[geocentrism] Re: Point d)
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:26:21 +1000
Sorry Philip, but you lost me here.
How would a stationary Earth with an aether spinning around it,
produce an equatorial bulge?
- Regner
Sorry Regner but I expected to lose you on this one as I said in the other
post,
"On accepted physics he (Regner) will be correct. I will disagree with this
assertion on the grounds that it ignores the possibility that inertia is a
property of aether reaction. But my rejection canot be backed up by any
experiment or theory, that would be acceptable till the aether debate is
settled. "
However I will simplify the statement you questioned,
"How would a stationary Earth with an aether spinning around it,
produce an equatorial bulge?"
On three points. The first being the innovative controversial one till an
aether is acepted.
1. Inertia is a resistance due to mass reacting against the aether, or a
moving aether reacting against mass. The effect is identical. ie a relative
change of motion with respect to each other.
2. If 1. is true, and if the aether of the cosmos did rotate around the
central stationary earth, once every 24 hours, then any mass (matter) "the
material earth," being cut by this aether will experience an outward
centrifugal force, in the same manner and for the same reason it would if the
world was rotating in a static aether.
3. Rotation of a mass is acceleration and thus inertia, which is reflected
in 'centrifugal force' It is this force which produces the bulge.
The theoretical principle stated in Number 1. is the only possible way that
could explain all the appearances, and satisfy the dynamics of both the
geocentric and heliocentric positions equally. It truly is the only possible
way a geostationary satellite could stay in orbit in a geocentric system. It
has to have all the "feelings" of rotation around a gravitational centre, at
geosynchronous speed. ie of a rotating earth, or a rotating aether..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Regner Trampedach
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:50 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point d)
Sorry Philip, but you lost me here.
How would a stationary Earth with an aether spinning around it,
produce an equatorial bulge?
- Regner
philip madsen wrote:
So we can chalk up point D as un-resolved, as it proves there is a rotation
either of the earth or the aether, but the inertial effect of a rotation
nevertheless.
The planets rotate in the aether, and their resultant bulge is true.
If I spin a model sphere on my table the resultant bulge will be true.
The stationary earth alone is cut by the rotating aether and the resulting
bulge is true.
The geostationary satellite stationary over my place is cut by the rotating
aether, and will experience a centrifugal force (bulge) neutralising gravity..
It is all relative. The motions are equally relative. And this is of
course true relativity, not the pseudo type that Allen and we is laughin at.
Of course its conjecture! Most things scientific are.. Paul insists on it
being so.
That the apple was attracted down and hit Newtons noggin is pure
conjecture.. I can conject it was pushed down on to his head by aether
pressure.
conjecture (the forming of) a guess about something based on how it seems
and not on proof:
a presumption..
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1331 - Release Date: 16/03/2008
10:34 AM
Other related posts:
