Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Everthing/matter is as old as The beginning of the universe/time
Next: Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion.
From: BradGuth on 30 Oct 2009 20:22 On Oct 30, 1:31 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 12:30 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 30, 9:07 am, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...(a)dirtcheap.net> wrote: > > > > "BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:441e8ea2-89e4-4b3d-8091-50f193628723(a)j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Oct 29, 7:10 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote: > > > >> Brad·Guth's hollow earth theory is insane. Pressure accrues. > > > >> Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. > > > > >> The center of earth is like that but, instead of water, > > > >> you have zetta·tons of blazing·hot steel pressing down on you. > > > > > It's just a theory, although hollow is relative. > > > > Hollow is defined, not relative. > > > > > How about a reduced pressure and/or lower density interior? > > > > The pressure at the center is created through compression, not > > > gravitational attraction AT THE CORE, rather the matter trying to get > > > TO/THRU the core via the resultant vector created by ALL of the matter > > > of the earth, not just at the core. > > > > However, do to this compression the matter at the core will have a > > > higher specific density, thus a bit more gravity than the same material > > > would have without a large mass trying to press through equally from > > > all sides. > > > Thats really odd, because in deep underground caves or mine shafts, > > other than the expected atmospheric pressure increase thats obvious > > and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km depth unless you plan on > > artificially cooling that column of air in order to get a 100% > > increase per 3.5 km), theres hardly any other significant geology > > pressures for our physiology to contend with, including while swimming > > or scuba diving in those deep underground lakes or aquifers, and > > theres certainly not any big increase in gravity (if anything it only > > measurably increases ever so slightly), and theres certainly no > > objective way of telling if the inner core is merely that of a dense > > shell thats hollow inside, or not. > > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2... > > The fact that gravity increases measurably in deep caves/mines tells > you that the interior of the Earth is denser than the rock above you. > Otherwise gravity would have already begun to decrease. > > Double-A 3.5 km isn't gong very deep, and that still doesn't tell us how much of Earth's interior is hollow or displaced by some kinds of low density fluids. Obviously the interior is not of a uniform density, nor is it getting uniformly compressed, as otherwise there wouldn't be those 500 km deep quakes. The objectively deep Russian drilling at 12+ km doesn't agree with your analogy. It's as though the inner layer of our crust (say from 6 to 10 km depth) is extremely dense, though below that mark it gets less dense (and they still do not know why). ~ BG
From: BradGuth on 30 Oct 2009 20:34 On Oct 30, 1:42 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...(a)dirtcheap.net> wrote: > "BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:27da353b-147c-4ed3-bfda-3ed5cb612cf1(a)i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > Thats really odd, because in deep underground caves or mine shafts, > > other than the expected atmospheric pressure increase thats obvious > > and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km depth unless you plan on > > artificially cooling that column of air in order to get a 100% > > increase per 3.5 km), theres hardly any other significant geology > > pressures for our physiology to contend with, including while swimming > > or scuba diving in those deep underground lakes or aquifers, and > > theres certainly not any big increase in gravity (if anything it only > > measurably increases ever so slightly), and theres certainly no > > objective way of telling if the inner core is merely that of a dense > > shell thats hollow inside, or not. > > <irrelevant snipped> > > 1) > > Non related items, Guthie. Caves and mine shafts are cavities in > the crust. The only pressure that would be evident there would be > atmospheric. The pressure inside the Channel tube is relatively > the same as that on the surface, as well as that inside of a sub at > great depth. The pressure on the walls of the caves/mine shafts, > or sub, is much greater. Since they are solids that pressure is > contained by the structure of their substance and does not flow as > with a liquid. > > However, if the pressure is great enough the structure of either will > fail. A cave will collapse and a sub will implode. Increase the > pressure sufficiently and the friction will cause any solid to lose the > molecular bonds that make it a solid. > > 2) > > A gas does not behave like a liquid or a solid. Nor does a liquid > behave like a solid. > > 3) > > What happens to a can of air that is immersed to a depth of 3.5km > in water? Now, drill a hole that deep in ice. Place the can down there > and slowly fill with water, letting the water freeze 1mm at a time. What > then happens to that can? Your objective proof that that our Selene/moon crust is 100% solid, as is everything inside of that? Before you bother, your obfuscation is noted. ~ BG
From: Nightcrawler on 30 Oct 2009 21:08 "BradGuth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2cf120ed-57fb-4b43-8a47-bfd375d480cf(a)x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Your objective proof that that our Selene/moon crust is 100% solid, as > is everything inside of that? > > Before you bother, your obfuscation is noted. Obfuscation? We were talking about the Earth, not the moon. Care to try again?
From: Nightcrawler on 30 Oct 2009 22:10 "BradGuth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:05e0d78e-9094-4987-be3d-e97b041db9de(a)x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > 3.5 km isn't gong very deep, and that still doesn't tell us how much > of Earth's interior is hollow or displaced by some kinds of low > density fluids. That depth is rather shallow. As for hollow, I'd say that below the crust/mantle zone you won't find any voids. > Obviously the interior is not of a uniform density, nor is it getting > uniformly compressed, That's a given since the mantle/crust is not uniform in composition. Nor does the crust have uniform weight distribution by itself, or with water/ice covering major portions of the crust. Add in hot spots and you get regions that have completely different characteristics to other regions. In fact, each volcanic area on the planet has a unique finger print to its area. A volcanologists can tell you what volcanic sample came from which volcano. Slap on some ice ages to change the weight distribution, then remove that distribution, and things get a bit funny. The planet is still popping out the kinks from the last ice age. That's why you don't see a huge rise in sea levels when the ice melts, because the land rises and the oceans sink. > The objectively deep Russian drilling at 12+ km doesn't agree with > your analogy. It's as though the inner layer of our crust (say from 6 > to 10 km depth) is extremely dense, though below that mark it gets > less dense (and they still do not know why). 7 miles is still rather shallow. That location was chosen because of the nature of the region. Regardless, to think that the crust, or mantle, is uniform is in error. One need only look at the different types of volcanoes and there lava flows to figure this out. What's under the crust may be considered "liquid", but it does not behave like a liquid in a pure sense. Things don't diffuse readily in a material that is like taffy.
From: BradGuth on 31 Oct 2009 00:59
On Oct 30, 5:08 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...(a)dirtcheap.net> wrote: > "BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2cf120ed-57fb-4b43-8a47-bfd375d480cf(a)x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > Your objective proof that that our Selene/moon crust is 100% solid, as > > is everything inside of that? > > > Before you bother, your obfuscation is noted. > > Obfuscation? We were talking about the Earth, not the moon. > > Care to try again? Under the relatively thin crust of Earth, who knows what goes on? How much thorium, uranium, radium and so on is in there? How much of Earth's core is hydrogen and helium? According to Russian deep drilling, at 10+ km it's not of higher density as they go deeper. What gives? ~ BG |