It would. But gravity is only proportional to mass, while it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. So, while you are quite correct about a more flattened Earth, that would only make the gravity even lower at the equator. Make sense?

Sorry thought it was obvious. The band are purported to represent alternating tidal flows between subordinate and dominant yet a simple count shows that this cannot be sustained since the sequence reverses

The reversal of the sequence is easily explained. The moon rotates around the Earth; you would expect a reversal every 14 days. If you extend your rock picture to the right, you would see that the full dominant-subordinate-dominant cycle is completed over the length of the lunar cycle, 28 days.

Thank you, Rodin, for responding with a more detailed answer.

Thank you, PraedSt, for providing a clear, and succinct explanation as to the mechanism behind the width reversal.

__________________
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold- bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief." - James Russell Lowell

I did not realise that. Very useful explanation thank you.

I have interpreted the data better using your observation and it would appear the ancient ratio was 6.5 not 28 at least at the time this sample was laid down. Please correct me if I am wrong.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attac...2&d=1224938944

The above sample came from

http://igs.indiana.edu/Geology/ancie...idaltime02.cfm

rocks that are 300 million years old

I want to thank you so much for helping me find great proof for my Unified Theory of Evolution (see ATM thread). Fantastic! I predicted a Ballooned Earth during the time of giantism with much slower rotation period. Now, if someone has good Rhythmite pictures from 1 billion years ago we should see about 100 earth days per Lunar cycle.

There are 2 neep tides and 2 spring tides per lunar cycle so the true ratio may be 13 days per lunar orbit. I am looking at another sample now

edit

here it is

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showp...&postcount=166

Hang on Rodin. Not so fast...

1. Your ratio of 6.5 (I make it 7) needs to be doubled. You've measured peak to trough, which is half a wavelength. You need to measure the full cycle, giving you a lunar month of 14 days 300my ago, i.e half the present value.

2. But this just measures the lunar cycle. You might be able to measure the change in the length of our day more directly. Find a modern rock. Measure the average width of a pair of layers and compare it to the average width of a pair of layers on your photograph. See what you come up with.

3. 'I predicted a Ballooned Earth during the time of giantism with much slower rotation period'. I don't know about a ballooned Earth, but our plant rotated faster in the past; it has slowed down to it's present rate.

4. 'Now, if someone has good Rhythmite pictures from 1 billion years ago we should see about 100 earth days per Lunar cycle'. You would see the opposite. Think: we have 28 days now, you've worked out 14 days 300my ago, so 1by ago should be less shouldn't it?

So to recap. 300my ago, the Moon orbited faster, and the Earth rotated faster, than they do today. This means that 300my ago, the lunar month was shorter, and the length of an Earth day (solar day) was also shorter.

Hope that's clear...

but wait, gravity doesn't just originate from the center of the earth, doesn't it depend on the mass distribution too? like the fact that gravity is stronger in the rocky mountains and the Himalayas than it is where the crust is thinner.

If more mass were around the equator, wont there be more of a gravitational effect?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011113.html

__________________

-work in progress--

More

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attac...4&d=1224950272

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?im...icial%26sa%3DN

Beatles sang 8 days a week but here 8 days a fortnight

yes I realised that and posted correction rather than edit the post/pic

You see this is conventional wisdom. Everyone looking for a smooth progression. But we see 300 million years ago days were twice as long. Earth MUST have undergone the nonlinear expansion phase change I propose. Akin to the ice skater stretching out arms during a spin.

Previously Earth had a 6 hour day when very young. I suggest Rhythmites may be being interpreted wrongly by x2 because otherwise the data made no sense - except if you propose H driven expansion as on ATM thread this is what you expect. Explains giantism also. Lunar effect should be slowing Earth down but we see it has speeded up to present from 300m y. This is due to contraction due to H driven expansion maximum being exceeded. Plus some H lost to space - faster in lower grav/higher dia.

You're 100% correct sabianq. More mass, more Fg.

What I'm saying is that you're not taking into account that there is more distance between you and the centre of the Earth. Distance lowers Fg. This effect is greater than the mass effect, so when you add the two up, you end up with less Fg. Clear?

Where are you getting this from Rodin?

Looking at the pictures of Rhythmites. It is clear in some examples, others are ambiguous.

I am thinking that previous measurements of day length did not consider points outside the probability envelope yet it is clear - the period between fortnights is 7-8 days 300m years ago (or so) and this I expect in principle.

The pictures you have shown us? They show us a shorter lunar month, not a longer solar day. If you have other pictures, please show.

They show a dramatically different lunar month:solar day ratio you cannot tell which has changed but I have a mechanism for Earth day lengthening. Can you explain a lunar month 1/2 as long as today?

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, I can only tell you what current thinking is, Rodin.

The Moon started off much closer to Earth, and orbited with a higher velocity. Since then, tidal acceleration has lifted the Moon higher, slowed its orbital velocity, and simultaneously decreased Earth's rotation rate.

If you assume 300my ago the solar day was twice as long, what could double the rotation rate between then and now?

That's weird, the url you link there says "The cause of these irregularities is unknown since present surface features do not appear dominant."

The reason that mountains do not consistently show an increase in gravity is isostasy. Like ice cubes floating in water, the higher points of earth's surface are underlain by regions of lower density. If they weren't, the mountains would "sink".

But, to answer your question, if you calculate the gravity field for an oblate (rotating) earth, the gravity is lower around the equator, mostly because of the increased radius. You feel even lower gravity because of the centrifictional force.

I measure not assume. Then we have to explain observation, not ignore it.

I have a thread that was closed on this in ATM called Unified theory of Evolution. In a nutshell there is IMO irrefutible evidence of a once smaller Earth excluding present seas. But there is also evidence of an interim larger slower Earth (Giantism - eg how could large dragonflies survive wind on today's planet?). Since subduction is taking place logically Earth expansion has reversed somewhat if we accept the premise at all.

The driver? IMO all large celestial bodies have condensed matter seeds - maybe mini black holes (unlikely) or some other kind of condensed matter (dissolved protons electron neutrons whatever)

One idea is that at HTP Iron may accept hydrogen as protons and electrons. Sort of ultra FeH(x).

Condensed H plasma is another theory.

Whatever

As body matures atomic H is formed which outgasses. A physical/nuclear phase change. Smaller planets lose this H quickly, Earth had quite an interesting evolution, Jupiter and Saturn held onto their H and of course the Sun is fusing its.

You can see evidence of expansion - not so much % smaller planets as the H had less chance to be captured by the planet. H outgassing also explains much of earth chemistry evolution, and why H2 H2S and methane escape vents and volcanoes even now. H core outgassing would also create life compounds just about when life exploded.

yea but you are arguing that based on the assumption that the gravity is generated and originates only from the center of the earth.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030723.html

the above link clearly shows that assumption may not be correct.

if the "sub-surface density" attribution to gravitational attraction is correct as surmised in the above quote then a "sub-surface" density increase caused by the faster rotation would seem to cause a stronger gravitational attraction.

__________________

-work in progress--

Ah...well I'm afraid I don't know enough about black holes and plasmas to carry on this debate. You'll have to wait for someone else to continue with this I think. Sorry! And thanks...

Thanks to you to. Just one last question - there is no way Lunar month could have doubled in 300m years given age of binary system, is there? Fractionally, yes, but not enough to correspond to the evidence of day/month ratio being cut in half?

I made no assumption, I was just trying to be informative.
The rotation does not cause a density increase. The shape of the earth just becomes oblate. The observed field tends to agree with the calculations--the maps that you've linked have those calculations removed. If they were not removed, the maps would show a massive band of low gravity circling the earth, and not anything interesting.

Well, there are two ways. The rough and ready way is to bear in mind the formula for the circumference of a circle, 2*Pi*r. This means that you only need a small change in the moon's radius, delta(r) say, to get a reasonably large change in the distance the Moon has to travel, 2*Pi*delta(r). The Moon will also now be travelling slower, as it's in a higher orbit. So all in all it's period of rotation, the Lunar month, will at least 2*Pi*delta(r) longer.

The more accurate way is to use Kepler's third Law, but that's more or less the same, except that you have to use G in your calculations.

So, to recap. A small increase in radius results in a relatively large increase in the orbital period.

Yes but the Earth-Moon system is about as old as the Earth, no? Orbital change at the rate of x2 per 300million years simply does not fit into that time period. The event causing such a drastic change would have to be of a nonlinear nature

Earth-Moon system as old as earth: I think people are still arguing.

As for tidal acceleration, I'm convinced. It's been observed in other parts of the Solar System. As for the rate, and the possibility of a non-linear nature, it's possible. I won't say that it's not.

But to argue the mechanisms, I'm afraid you might have to go to the ATM section. But be careful, I've been told there are wolves there...

Bear with me - do you support the rather obvious evidence analysis that points to a month:day ratio 50% of today's 300m years ago? Because that alone completely undermines current thinking

Sure, I'll bear with you

But that's the problem you see? Given the same ratio, we both point to different mechanisms. We also differ on 'completely undermines current thinking'. These two cannot be resolved, at least with me at one end...as I told you, I'm pretty ignorant about black holes, etc.