules versus the distance between the orbital bodies and the scale of the force that holds them together and/or permits any elasticity . . . The fundamental relationships are identical! You need to fully grasp that fact first. 

 

ii.) "Parent 1 is assumed to be a disk of negligible thickness and of uniform density."

 

That can be considered true as long as you keep in mind all things are only a matter of scale . . . That is not just a “minor point” . . . that is important to understand not only for simplicities sake but it is a key fundamental point to understand the world around you. A perfectly smooth sphere is only perfectly smooth at your scale, a wheel is only perfectly balanced at a given scale . . . The orbital plane of the Earth/Moon system can be considered to fully encapsulate all of the Earth and all of the Moon at scale . . . Otherwise, at larger scales we would have to complicate things with individual parallel planes for each molecule/atom and quantum state in the body under consideration, this would lead to the infinite axis of rotation for every single molecule, then atom then quark and leptons and all the empty space in between as well!??? . . . This is the physical absurdity and failure of fully understanding these things that you and your arguments keep trying to bring us to . . . However , I have demonstrated the simplicity and practical applications of Fundamental concepts.

 

iii.) You need to address this fully . . . If the disk of Parent “1” is rotating or ”spinning” how many common points or axis of rotation exist for it? . . . If the axis did not exist before you cut it out why or how does it exist after you cut it out? . . . the fundamentals are the same as long as there is some force or cause to keep it in the same orientation after the cutout as it had before the cutout . . . How are you going to define where any axis is defined? . . . At the molecular level? . . . the atomic level? . . . the quantum level? . . . if the disc has one axis of rotation then your whole arguments fails to even get off the ground. If on the other hand you claim that there are infinite axes of rotation present in the disk Parent “1” then you are left without any meaningfully relationship to anything observed in reality . . . and the only thing you have left then are imaginary "infinities"!

 

iv.) The difference between our respective positions is that one has a meaningful and useful application the other is imagination complicated infinitely, with no relevance to the world we live in, except in pure imagination external of observation. We already know what you prefer and that is ok . . . what  you fail to see is that you have no logical, observational or experimental basis for assuming or claiming that approach is more reasonable. This is particularly true since it is determined purely by what you cannot see and what you cannot demonstrate to attempt to argue what you do not and cannot know!? . . . . . . As I said before any fool can make things more complicated, but it takes courage and real genius to go in the opposite direction and explain seemingly complicated truths in a simple manner.  Allen Daves

 

"Speaking about the matter at hand, you did not address my concluding question. Here it is again, emphasised

In the HC model -- how many 360 degree rotations does the Earth make in one 360 degree revolution about the Sun? Finally, and returning to your paragraph four which I addressed in my opening, you say -

" . . . what you fail to see is that you have no logic, observational or experimental basis for assuming or claiming that approach is more reasonable . . . "

You will shortly see that this assumption is false.