Last edited by chung; Yesterday at 09:26 PM. Reason: added other data
He means 'added other garbage'.
Last edited by chung; Yesterday at 09:26 PM. Reason: added other data
He means 'added other garbage'.
Consistent during the years they were observing. Just like a variance in the books of account that can go on for years and years. Then when it finally implode, it is like an Enron anomaly.
They must rename this G from its former name of 'Universal' Gravitational Constant. Drop the name universal, it may be different in other sections of the universe and rename the 'Constant' to something that designates a rule of thumb. Something like a 'gravitational observed value'.
Do you and 'origin' understand the propriety of this?
If Mr. Science borrow from Mr. Mathematics, a tool, say a wrench. Don't use it like a hammer, though it can serve that purpose.
Though I have implicitly answered the above questions, here are my explicit answers:
It can exist but with a central sun at the center of the core. This central sun have to have a repel force to make the shell in equilibrium with the forces coming from the outside. The thickness of the crust will depend on the strength of the material, if the earth elements are vulnerable to tearing, then miles of layers of it will compensate for this vulnerability.
Water: The repel force within the hollow earth will have to be enough to create equilibrium water levels both from the surface and within the hollow earth so that the oceans seeping into the poles will attain their water levels on both sides of the mantle.
Gravity: The spinning of the planet is not the relevant force to keep beings inside the hollow earth walking on the concave topography. It is the central emitter of repel or push force. This force acting on all sides of the concave inside the mantle of the earth makes this central sun suspended at the center. Some of these force emitted flows out towards the upper pole and then it encounters the cosmic forces bending it and making it flow back on the other pole. This flow is in fact a toroidal flow of waves/frequencies.
Flood of Noah quote from Genesis 7:
10 It came about after the seven days, that the water of the flood came upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
- when the inner sun was agitated and emitted a stronger push or repel force, the oceans in the hollow earth burst through the poles. The rushing friction melted the snow causing further flooding of the surface lands. The imbalances also collapsed the thicker canopy of moisture surrounding the planet and enormous rains fell for many days. The spacetime curvature thereby was compressed upon the surface of the earth creating a stronger gravity making the earth more reactive to the rays of the sun, further collapsing the ice mountains.
The Grand Canyon and such sculpting of surface features were a result of the giant vortical flow of collapsed ice mountains - something like a moving liquid hurricane of ice, water, mud etc.
Another effect of this cataclysm could have been that bigger animals and beings have to adapt and grow denser but smaller body types. The mammoth animals that could not adapt fast enough have only survived by finding their way inside the ark, the hollow earth. Noah's ark tale could have combined the manmade efforts and natural haven stories into one.
ibid.for crying out loud are you serious? Can we move this absurd thread to an appropriate section of the forum? This is really stinking up the science section.
The moderator of this section appears to be MIA.
Not a planet that is formed a la planetary theory. However, a planet could become hollow through a variety of ways; how that would impact the planet's physical characteristics would be an interesting study.
You're welcome. All ideas should be entertained. However, the notion of a hollow planet as suggested by that video is unlikely (the probabilities render it false). A basic course in physics should dispel that.
It's kind of like someone asking if 1 can = 0. By definition, however, the two are distinct. 1 can equal zero (if multiplied by 0, or if subtracted by 1), but to use 1 and 0 interchangeably would be incorrect.
This also applies to a "Hollow Planet" theory. A planet is not likely to be hollow unless something happens to it that would make it hollow. There hasn't been any observation of a planet being formed that is hollow. If there were, I'm sure it'd be on the cover of Science or Nature. No one is worse at keeping a secret than a professional scientist.
Errr...did you actually read what you had posted? Biblical monsters coming out from the caves of Malta, a sun inside the earth, and day and night in the interior?
This is where we have to distinguish ideas from informed and uninformed.
By the way, as far as I'm concerned, Frodo lives.
It's a shame the moderator of this thread isn't around.
This has gotten totally insane.