[geocentrism] Re: Tides

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 13:01:22 +0000 (GMT)

Regner T
Than you for your response -- I'd hoped that you would jump in here.
I've been pondering your response intermittently for several hours but I've realised that I have a problem -- I really don't understand how this was done. At the outset, as I understand it, the angles I have shown are representative of the 90 integer angles of latitude and it is between a strategic three of these that the quoted measurements were made.
Looking at the the curve of the sphere, all angles of latitude show local positions where a plumb-line will be at right angles to a tangent to the curve -- the line to the horizon -- and will point to the centre of gravity. However, on both the prolate and oblate sheroid curves, I observe that only two points on the 90 deg arc will produce a similar result -- the pole at 90 deg and the equator at 0 deg.
Do you have further words of wisdom for me?
And just to throw a small spanner into the works -- if the Earth is rotating, a plumb-line 'vertical' will be influenced away from a line to the centre of gravity by that rotation -- though at 240s per deg, I expect that that influence would be small.
Paul D


----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 15 May, 2008 6:57:55 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Tides

You wouldn't (locally) be able to measure the angles you have shown on your
figure. You would only be able to measure angles with respect to the local direction
of gravity (by, e.g., using a plumb-line). The surface of a spinnig self-gravitating
sphere, that deforms into an ellipsoid from the rotation, is well-approximated by a
equi-gravitational potential surface, which means the direction of gravity will be
perpendicular to that surface.
  If you find the points on the respective surfaces where the local plumb-line points
in your five chosen directions, you'll find the statement in your quote to be true.

    - Regner

Paul Deema wrote:
Neville J
 
You said in -- From Neville Jones Mon May 12 23:32:18 2008 --
Has this equatorial 'bulge' been measured or observed? Or is it assumed?
Perhaps you missed this -- From Paul Deema Mon Aug 20 15:16:59 2007 -- http://www.history.noaa.gov/stories_tales/geodetic1.html
Here you will find a reference to the measurement in the middle 1730s.

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. [Emphasis added]

I sought to illustrate this -- see attachment -- but it appears to my eye that the illustration and the description differ. If anyone can alleviate my dilemma, I'd be grateful.

 

Paul D

 

Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.


Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.

Other related posts:

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