In my prior post, I proved that you were solving the wrong problem. You were solving the problem as though the Earth was not spinning.
You did no such thing, and this statement is proof positive you have no understanding of the physical principals we are talking about. Precession can
only occur with rotating bodies. Ergo, every single time I used the terms "procession", "processionary force", etc, I was directly and specifically describing a rotating system.
Likewise, every single time I used the term "center of rotation" (i.e. COR), I was directly and specifically describing a rotating system.
The fact you have to stoop to these lies to make your point is pretty clear evidence of both your dishonesty, as well as your unfamiliarity of basic scientific principals and terminology.
You then apply your diversionary tactics by stating that you have cited 2 references that disprove the Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction. One relates to Earth expansion, something totally irrelevant to what we are addressing and the other is a link that, when trying to access, gives the message:
“ERROR: The document you are looking for could not be found”
LOL, ignoring the papers instead of dealing with it. The first of those papers directly measured paleogravity at several sites on the earth. Had your little magical gravitational change happened they would have observed it. Instead they found that the force of gravity remained constant, throughout the earths history, at the sites they tested. Given that they tested site which were part of pangea, that's a pretty big hole in your hypothesis.
The second link works fine in all but one of my posts, where part of the file extention got clipped. Maybe you should have tried one of the other 4-5 times I posted it (but thanx for confirming you never bothered trying to read it until yesterday):
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf
As with the first paper, this one directly measures paleogravity, but this time using a different methodology (tidal deposits), in an area which was part of pangea. No measurable changes in gravitational force were observed, despite the fact that 100MYA-65MYA was extensively covered in their data set.
Keep in mind, you're claiming a 54% shift in gravity; both of these studies don't see that despite having a sensitivity ~10X better than what you're expecting them to find.
And you still have not dealt with the fact that your formula does not calculate what you claim it does.
Bryan
