[geocentrism] Re: Point d)
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:35:33 +1000
I still don't have a clue what you are talking about Paul!
The results showed conclusively that one degree of the meridian was longer in
Lapland than at Paris and proved Newton's postulate to be correct. The
expedition to Peru, the present day Ecuador departed in 1735 and returned nine
years later with results that confirmed the Lapland finding, i.e. one degree of
the meridian is shorter at the equator than in France.
Please explain.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:52 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point d)
Greetings all.
I refer you all to this post -
Re: Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism From Paul Deema Mon Aug 20 15:16:59
2007
... in which the reference
http://www.history.noaa.gov/stories_tales/geodetic1.html was given. High on
page one, this appeared -
The results showed conclusively that one degree of the meridian was longer
in Lapland than at Paris and proved Newton's postulate to be correct. The
expedition to Peru, the present day Ecuador departed in 1735 and returned nine
years later with results that confirmed the Lapland finding, i.e. one degree of
the meridian is shorter at the equator than in France.
This provoked little if any response from participants here which I have come
to understand is a sure fire indicator that it is true. Oh! How quickly you
forget.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 14 March, 2008 6:33:42 AM
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.
Ellipticity as function of rotational speed"
src="cid:1.3980498695@web23109.mail.ird.yahoo.com" width=766>
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1328 - Release Date: 13/03/2008
11:31 AM
Other related posts:
