----- 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="gifdogwuGvEHN.gif" 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