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 3 Nov 2009 23:07 On Nov 3, 7:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:58:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > >> Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > >>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome > >>> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron > >>> star? > > >>> It could easily be hollow. > >> No Henry, Henri--the centrifugal force from the perspective > >> of a rotating coordinate system goes to zero at the core. > > > I know that. > > > It could never become hollow if it was solid....but how do you know it was ever > > solid? > > It's a force called gravity--look it up! Ever heard of helium? (where the hell do you think it comes from?) Ever heard of CO2, methane and radon gas? What happens when a 500 Mt chemical or nuclear reactions take place at 500+ km deep? ~ BG
From: Alan Morgan on 4 Nov 2009 12:43 In article <80v1f5hg1od5qmuumsgu39gtpuh8fmn8t6(a)4ax.com>, Henry Wilson DSc <H@..> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:47:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:58:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>> >>>>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >>>>> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron >>>>> star? >>>>> >>>>> It could easily be hollow. >>>> No Henry, Henri--the centrifugal force from the perspective >>>> of a rotating coordinate system goes to zero at the core. >>> >>> I know that. >>> >>> It could never become hollow if it was solid....but how do you know it was ever >>> solid? >> >> It's a force called gravity--look it up! > >What are the required conditions for spinning matter to condense into a HOLLOW >ball rather than a solid one? I can't imagine that it would ever do that. The equator of the object can be spinning fast enough to resist gravity, but the north and south poles will be subject to gravity and collapse inwards. A rapidly spinning object will deform into a disk (assuming it doesn't fly apart first), not an empty shell. Alan -- Defendit numerus
From: BradGuth on 4 Nov 2009 12:54 On Nov 4, 9:43 am, amor...(a)xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote: > In article <80v1f5hg1od5qmuumsgu39gtpuh8fmn...(a)4ax.com>, > Henry Wilson DSc <H@..> wrote: > > > > >On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:47:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > >>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:58:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > >>>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > >>>>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome > >>>>> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron > >>>>> star? > > >>>>> It could easily be hollow. > >>>> No Henry, Henri--the centrifugal force from the perspective > >>>> of a rotating coordinate system goes to zero at the core. > > >>> I know that. > > >>> It could never become hollow if it was solid....but how do you know it was ever > >>> solid? > > >> It's a force called gravity--look it up! > > >What are the required conditions for spinning matter to condense into a HOLLOW > >ball rather than a solid one? > > I can't imagine that it would ever do that. The equator of the object can > be spinning fast enough to resist gravity, but the north and south poles > will be subject to gravity and collapse inwards. A rapidly spinning object > will deform into a disk (assuming it doesn't fly apart first), not an > empty shell. > > Alan > -- > Defendit numerus How very true. However the extremely thick and robust crust of our Selene/moon has to be quite different than our 98.5% fluid Earth. ~ BG
From: Libra/Virgo on 4 Nov 2009 22:45 II <main>{hello world}<mode></code}print p = np. Quantum Mechanics:-_- Nightcrawler wrote: > "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_-u m antl0 |e, > is uniform is inp error. One need= only look at thenp different types ofp± > volcanoes andnp there lava flows to pfigure this out.~y What's under the Bnp> crust may be considered "liquid", but it does notp=np behave like a > liquid in a purep=np sense. Things don't diffuse readily in ap±mp materialnp > that is like taffy.p=mp
From: Darla on 5 Nov 2009 02:12
"BradGuth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2ce6c61a-12dc-41ce-81f8-08a4ed9f9887(a)f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com... On Nov 3, 1:17 pm, "Darla" <darlap...(a)aol.com> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message > > news:8398584a-b8da-4e4c-b333-11f3b5350b25(a)o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > > That�s really odd, because in deep underground caves or mine shafts, > > other than the expected atmospheric pressure increase that�s 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), there�s 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 > > there�s certainly not any big increase in gravity (if anything it only > > measurably increases ever so slightly), and there�s certainly no > > objective way of telling if the inner core is merely that of a dense > > shell that�s 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 > > My dearest Double-A! > The centerline gravity Has begun to decrease. > It's the downward semi-lateral crust density that increases a bit more > quickly than that centerline decrease that causes the increase in net > gravitational force as one goes deeper into the crust. > For a time. > > Measuring devices used so far have no way of distinguishing the > semi-lateral > forces from the centerline force, so they measure the net force as having > increased. > There is, of course, a semi-lateral force at the surface which, if > separated > from the centerline force, would be found to be at minimum, and it > increases > quickly as spelunkers and divers explore to deeper levels. > > At a glance, it may seem that the semi-lateral forces cancel. > That is only true if they are 180 degrees out of phase. > There are infinite directions of pull that are less than 180 degrees out > of > phase. > The downward semi-laterals do eventually get cancelled more and more by > the > upward forces. > One must go extremely deep before the net decrease would begin to > establish > itself. > > What you call "gravity" must be the greatest fun for all of you! > You must try to imagine the real vectorial forces upon you and shy away > from > Newton's centerline-only gravitational image. > Such an imagication is quite limiting. > > The sky is a "limit", and it stretches out in infinite directions. > So why not the ground also? > Is the Earth not infinite vectorisations within a finite boundary? > > -- > Darla That's certainly a whole lot better way of saying it, though still complex and as you say, it's not going to be limited to all that Newtonian centerline-only gravitational stuff as we travel inward (below the crust). It must be nearly as complex and/or downright interesting for that of our Selene/moon interior, that�s no longer fluid under that extremely thick and substantially mineral saturated crust, other than encountering a few layers or geode pockets of mineral brines. What�s at the residual hot core of our Selene/moon? What�s the approximate age of our moon? ~ BG It's not as complex or complicated as one may think, Brad. A vector analysis only seems complex. In this age of computerized analysis and finding websites designed to analyze vectorial "What ifs", it is much easier now to go after the info one seeks. And yet I would bet my left tortogal that nobody has gone beyond the Newtonian center-focus yet, at least not enough to convince themselves that there is something worth publishing. There are things in the Moon's core that are similar to the elements of Earth's core. Your science will know soon enough. This also applies to the Moon's age. It is as old as the Earth. -- Darla |