[geocentrism] Re: Point d)
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:42:04 +1000
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
Other related posts:
