home
 
 
 
Hollow Celestial Bodies
© Science Admins
 
I'm splitting this off of the GTSM discussion. Jeffrey indicated interest in this topic on the TB forum, but in the GTSM discussion here he seems to be ready to stop discussing with us, because he finds that we agree with his theory of stellar metamorphosis in general terms, so he's satisfied that his task is completed. So now the rest of us may like to discuss this in more depth, or Jeffrey may get interested in the discussion as well.
 
Brant under Sources: Hollow astronomical bodies
 
 
'13-09-06, 15:42
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area

Regarding Hollow Bodies

Charles:
Last November Charles said this about hollow bodies on the TB forum:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=60#p72763
As concerns "hollow planet" theories, I'm not sure that I fully understand them. Lamprecht [in the article that Brant referenced above - ed.] is correct that centrifugal force increases with distance from the center, assuming solid body rotation, meaning that the tangential velocity is greater. He's also correct that gravity increases with distance from the center, out to the edge of the planet. And he's right that this might initially form a ring-like structure, or a planet with "open poles" as he calls it. But how do the poles get closed into a sphere with a hollow center?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=90#p73110
Helioseismology actually doesn't tell us much about the core, except that it is definitely there, and it definitely has a different density, because it produces a distinct shadow on the opposite side of the Sun. But p-waves don't pass through the core, so we don't know anything about the density gradient (if any). This, in fact, is what leaves the topic open to the speculation that it's hollow, while my take is that it's frozen rock solid, and p-waves bounce off of its rigidity. I agree that the density is probably quite consistent, and I agree that the reason would be electrostatic repulsion between ions. But we can't say that the seismic data support these assertions.

Brant:
I know you've considered LeSage's and Fatio's theory that gravity is a surface phenomenon. Is that a necessary part of your theory? If so, do you have evidence that gravity only affects surfaces? Mathis says the gravitational equation is actually a unified field equation, with gravity affecting only the volume of a body and EM affecting the density. So Mathis seems to have a good theory to explain it. Do you or the others have a good theory to explain why gravity only affects surfaces? Charles seems to have good evidence in his model that helioseismology shows that the density goes up with depth. However, I showed Charles a Wikipedia article last year that shows the density (or gravity?) at the Earth's center is zero and rises steadily to about 90% halfway to the surface, then rises more gradually and a bit unsteadily till it reaches the Earth's surface. He seemed to find the article believable at that time, but I don't think he said why he didn't think bodies are hollow.

'13-09-06, 15:38
 
Jeffrey J Wolynski
Cocoa, FL

Brant,

In stellar metamorphosis theory the Earth and all stars cool and form iron cores as the iron has the lowest ionization potential. The iron moves to the center because of its magnetic properties and the fact that iron as a plasma has a very low ionization potential, which means its the first to move from a plasma to a gas to a solid. Since it is the first to cool, and is magnetic with electrical current (iron becomes an electromagnet) it is the first element to clump together in the centers of stars. Thus, stars are only hollow when they are young and still ionized. Young stars that have not cooled and solidifed are hollow, not ancient ones like Mars, Mercury, Venus, Neptune, Uranus, Earth, Moon, Ganymede, Titan, etc.

I am not saying that the Earth isn't hollow right now, I am saying it used to be when it was fully ionized and resembled the Sun and other much younger stars.

'13-09-07, 04:49
 
brant

"Normally, if you fly over a mountain, you expect to see an increase in gravity due to the extra mass of the mountain. On Titan, when you fly over a mountain the gravity gets lower. That's a very odd observation," said Nimmo, a professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/saturns-titan-reveals-strange-gravity-phenomenon.html

 

"What's more, gravity is weaker at the equator because of the outward centrifugal force produced by the Earth's rotation relative to the polar latitudes. And the higher you go, the further you are from the Earth's center."

http://io9.com/new-high-res-maps-of-earth-s-surprisingly-inconsistent-1171851670 


Which one is it??   

I would expect that at the top of a mountain there is more gravity because there is more mass under the mountain...

If this is not the case I would say that this is evidence for some kind of push gravity with more mass shielding the tops of the mountains...
What if gravity has a maximum force that it exerts?? That would allow for an iron sun....

Brant 


← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite®
© 2010~2017 SCS-INC.US
NEXT →