[geocentrism] Re: Tides

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 13:34:27 -0800

Was I not denying the premise? I do not have to accept the tenets of MS astronomy in order to question the conclusions drawn from them.

Neville.


-----Original Message-----
From: mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 9 May 2008 16:25:19 -0500

I understood Regner to be mounting an argument based on relative differential force (the entire premise of tidal forces in the first place).  It is this differential force that supposedly gave rise to the rings of Saturn, when a sufficiently large chunk of material was disrupted as it passed within the Roche limit (meaning the force between the near-side and far-side parts of the body exceeded the tensile strength of the material comprising that body).  This tidal disruption causes the alleged shattering of the body into a myriad of small chunks, each finding a unique orbit around Saturn due to inter-body collisions over time.

I believe Regner mounted a Sun-only explanation for the sake of didactic simplicity, and he even went so far as to point this out.  I saw nothing faulty in his analysis given the limits he himself provided to frame his discussion.

Martin
3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver Preview
Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/marineaquarium

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 05-2008