A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 30th 04, 11:25 PM
Sam Wormley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this

Common Man wrote:

Pearl is a regular in the alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian newsgroup and
claims that the earth could be hollow. She goes on to claim that this
could have been caused by a rapidly spinning early earth. I've tried
to explain (without success) that such a rapidly spinning body would
flatten out rather than become hollow.



A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...fs/Cranks.html

Hollow Earth
http://www.crank.net/hollow.html

Earth
http://www.edu-observatory.org/eo/earth.html
  #2  
Old June 30th 04, 11:48 PM
Tom Hole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this


"Common Man" wrote in message
news.com...
Note to the readers of sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro:

Pearl is a regular in the alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian newsgroup and
claims that the earth could be hollow. She goes on to claim that this
could have been caused by a rapidly spinning early earth. I've tried
to explain (without success) that such a rapidly spinning body would
flatten out rather than become hollow.

If any of you wish to take a crack at explaining this to her, feel
free.

For Pearl: Evidence that a rapidly spinning object would flatten out,
not become hollow.

See: http://www.govertschilling.nl/artike.../030612_sc.htm


Hmmm, we might be orbiting a tad differently if our mass were significantly
different than we have guessed it to be as a semi-solid core. Talk about
global warming.

Tom


  #3  
Old June 30th 04, 11:48 PM
Tom Hole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this


"Common Man" wrote in message
news.com...
Note to the readers of sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro:

Pearl is a regular in the alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian newsgroup and
claims that the earth could be hollow. She goes on to claim that this
could have been caused by a rapidly spinning early earth. I've tried
to explain (without success) that such a rapidly spinning body would
flatten out rather than become hollow.

If any of you wish to take a crack at explaining this to her, feel
free.

For Pearl: Evidence that a rapidly spinning object would flatten out,
not become hollow.

See: http://www.govertschilling.nl/artike.../030612_sc.htm


Hmmm, we might be orbiting a tad differently if our mass were significantly
different than we have guessed it to be as a semi-solid core. Talk about
global warming.

Tom


  #4  
Old July 1st 04, 01:30 AM
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this

"Common Man" wrote in message
news.com...
Note to the readers of sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro:

Pearl is a regular in the alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian newsgroup and
claims that the earth could be hollow. She goes on to claim that this
could have been caused by a rapidly spinning early earth. I've tried
to explain (without success) that such a rapidly spinning body would
flatten out rather than become hollow.

If any of you wish to take a crack at explaining this to her, feel
free.

For Pearl: Evidence that a rapidly spinning object would flatten out,
not become hollow.

See: http://www.govertschilling.nl/artike.../030612_sc.htm


It's been pointed out to you by someone else that centrifugal
force will cause a spherical body to become oblate, without
becoming completely flat. Is this a throwback to your past
life as chief honcho of the flat-earth society, 'common man'?



  #5  
Old July 1st 04, 01:30 AM
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this

"Common Man" wrote in message
news.com...
Note to the readers of sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro:

Pearl is a regular in the alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian newsgroup and
claims that the earth could be hollow. She goes on to claim that this
could have been caused by a rapidly spinning early earth. I've tried
to explain (without success) that such a rapidly spinning body would
flatten out rather than become hollow.

If any of you wish to take a crack at explaining this to her, feel
free.

For Pearl: Evidence that a rapidly spinning object would flatten out,
not become hollow.

See: http://www.govertschilling.nl/artike.../030612_sc.htm


It's been pointed out to you by someone else that centrifugal
force will cause a spherical body to become oblate, without
becoming completely flat. Is this a throwback to your past
life as chief honcho of the flat-earth society, 'common man'?



  #6  
Old July 1st 04, 01:42 AM
Sam Wormley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this

pearl wrote:

It's been pointed out to you by someone else that centrifugal
force will cause a spherical body to become oblate, without
becoming completely flat. Is this a throwback to your past
life as chief honcho of the flat-earth society, 'common man'?


The Earth IS a oblate spheroid and is modeled very well by the
WGS-84 ellipsoid and datum


NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
GPS PRECISE EPHEMERIDES, SATELLITE CLOCK PARAMETERS
AND SMOOTHED OBSERVATIONS

PRECISE EPHEMERIS

Earth-centered Earth-fixed trajectory
Coordinate system: WGS84 (G1150)
Position -- x,y,z (km)
Velocity -- dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt (dm/s)
GPS time -- year, day, hour, minute
Trajectory interval: 15 min.
Standard Trajectory referenced to satellite center of mass
Optional Trajectory referenced to satellite antenna phase center


SATELLITE CLOCK PARAMETERS

Clock parameters for each satellite:
Time offset (microseconds)
Frequency offset (10E-4 microsec/s = parts in 10E10)
Time interval for parameters: 15 min.
Satellite clock events: All events processed as reinitializations


SMOOTHED OBSERVATIONS

Smoothed range and range difference observations (km) with corrections
applied (see below)
GPS time of observation (year, day, seconds from beginning of day)
Standard deviation of observation (km)
Coordinate system: WGS84 (G1150)
Station coordinates: Position -- x,y,z (m), Epoch 2001.0
Velocity -- dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt (m/year)
Temperature (degrees Celsius)
Pressure (millibars)
Humidity (percent)
Data interval: 15 min.
Smoothing uses carrier phase to smooth range and range difference
measurements collected at a 1.5 second rate for NIMA and Air Force
monitor stations and at a 30 second rate for IGS monitor stations
Minimum elevation angle for observation: 10 degrees
National Imagery and Mapping Agency and Air Force monitor station data
collected and smoothed using similar procedures
References: Computer Program Development Spec., Master Control
Station, Ephemeris/Clock Computer Program, NAVSTAR GPS Operational
Control System Segment, CP-MCSEC-302C, Part 1, Appendix A, 7 May1993.
Description of the Smoothing Algorithm in the NIMA Monitor Station
Network, (MSN29), Applied Research Laboratories, The University of
Texas at Austin, GR-SGG-97-1, 3 April 1997.


PHYSICAL CONSTANTS

GM(Earth) = 398600.4418 km**3/s**2
GM(Sun) = 132712400000 km**3/s**2
GM(Moon) = 4902.799186 km**3/s**2
Moon radius = 1738 km
Sun radius = 696000 km
Earth semi-major axis (a) = 6378.137 km
Inverse flattening (1/f) = 298.257223563
Earth angular velocity = 0.72921158553 X 10**-4 Rad/s
Speed of light = 299792.458 km/s
Love's constant = 0.290
Solar constant = 4.560 X 10**-6 N/m**2
Astronomical Unit = 149597870.691 km

STATION COORDINATES (GEODETIC)
WGS84 (G1150) Epoch 2001.0

STATION COORDINATES (CARTESIAN)
WGS84 (G1150) Epoch 2001.0


Due to security concerns
surrounding the current threat situations,
the coordinates for the NGA/Air Force/IGS
stations have been removed.

Any such information needed about the NGA
stations should be requested, until
further notice, at: (314) 263-4120
or DSN 693-4120


CORRECTIONS APPLIED TO MEASUREMENTS

Ionospheric delay: 2-frequency, 1st order correction
Tropospheric refraction: Saastamoinen hydrostatic and wet zenith delay
models and Niell hydrostatic and wet mapping functions
Periodic relativistic effects

Satellite antenna offset (satellite body centered coordinates, meters)
Block II PRN's - Delta x= 0.2794, Delta y= 0.0000, Delta z= 0.9519
Block IIA PRN's - Delta x= 0.2794, Delta y= 0.0000, Delta z= 0.9519

Block IIR PRN 11 - Delta x= 0.0019, Delta y= 0.0011, Delta z= 1.5141
Block IIR PRN 13 - Delta x= 0.0024, Delta y= 0.0025, Delta z= 1.6140
Block IIR PRN 14 - Delta x= 0.0018, Delta y= 0.0002, Delta z= 1.6137
Block IIR PRN 16 - Delta x= -0.0098, Delta y= 0.0060, Delta z= 1.6630
Block IIR PRN 18 - Delta x= -0.0098, Delta y= 0.0060, Delta z= 1.5923
Block IIR PRN 19 - Delta x= -0.0100, Delta y= 0.0064, Delta z= 1.5620
Block IIR PRN 20 - Delta x= 0.0022, Delta y= 0.0014, Delta z= 1.6140
Block IIR PRN 21 - Delta x= 0.0023, Delta y= -0.0006, Delta z= 1.5840
Block IIR PRN 22 - Delta x= 0.0018, Delta y= -0.0009, Delta z= 0.0598
Block IIR PRN 28 - Delta x= 0.0018, Delta y= 0.0007, Delta z= 1.5131

Station displacement due to tides
Yaw Bias: JPL yaw bias model for Block II and IIA satellites in
eclipse, except PRN's 2, and 23


FORCE MODELING

Gravitational:
EGM96 Earth gravity model truncated at degree 12 and order 12
Solar and Lunar gravity using the DE403 ephemeredes, J2000 epoch,
and IAU Resolutions on Astronomical Constants, Time Scales, and
the Fundamental Reference Frame (1976-1980)
Solid Earth tides

Non-gravitational:
Radiation Pressure
ROCKWELL ROCK42 model for Block II and IIA satellites
Lockheed Martin table look up model for Block IIR satellites
Thrusts
Momentum dumps

Kinematic:
Luni-solar and planetary precession (IAU Resolutions, as above)
Nutation (IAU Resolutions, as above)
Earth rotation (IAU Resolutions, as above)
Polar Motion (using NIMA initial values generated the week before
the orbit fit) + diurnal and semi-diurnal effects
UT1-UTC (using NIMA initial values generated the week before the
orbit fit) + Zonal tide effects + diurnal and semi-diurnal effects

Integration step size: 300 seconds, reduced to 10 seconds during
eclipse boundary crossings


ORBIT ESTIMATION METHOD

Kalman Filter/RTS Smoother (Square Root Information implementation)
Initial conditions: From previous fit
Solution parameters:
Satellite state vector in element form at trajectory epoch --
semi-major axis
eccentricity * sin(argument of perigee)
eccentricity * cos(argument of perigee)
inclination
mean anomaly + argument of perigee
right ascension of the ascending node
Satellite clock parameters -- Time offset, Frequency offset
Monitor station clock parameters (excluding master station) --
Time offset, Frequency offset
Polar motion parameters -- Pole and pole rate components along
Greenwich meridian, Pole and pole rate components along
meridian 90 deg west of Greenwich, Rate of change and
acceleration of UT1-UTC
Satellite radiation pressure parameters -- Radiation pressure
scale, and Y-axis acceleration
Tropospheric refraction -- One stochastic zenith delay
parameter per station
Minimum range observation uncertainty(1-sigma):100 cm (IGS Stations)
100 cm (Station 85128)
80 cm (Station 85130)
40 cm (other stations)
Minimum range difference observation uncertainty (1-sigma): 1.5 cm
Process noise in Kalman Filter:
Radiation pressure (each satellite)--
Decorrelation time 14,400 s
Steady state sigmas --
SCALE 0.05
Y-AXIS 0.5 X 10**-12 km/s**2
Tropospheric refraction variance rate: 2.89 cm**2/hr
Station clock white noise spectral density: (each station) --
Time offset 0.1111 X 10**-2 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1111 X 10**-8 (ppm)**2/s
Satellite clock white noise spectral density: (each satellite)
Time offset 0.1111 X 10**-2 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1111 X 10**-8 (ppm)**2/s
Frequency drift 0. (ppm/s)**2/s


SATELLITE CLOCK ESTIMATION METHOD

Kalman Filter/RTS Smoother (Square Root Information implementation)
Orbit solutions from above method are held fixed for satellite clock
estimation
Solution parameters:
Satellite clock parameters -- Time offset, Frequency offset
Monitor station clock parameters (excluding master station) --
Time offset, Frequency offset
Tropospheric refraction -- One stochastic zenith delay parameter
per station.
Minimum range observation uncertainty(1-sigma):100 cm (IGS Stations)
100 cm (Station 85128)
80 cm (Station 85130)
40 cm (other stations)
Minimum range difference observation uncertainty (1-sigma): 15.0 cm
Process noise in Kalman Filter:
Tropospheric refraction variance rate: 2.89 cm**2/hr

Station clock white noise spectral densities:
NGA stations and Air Force Colorado Springs station:
Time offset 0.1944 X 10**-8 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.4440 X 10**-19 (ppm)**2/s
Air Force stations (except Colorado Springs) and IGS stations:
Time offset 0.3456 X 10**-8 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.4440 X 10**-19 (ppm)**2/s

Satellite clock white noise spectral densities:
Satellite Block IIR Rubidium clocks
Time offset 0.8640 X 10**-9 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1110 X 10**-18 (ppm)**2/s
Frequency drift 0. (ppm/s)**2/s
Satellite Block II/IIA Rubidium clocks
Time offset 0.1944 X 10**-8 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1110 X 10**-18 (ppm)**2/s
Frequency drift 0. (ppm/s)**2/s
Satellite Cesium clocks
Time offset 0.13824 X 10**-7 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1000 X 10**-17 (ppm)**2/s
Frequency drift 0. (ppm/s)**2/s
Satellite 'Noisy' Cesium clocks
Time offset 0.2000 X 10**-7 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1110 X 10**-16 (ppm)**2/s
Frequency drift 0. (ppm/s)**2/s
  #7  
Old July 1st 04, 01:42 AM
Sam Wormley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this

pearl wrote:

It's been pointed out to you by someone else that centrifugal
force will cause a spherical body to become oblate, without
becoming completely flat. Is this a throwback to your past
life as chief honcho of the flat-earth society, 'common man'?


The Earth IS a oblate spheroid and is modeled very well by the
WGS-84 ellipsoid and datum


NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
GPS PRECISE EPHEMERIDES, SATELLITE CLOCK PARAMETERS
AND SMOOTHED OBSERVATIONS

PRECISE EPHEMERIS

Earth-centered Earth-fixed trajectory
Coordinate system: WGS84 (G1150)
Position -- x,y,z (km)
Velocity -- dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt (dm/s)
GPS time -- year, day, hour, minute
Trajectory interval: 15 min.
Standard Trajectory referenced to satellite center of mass
Optional Trajectory referenced to satellite antenna phase center


SATELLITE CLOCK PARAMETERS

Clock parameters for each satellite:
Time offset (microseconds)
Frequency offset (10E-4 microsec/s = parts in 10E10)
Time interval for parameters: 15 min.
Satellite clock events: All events processed as reinitializations


SMOOTHED OBSERVATIONS

Smoothed range and range difference observations (km) with corrections
applied (see below)
GPS time of observation (year, day, seconds from beginning of day)
Standard deviation of observation (km)
Coordinate system: WGS84 (G1150)
Station coordinates: Position -- x,y,z (m), Epoch 2001.0
Velocity -- dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt (m/year)
Temperature (degrees Celsius)
Pressure (millibars)
Humidity (percent)
Data interval: 15 min.
Smoothing uses carrier phase to smooth range and range difference
measurements collected at a 1.5 second rate for NIMA and Air Force
monitor stations and at a 30 second rate for IGS monitor stations
Minimum elevation angle for observation: 10 degrees
National Imagery and Mapping Agency and Air Force monitor station data
collected and smoothed using similar procedures
References: Computer Program Development Spec., Master Control
Station, Ephemeris/Clock Computer Program, NAVSTAR GPS Operational
Control System Segment, CP-MCSEC-302C, Part 1, Appendix A, 7 May1993.
Description of the Smoothing Algorithm in the NIMA Monitor Station
Network, (MSN29), Applied Research Laboratories, The University of
Texas at Austin, GR-SGG-97-1, 3 April 1997.


PHYSICAL CONSTANTS

GM(Earth) = 398600.4418 km**3/s**2
GM(Sun) = 132712400000 km**3/s**2
GM(Moon) = 4902.799186 km**3/s**2
Moon radius = 1738 km
Sun radius = 696000 km
Earth semi-major axis (a) = 6378.137 km
Inverse flattening (1/f) = 298.257223563
Earth angular velocity = 0.72921158553 X 10**-4 Rad/s
Speed of light = 299792.458 km/s
Love's constant = 0.290
Solar constant = 4.560 X 10**-6 N/m**2
Astronomical Unit = 149597870.691 km

STATION COORDINATES (GEODETIC)
WGS84 (G1150) Epoch 2001.0

STATION COORDINATES (CARTESIAN)
WGS84 (G1150) Epoch 2001.0


Due to security concerns
surrounding the current threat situations,
the coordinates for the NGA/Air Force/IGS
stations have been removed.

Any such information needed about the NGA
stations should be requested, until
further notice, at: (314) 263-4120
or DSN 693-4120


CORRECTIONS APPLIED TO MEASUREMENTS

Ionospheric delay: 2-frequency, 1st order correction
Tropospheric refraction: Saastamoinen hydrostatic and wet zenith delay
models and Niell hydrostatic and wet mapping functions
Periodic relativistic effects

Satellite antenna offset (satellite body centered coordinates, meters)
Block II PRN's - Delta x= 0.2794, Delta y= 0.0000, Delta z= 0.9519
Block IIA PRN's - Delta x= 0.2794, Delta y= 0.0000, Delta z= 0.9519

Block IIR PRN 11 - Delta x= 0.0019, Delta y= 0.0011, Delta z= 1.5141
Block IIR PRN 13 - Delta x= 0.0024, Delta y= 0.0025, Delta z= 1.6140
Block IIR PRN 14 - Delta x= 0.0018, Delta y= 0.0002, Delta z= 1.6137
Block IIR PRN 16 - Delta x= -0.0098, Delta y= 0.0060, Delta z= 1.6630
Block IIR PRN 18 - Delta x= -0.0098, Delta y= 0.0060, Delta z= 1.5923
Block IIR PRN 19 - Delta x= -0.0100, Delta y= 0.0064, Delta z= 1.5620
Block IIR PRN 20 - Delta x= 0.0022, Delta y= 0.0014, Delta z= 1.6140
Block IIR PRN 21 - Delta x= 0.0023, Delta y= -0.0006, Delta z= 1.5840
Block IIR PRN 22 - Delta x= 0.0018, Delta y= -0.0009, Delta z= 0.0598
Block IIR PRN 28 - Delta x= 0.0018, Delta y= 0.0007, Delta z= 1.5131

Station displacement due to tides
Yaw Bias: JPL yaw bias model for Block II and IIA satellites in
eclipse, except PRN's 2, and 23


FORCE MODELING

Gravitational:
EGM96 Earth gravity model truncated at degree 12 and order 12
Solar and Lunar gravity using the DE403 ephemeredes, J2000 epoch,
and IAU Resolutions on Astronomical Constants, Time Scales, and
the Fundamental Reference Frame (1976-1980)
Solid Earth tides

Non-gravitational:
Radiation Pressure
ROCKWELL ROCK42 model for Block II and IIA satellites
Lockheed Martin table look up model for Block IIR satellites
Thrusts
Momentum dumps

Kinematic:
Luni-solar and planetary precession (IAU Resolutions, as above)
Nutation (IAU Resolutions, as above)
Earth rotation (IAU Resolutions, as above)
Polar Motion (using NIMA initial values generated the week before
the orbit fit) + diurnal and semi-diurnal effects
UT1-UTC (using NIMA initial values generated the week before the
orbit fit) + Zonal tide effects + diurnal and semi-diurnal effects

Integration step size: 300 seconds, reduced to 10 seconds during
eclipse boundary crossings


ORBIT ESTIMATION METHOD

Kalman Filter/RTS Smoother (Square Root Information implementation)
Initial conditions: From previous fit
Solution parameters:
Satellite state vector in element form at trajectory epoch --
semi-major axis
eccentricity * sin(argument of perigee)
eccentricity * cos(argument of perigee)
inclination
mean anomaly + argument of perigee
right ascension of the ascending node
Satellite clock parameters -- Time offset, Frequency offset
Monitor station clock parameters (excluding master station) --
Time offset, Frequency offset
Polar motion parameters -- Pole and pole rate components along
Greenwich meridian, Pole and pole rate components along
meridian 90 deg west of Greenwich, Rate of change and
acceleration of UT1-UTC
Satellite radiation pressure parameters -- Radiation pressure
scale, and Y-axis acceleration
Tropospheric refraction -- One stochastic zenith delay
parameter per station
Minimum range observation uncertainty(1-sigma):100 cm (IGS Stations)
100 cm (Station 85128)
80 cm (Station 85130)
40 cm (other stations)
Minimum range difference observation uncertainty (1-sigma): 1.5 cm
Process noise in Kalman Filter:
Radiation pressure (each satellite)--
Decorrelation time 14,400 s
Steady state sigmas --
SCALE 0.05
Y-AXIS 0.5 X 10**-12 km/s**2
Tropospheric refraction variance rate: 2.89 cm**2/hr
Station clock white noise spectral density: (each station) --
Time offset 0.1111 X 10**-2 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1111 X 10**-8 (ppm)**2/s
Satellite clock white noise spectral density: (each satellite)
Time offset 0.1111 X 10**-2 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1111 X 10**-8 (ppm)**2/s
Frequency drift 0. (ppm/s)**2/s


SATELLITE CLOCK ESTIMATION METHOD

Kalman Filter/RTS Smoother (Square Root Information implementation)
Orbit solutions from above method are held fixed for satellite clock
estimation
Solution parameters:
Satellite clock parameters -- Time offset, Frequency offset
Monitor station clock parameters (excluding master station) --
Time offset, Frequency offset
Tropospheric refraction -- One stochastic zenith delay parameter
per station.
Minimum range observation uncertainty(1-sigma):100 cm (IGS Stations)
100 cm (Station 85128)
80 cm (Station 85130)
40 cm (other stations)
Minimum range difference observation uncertainty (1-sigma): 15.0 cm
Process noise in Kalman Filter:
Tropospheric refraction variance rate: 2.89 cm**2/hr

Station clock white noise spectral densities:
NGA stations and Air Force Colorado Springs station:
Time offset 0.1944 X 10**-8 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.4440 X 10**-19 (ppm)**2/s
Air Force stations (except Colorado Springs) and IGS stations:
Time offset 0.3456 X 10**-8 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.4440 X 10**-19 (ppm)**2/s

Satellite clock white noise spectral densities:
Satellite Block IIR Rubidium clocks
Time offset 0.8640 X 10**-9 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1110 X 10**-18 (ppm)**2/s
Frequency drift 0. (ppm/s)**2/s
Satellite Block II/IIA Rubidium clocks
Time offset 0.1944 X 10**-8 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1110 X 10**-18 (ppm)**2/s
Frequency drift 0. (ppm/s)**2/s
Satellite Cesium clocks
Time offset 0.13824 X 10**-7 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1000 X 10**-17 (ppm)**2/s
Frequency drift 0. (ppm/s)**2/s
Satellite 'Noisy' Cesium clocks
Time offset 0.2000 X 10**-7 (microseconds)**2/s
Frequency offset 0.1110 X 10**-16 (ppm)**2/s
Frequency drift 0. (ppm/s)**2/s
  #8  
Old July 1st 04, 01:48 AM
Ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this


"Common Man" wrote in message
news.com...
Note to the readers of sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro:

Pearl is a regular in the alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian newsgroup and
claims that the earth could be hollow. She goes on to claim that this
could have been caused by a rapidly spinning early earth. I've tried
to explain (without success) that such a rapidly spinning body would
flatten out rather than become hollow.

If any of you wish to take a crack at explaining this to her, feel
free.

For Pearl: Evidence that a rapidly spinning object would flatten out,
not become hollow.

See: http://www.govertschilling.nl/artike.../030612_sc.htm


You have overlooked one important factor - the strength of the earths crust.

Let us look at both scenarios and assume that the earth's inner core
consists of molten lava or some other malleable substance.

Take a tennis ball with a soft outer case, spin it up to say 5,000rpm and it
would indeed tend to flatten and not be sphere

Take a snooker ball and apply the same 5,000rpm and it would remain a
perfect sphere.

In either case the inner soft core would be driven by centrifugal force and
compacted towards the outer shell.

If we assume you are correct the earth would be not be circular, should
Pearl be correct the earth would remain a sphere.
The shape would be dependent upon the thickness and strength of the earth's
crust at the time of acceleration.

[BUT] In either case we are left with a central void, home to the inner
earth beings.

My argument is an extension of the above. The rotational speed was much
faster (say some 20,000rpm) and the earth was flattened out until it
resembled a disc i.e.
a 'Flat Earth'. The 'beings' still exist, but they live on the bottom side.

The 'beings are easily rerecognizable, they are about 4' tall, wear funny
hats, have shocking personal hygiene and a strong propensity to stalk and
verbally abuse woman. Their only contact with the real world is via a
strange force known as 'EarthLink'

They are best left alone.

This also explains the extinction of the dinosaurs - the poor buggers were
cast into outer space.

It also serves to illustrate the serious side effects of almost 5 years
posting to this newsgroup.


  #9  
Old July 1st 04, 01:48 AM
Ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this


"Common Man" wrote in message
news.com...
Note to the readers of sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro:

Pearl is a regular in the alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian newsgroup and
claims that the earth could be hollow. She goes on to claim that this
could have been caused by a rapidly spinning early earth. I've tried
to explain (without success) that such a rapidly spinning body would
flatten out rather than become hollow.

If any of you wish to take a crack at explaining this to her, feel
free.

For Pearl: Evidence that a rapidly spinning object would flatten out,
not become hollow.

See: http://www.govertschilling.nl/artike.../030612_sc.htm


You have overlooked one important factor - the strength of the earths crust.

Let us look at both scenarios and assume that the earth's inner core
consists of molten lava or some other malleable substance.

Take a tennis ball with a soft outer case, spin it up to say 5,000rpm and it
would indeed tend to flatten and not be sphere

Take a snooker ball and apply the same 5,000rpm and it would remain a
perfect sphere.

In either case the inner soft core would be driven by centrifugal force and
compacted towards the outer shell.

If we assume you are correct the earth would be not be circular, should
Pearl be correct the earth would remain a sphere.
The shape would be dependent upon the thickness and strength of the earth's
crust at the time of acceleration.

[BUT] In either case we are left with a central void, home to the inner
earth beings.

My argument is an extension of the above. The rotational speed was much
faster (say some 20,000rpm) and the earth was flattened out until it
resembled a disc i.e.
a 'Flat Earth'. The 'beings' still exist, but they live on the bottom side.

The 'beings are easily rerecognizable, they are about 4' tall, wear funny
hats, have shocking personal hygiene and a strong propensity to stalk and
verbally abuse woman. Their only contact with the real world is via a
strange force known as 'EarthLink'

They are best left alone.

This also explains the extinction of the dinosaurs - the poor buggers were
cast into outer space.

It also serves to illustrate the serious side effects of almost 5 years
posting to this newsgroup.


  #10  
Old July 1st 04, 01:49 AM
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explain this

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:

It's been pointed out to you by someone else that centrifugal
force will cause a spherical body to become oblate, without
becoming completely flat. Is this a throwback to your past
life as chief honcho of the flat-earth society, 'common man'?


The Earth IS a oblate spheroid and is modeled very well by the
WGS-84 ellipsoid and datum


Wow!

..


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Maybe you sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro readers can explainthis Zakhar Astronomy Misc 2 July 1st 04 01:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.