Thank you Regner for the good presentation of an equatorial bulge on the earth , You concluded with. Conclusions The Earth has an equatorial bulge commensurate with a rotation once per day (see Fig. 5). This is no proof of Earth having such a daily rotation, but do notice how all the planets that rotate much slower than Earth (Mercury, Venus and Pluto) have no measurable bulge. Regards, Regner First up I have always accepted there is a bulge, and I do support the most likely cause is centrifugal forces upon a plastic medium. Specifically I do accept that the bulge is commensurate with a 24 hour spinning earth, even though you do not claim it as a proof. However I can still claim that there is no specific explanation of the nature of centrifugal force other than that it is a mechanical force due to relative motions between a body of matter and "WHAT?".. the space around it. This property MAY BE CLAIMED TO BE A PROPERTY INTRINSIC TO MATTER in motion , but this is only an assumption. The nature of matter itself is not fully understood. Therefore If I claim the earth is stationary, then I may still posit that the aether is involved in the properties of matter, and that this aether rotates around the earth daily, causing the forces identical to those that would be experienced elsewhere in space, on a rotating body of mass. i e forces equivalent to those as if the body earth was spinning. I cannot deny a scientific enigma to rationalism that such hypothesis causes , as to why the Earth and the Earth alone, is the centre of a rotating aetheric cosmos. If I am right, then this has to bring physics right into the realm of metaphysics. A place only the athiest physicist does not want to be. But this should not be, and cannot be a reason for the rejection out of hand any reasonable evidence, or preclude the right of research into it. I know you are not such a person, else you would not be giving us the benefit of your time, for which I am sure all are as grateful as I am. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Regner Trampedach To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 4:33 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Point d) I'll give you point d) for free. d) "No equatorial bulge on the Earth, as would be created in the early rapidly spinning molten Earth "theory". The equatorial bulge of Jupiter is clearly seen." Earth's Equatorial Bulge The Earth has a polar radius of 6356.8km and a equatorial radius of 6378.1km - the Earth is 21.3km larger at the equator than at the poles. I believe that is an equatorial bulge. The ellipticity is (Req-Rpl)/(Req+Rpl) = 0.00335. Remember that the height differences between Mt Everest and the Mariana trench is about 8.8km + 10.9km = 19.7km so the 21.3km equatorial bulge is not insignificant. Comparison of planets of the Solar System name state ellipticity Sid rot per/[h] Eq rot speed/[km/s] Mercury solid 0.0000 1407.6 0.003025 Venus solid 0.000 -5832.5 0.001811 Earth solid 0.00335 23.9345 0.465098 Mars solid 0.00648 24.6229 0.240731 Jupiter gas 0.06487 9.9250 12.571998 Saturn gas 0.09796 10.656 9.871200 Uranus gas 0.02293 -17.24 2.587521 Neptune gas 0.01708 16.11 2.682888 Pluto solid 0.0000 -153.2928 0.013606 'Sid rot per' of that table, is the sidereal rotation period in hours (length of the day on that planet) and negative values means retrograde rotation. 'Eq rot speed' is the rotational speed at the equator of the planet, in km/s. Fig 5. Ellipticity of the planets as function of their equatorial rotation speed, v_eq. Gas giants are in white and solid planets in cyan. Mercury, Venus and Pluto are all bunched up at (0, 0), The dashed lines shows average relations among the two groups. Obviously there is a lot of scatter around these lines which just means there are other factors at play than v_eq - it should also be obvious, however, that v_eq is the most important factor involved. The other major factor, of course, is the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the planet.. Higher surface gravity means smaller ellipticity, since high surface gravity would make the planet rounder. The planets below the respective dashed lines do indeed have higher surface gravities than those above. Other reasons for differences between the Earth and Mars are: 1) The very large Moon means that the Earth has been able to loose angular momentum (rotation) very efficiently - 1000 times faster than Mars which is mostly affected by the Sun (Phobos and Deimos are just too small). So Mars is closer to its original rotation speed than Earth is. 2) The Earth is 1.9 times larger (in diameter) which means it's volume and heat content from the early molten stage would have been 6.6 times larger. The surface from which the planets cool would only have been 3.5 times larger - all in all, the Earth would cool 1.9 times slower than Mars. That means the Earth would have solidified only after a considerable slow-down (it would have started higher up on one of the dashed lines). 3) Earth seems to have had a collision with a Mars sized object about a 100 million years after the Solar System formed, forming the Moon - this would have greatly sped-up the Earth's rotation and remolten at least the outer layers. I realize most of you do not believe in things involving time-scales past 6000 years, so there is no need for you to point that out to me. Conclusions The Earth has an equatorial bulge commensurate with a rotation once per day (see Fig. 5). This is no proof of Earth having such a daily rotation, but do notice how all the planets that rotate much slower than Earth (Mercury, Venus and Pluto) have no measurable bulge. Regards, Regner ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1327 - Release Date: 12/03/2008 1:27 PM