From: kachun@delphinus.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:47:14 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

I've been reading t.o. for more than six months now and have usually been
amused by Ted's pathetic postings, never bothering to really respond to
such ridiculous rubbish.  But since Chris Colby has initiated the great
t.o. scoring system, I thought I'd see if I can get some points right off.
Come on Ted, insult me.  I dare you.

In article <66@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.042118.22609@csis.dit.csiro.au>, prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb) writes:
>
>*>golden, or antediluvian age, when the earth was VERY egg-shaped, and then
>*>the classical age of Cronos, or golden age, during which time the earth was
>*>still egg-shaped, the felt effect of gravity still attenuated, but not
>*>so greatly...  i.e. he figures the original conformation of the earth
>*>collapsed in at least two discernable stages.
>
>*Yes, but he also figures that the size of the bulge would have broken
>*the earth into little pieces. In at least this, he is in full agreement
>*with most of the other people who comment on your "theories".
>
>
>*	"Danby's formula [for tidal distortion -prl] gives about
>*	61000km for the distance needed for an eccentricity of 0.6 [the
>*	size of the antediluvian hump -prl] and about 73000km for an
>*	eccentricity of 0.36 [the size of the "golden age" hump -prl].
>*	Both of these distances are considerably _less_ than the Roche
>*	limit."[1] p21.
>
>*The Roche limit is the smallest orbit that a body can have without
>*tidal stresses destroying it. Ted has often been told on t.o that his
>*schemes which gryate the Earth around Saturn producing huge humps
>*would tear the earth apart; here he has it affirmed by his own sources.
>
>Lamb conveniently omits a little discussion on page 19 of the same article:
>
>   "But Danby's formula is not really applicable here.  the formula is 
>   intended to apply to situations where the eccentricity is lower, where the
>   distance is greater, where the distorting body is the primary rather than the
>   satellite, where the distorting body is small enough and distant enough
>   that it can be treated as a point, and where earth itself is a complete 
>   fluid mass.  Even then the formula is only an approximation: it is derived 
>   from an infinite series in which all higher order terms have been ignored.
>   As Danby himself points out, "Comparison with actuality is not profitable
>   here."
>   

Ted, you might do well to *read* Danby instead of just quoting Rose on it.
Evidently Rose either has no idea what the implications of leaving out the
higher order terms are, or he's just ignoring them.

The formula, (5.7.3) on page 119 of Danby, is an inverse relation between
the eccentricity and the distance between the two bodies.  For small eccen-
tricities, one can drop some of the second order terms and the only third
order term.  However when eccentricities become large, say 0.36 or even the
ridiculous 0.6, the extra terms are necessary to insure accuracy.  But when
you change the equation from:

	e = constant / r^3

to:

	c1*e + c2*e^2 + c3*e^3 = (different constant) / r^3,

(where e is the eccentricity, and the c's are more constants), the r has
to diminish if e is to stay the same.  What this all means is that by
throwing in the higher order terms, your necessary radius diminishes even
further past the Roche limit!  (Note that this holds true even if the eccen-
tricity was small.)

Now the Earth isn't a perfect sphere of fluid.  But *because* the Earth is
solid and more difficult to pull into different shapes by tidal forces, the
formula is actually an *over-estimation* of the tidal effect.  To create
your so-called hump or mountain, you would need an even stronger tidal force
effect, or an even closer distance to your fabled star.

Now what would happen if we take into consideration that Saturn is not a
point source?  Well you would have to worry about all the higher order
terms like (1/R)^4, (1/R)^5, and so on.  But since you still have an
inverse relation between R and e, the eccentricity, you again *must* re-
duce R to keep the same e as you keep more and more higher order terms to
insure accuracy.

So it looks like if indeed you wish to take into account of *PROPER PHYSICS*,
as you probably do Ted (snicker), your felt effect of gravity looks even
worse and worse on paper.  Making the equations MORE accurate means pushing
the Earth's orbit even closer to Saturn.  You better start thinking about
some kind of superglue to keep the Earth together.  Or even some shades to
keep the planet's atmosphere and oceans from boiling away.  Your whole point
was moot.

>Rose also mentions that any and all effects of electro-magnetism are being
>left entirely out of these gravity-only calculations;  a "minor" point
>considering that this entire scenario is based mostly on electromagnetic
>attraction, which is also the assumed basis of discussion.

Boy it sure helps when you don't have any details concerning the
"electro-magnetism" effects between the Earth and Saturn.  Possibly because
neither you nor Rose knows anything about E&M, isn't that right?  Come on
Ted, what's the integral form of the magnetic energy density in terms of
the magnetic induction?

>
>
>On page 21, immediately after the discussion which Lamb quotes, Rose goes
>on to say:
>
>     "But Danby's formula, for all of the reasons that were discussed earlier,
>     is unsuitable as a means of calculating the actual values here.  In my
>     conjectures, I have relied upon Danby's formula ONLY to the extent of
>     assuming that it indicates the approximate sort of difference between the
>     Pangaea tide-raising distance and the Aden/Afar tide-raising distance."
>

Yeah and we've just seen that Rose doesn't know diddly-squat about what he's
talking about.

> 
>*>  A big part of the problem is
>*>that human memory in any form whatsoever goes no further back than a 
>*>thousand years or so prior to the flood.  Given catastrophist hypotheses,
>*>you assume that it gets harder to know much about earth history beyond
>*>each catastrophe.  Rose's general hypothesis makes sense to me logically,
>
>*Including the bits where Rose says that the tidal stress produced would
>*tear the earth apart?
>
>
>The problem I have here, Lamb, is that I am not easily able to believe that
>you simply missed the discussions which you have so conveniently omitted in
>claiming that my own sources prove me an idiot, and I am very rapidly
>losing the reservations which I used to have about calling people liars
>when they habitually attempt to produce effects using this sort of dishonest
>quoting and use of sources.
>
>In the entire world, if there's any one sort of person which I've no use for
>whatsoever, it's a flagrant or pathalogical liar.  
>
>I've no intention of wasting any more of my time writing new responses to your
>bullshit.  In the one similar case on t.o, namely that of Meritt, I've simply
>retained one or two standard posts which, to any reasonable observer, CLEARLY
>show the guy for what he is, and that is what I intend to do with YOU.
>

Ted, you're an idiot but any reasonable observer can CLEARLY see that.

>I shall simply save this post and repost it to anything further which you
>might have to say on the subject of Rose's Pangaea article.  In my judgement,
>it tells any reasonable person anything and everything he might need to know
>regarding how seriously to take anything which you might have to say.
>

Yeah and the immediate thrashing that it will get each time will also tell
any reasonable person anything and everything he might need to know about
you and anything you write.  Maybe this will simplify things for the regulars
on t.o.  People will just re-post ready-made detailed rebuttals to everything
you post.

	     Edition.  (Richmond:  Willmann-Bell), 1988.

>
>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE

(Come on Ted, insult me.)

--
*Ka Chun Yu                * "I'm going down to Cowtown, the cow's a friend of *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu     *  me; he lives beneath the ocean and that's where  *
*But you should reply to:  *  I will be.  Beneath the waves, the waves..."     *
*kachun@vela.Colorado.EDU  *                                      --Cowtown    *