From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Thu Oct 23 1997 - 17:24:54 MDT
CALYK@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-10-22 01:54:08 EDT, you write:
> > Danny is apparently referring to a tetrahedron, not a triangle or a
> > pyramid. Using a rough Earth radius of just under 4000 mi. (3957 mi. on
> > average, as the radius at the equator is slightly greater than at the
> > poles due to centrifugal stresses), and a rough moon radius of 1080
> > miles, a tetrahedron made to fit exactly inside the earth (within a
> > couple dozen miles or so), would need a moon with a radius equal to
> > 1333.333.... mi., so our moon is a couple hundred miles too small. If
> > anyone can call me on the numbers please do.
> >
>
> Since the Earth is/has been expnding, that would mean that perhaps in the
> past the relationship was accurate (given that the moon has been the same
> size since then, seeing how its solid cold, it appears that way), I wonder
> when the date of that was.
Well, if we were to erroneously assume that the moon is the same size it
always was, and that the earth has expanded due to accumulated
meteoroidal material, then we would need to have accumulated material to
be 750 miles deep over the entire surface. This comes out to an
accumulation rate on average of one tenth of an ince every decade. Since
total new soil generation on earth averages one inch per 30,000 years,
coming from all sources, including erosion of existing rock, I find this
figure highly specious.
Since we know that the moon has accumulated material at a far faster
rate than the earth, due to its higher angular velocity allowing it to
sweep through more space than the earth while taking advantage of the
earth's greater gravity well as an attractor of material, we can
conclude that the only time in earth's history that the moon may fit
into a tetrahedron large enough to fit inside the earth, is sometime far
into the future, so long as the sun doesn't go nova first.
>
> << > If these numbers are right, this is a good example, Danny, of how
> > "sacred geometry" is bogus because they use bogus math, the don't do
> > their homework. I suggest that you do yours so you don't get hoodwinked
> > by this sort of stuff.
> > -- >>
>
> No, sacred geometry uses correct numbers, true sacred geometry. Why would
> they use wrong numbers/equations? I was referring to a picture at a web
> site, thats all, they obviously just did it to look cool, i wanted to know if
> it was a correct relationship.
I missed all of the links you provided. COuld you repost them so that I
could inspect the sites you speak of. I expect that once I do I can come
back to you with more examples of their lack of scientific rigor.
>
> >This is not to say that all such relationships are bogus. I have a gut
> >feeling that Bode's law may have an underlying cause based on the
> >mechanics of the original solar accretion disk.
>
> Do you mean the disk that formed the planets? What is Bode's law? I feel
> the same way, I also believe there's a lot going on in saturn's rings, given
> the braided rings, and god knows what else. Oh, there's also high voltage
> bursts emanating from saturn that is synchronistic with a specific place on
> the ring.
Its entirely probable that given a star of a certain size with a given
amount of disc material of a given size posessing a given amount of
angular momentum that the approximate positions and sizes of planetary
bodies that form can be accurately predicted. Unfortunately, until we
get a chance to visit other star systems, any such theories at present
are merely theories without sufficient supporting evidence.
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------ How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:03 MST