Laze, you keep repeating yourself, and making the same errors. To say this is getting boring is an understatement.
To be blunt, you are wrong. To quickly address your new errors:
Gyroscopic procession - i.e. what happens to your earth due to the imbalance created by pangea - is determined solely by the speed of the planets rotation and the distance separating the COM from the COR. So the rate any disparity between the position of the COM and COR forms is irrelevant - the final precessionary force produced is independent of the rate that disparity forms.
Anyways, since day one I've been trying to force you to deal with two gaping holes in your hypothesis - holes you ignore by brining up additional irrelevant falsehoods like the claims you made in your last post. If you're willing to address these issues this discussion will continue. If you're going to ignore them for the [sarcasm]2x106 time[/sarcasm] than, AFAIC, this thread is dead:
1) Your hypothesis has been directly refuted by at least two separate scientific studies, using two vastly different methodologies to measure paleogravity at different locals on the earth. How do you account for this data that directly disproves your hypothesis?
The citations:
McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321,
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.p
2) Your "formula" of d^2/r^2 only calculates gravitational shifts when the entire mass of the earth is moved, relative to the observer. I showed the mathematical proof of this earlier in the thread, and derived a proper formula for calculating the magnitude of these shifts. My formula gives gravitational shifts a magnitude of order smaller than the ones your gives. Given this data, please explain:
a) Derive your formula such that it accounts for more than movements of the entire earth, relative to a stationary observer, or
b) Show that the derivation of my formula is incorrect based on accepted physical principals (i.e. math, not name-calling and whining)
The above is how real scientific conversations occur. You can either join me in such a conversation, or you can join the ranks of the other psudoscienitifc kooks on this board.
Bryan
