Can a hollow planet exist?

chung said:
If the academe cannot as yet define gravity, they must not limit it's definition to a pull force.
Click to expand...
Au contraire, the academe follow the exact same methods in establishing the direction of the gravitational force as they do in establishing the direction of the Coulomb and Lorentz forces, or any other vector operations for that matter. You can't single out one thread, holler when it doesn't snap, and demand that the whole fabric of science is flawed. That's the only pull force here and that's the only limitation to be concerned about.
 
Aqueous Id said:
Au contraire, the academe follow the exact same methods in establishing the direction of the gravitational force as they do in establishing the direction of the Coulomb and Lorentz forces, or any other vector operations for that matter. You can't single out one thread, holler when it doesn't snap, and demand that the whole fabric of science is flawed. That's the only pull force here and that's the only limitation to be concerned about.
Click to expand...

So, did any of the proponents of your Coulomb and Lorentz forces able to debunk Mr. Walter Wright in a one on one face off? Are you a priest of the academe? Have you not heard instances where they were exposed to be following the interests of their funding sources instead of truly searching for truth without bias?
 
And have the academe given a clear definition of gravity yet? All these years, have their experimentation and hypothecation explain gravity? Newton postulated a 'universal' gravitation constant, did the academe defined what that constant is?
 
Check your linked definition and find that it was a number inserted by Newton in order to make his equation work. That kind of definition is not definitive at all.

Is it really constant and is it really universal? No, on both instance.

For the latter, we should not assume our formula and mental reasoning is followed elsewhere in the universe. We could be underestimating the universe by that. As for the former, it was already found out that gravity varies around the earth. Via sensitive satellites, they measured it and created a composite which they call as geoid. Look it up on youtube using GOCE Geoid as the search term.

Also, when you are using algebraic formula, an unknown X can always be a net effect of two or more variables A and B etc. For example, the speed of light varies depending on the medium it travels.

The Universal Gravitational Constant obtained in the Cavendish experiment was found by Rupert Sheldrake to be not universal after all. Search his banned TEDtalk on youtube to see it.
 
chung said:
Check your linked definition and find that it was a number inserted by Newton in order to make his equation work. That kind of definition is not definitive at all.

Is it really constant and is it really universal? No, on both instance.

For the latter, we should not assume our formula and mental reasoning is followed elsewhere in the universe. We could be underestimating the universe by that. As for the former, it was already found out that gravity varies around the earth. Via sensitive satellites, they measured it and created a composite which they call as geoid. Look it up on youtube using GOCE Geoid as the search term.

Also, when you are using algebraic formula, an unknown X can always be a net effect of two or more variables A and B etc. For example, the speed of light varies depending on the medium it travels.

The Universal Gravitational Constant obtained in the Cavendish experiment was found by Rupert Sheldrake to be not universal after all. Search his banned TEDtalk on youtube to see it.
Click to expand...

Well, I can see you may be right that it is hard to obtain conclusive evidence that G is the same everywhere. But forgive me if I need persuasion that Sheldrake is an expert on gravitation. I don't generally waste my time looking things up on YouTube, as a great deal of what is posted there is balls. (No editorial selection, you see.) But if you can direct me to a written article about Sheldrake's findings, I will happily read it and respond.

As for the variation of gravity around the Earth, this is elementary and no mystery whatsoever. It provides no evidence at all that G is not constant.
 
Last edited:
chung said:
Has any scientist accepted Walter Wright's challenge?

So if the academe cannot explain something, it is woo-woo?
Click to expand...

OF COURSE nobody has accepted Wright's derisory "challenge". Every other nutter on the street corner issues "challenges". We'd - none of us - ever get anything done, if we did not decide who was worth paying attention to and who to ignore.

As for "the academe" this sounds to me like pejorative victimhood-speak for established science. "Woo-woo", on the other hand, is as I understand it a collective term for pseudoscientific theories that are either demonstrably false or patently far weaker than the established ones in explanatory and predictive power. Often with New Age overtones of "crystals-and-shit", if you like.
 
exchemist said:
OF COURSE nobody has accepted Wright's derisory "challenge". Every other nutter on the street corner issues "challenges". We'd - none of us - ever get anything done, if we did not decide who was worth paying attention to and who to ignore.

As for "the academe" this sounds to me like pejorative victimhood-speak for established science. "Woo-woo", on the other hand, is as I understand it a collective term for pseudoscientific theories that are either demonstrably false or patently far weaker than the established ones in explanatory and predictive power. Often with New Age overtones of "crystals-and-shit", if you like.
Click to expand...

He backs up his views with experiments and demonstration. He's not just a nutter nor a derisory parrot.

Simple, the academe were afraid of him and the implications of his findings to their academic preaching.
 
exchemist said:
Well, I can see you may be right that it is hard to obtain conclusive evidence that G is the same everywhere. But forgive me if I need persuasion that Sheldrake is an expert on gravitation. I don't generally waste my time looking things up on YouTube, as a great deal of what is posted there is balls. (No editorial selection, you see.) But if you can direct me to a written article about Sheldrake's findings, I will happily read it and respond.


As for the variation of gravity around the Earth, this is elementary and no mystery whatsoever. It provides no evidence at all that G is not constant.
Click to expand...

Sheldrake needed not to be an expert on gravitation. He just went over the official channels to verify their records. The 'universal' gravitation constant turned out to have a 1.3% variance within a span of several months. Some reasoned out that this is inconsequential and this will have to be disregarded (applied to the mass of the planet, that variance can equate to a sizable amount of matter).

However, if gravity is a quantum phenomena that accumulate, especially for a large mass, then this variance is symptomatic of possible unaccounted part of the equation. I am not allowed to post links yet so can't put here.

As for the variation of gravity around the Earth, which is not elementary at all, it points out that the curvature of space time is affected by the mantle of earth: the quality of materials, the volume and density.

Thus, the geoid leans more to indicate the hollow earth, the mantle differences accounting for the gravitational variances.
 
Last edited:
The NASA moon orbiting crafts also found out the very uneven and dangerous gravitational field anomaly around the moon.

I would suspect that the moon has magnetized mantle on one side and an assortment of materials that may have come from the asteroid belt resulting to:
- uneven distribution and quality of its mantle
- one side is always away from the earth
 
chung said:
Sheldrake needed not to be an expert on gravitation. He just went over the official channels to verify their records. The 'universal' gravitation constant turned out to have a 1.3% variance within a span of several months. Some reasoned out that this is inconsequential and this will have to be disregarded (applied to the mass of the planet, that variance can equate to a sizable amount of matter).

However, if gravity is a quantum phenomena that accumulate, especially for a large mass, then this variance is symptomatic of possible unaccounted part of the equation. I am not allowed to post links yet so can't put here.

As for the variation of gravity around the Earth, which is not elementary at all, it points out that the curvature of space time is affected by the mantle of earth: the quality of materials, the volume and density.

Thus, the geoid leans more to indicate the hollow earth, the mantle differences accounting for the gravitational variances.
Click to expand...

Chung,

1) re Sheldrake, I repeat, if you can refer me to something WRITTEN on the subject I'll read it, but if all you are going on is the claims of a YouTube video, then you can keep both it and the ideas it peddles. OK?

2) re the geoid, please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid

and then point out to me in what respect the variation of Earth's gravity is NOT understood by current science.
 
* Our experience contrasted with those living in the hollow earth
What we experience on the surface of the earth is a strong pull of the curvature of space and a lesser push from the resonance permeating the heliosphere.

Inside the hollow earth, the beings are mostly shielded by the containment of the interior of the mantle, so they are experiencing only the push of the inner sun.

Thus beings inside the hollow earth will grow bigger. However, 3D bodies will be less dense.
Click to expand...

This goes way beyond woo-woo, but if I were to say what it was, it would probably get me a ban.
 
Thanks for the input guys.

It looks like a hollow planet might collapse on itself, can I remedy this by making it from diamond like iceaura said? Also if the planet is full of gas, such as oxygen, can it retain it's shape like a balloon?

Also I don't understand what you're saying about gravity. If the hollow planet is spinning will I forced to the side or will I float around inside the planet? I need a yes or no answer pls.

Dinosaur said:
.

Rotation would cause water or gas to collect at the internal equator.
Click to expand...

Would people collect at this internal equator as well, or would they still be able to walk around?
 
Larry Johnson said:
It looks like a hollow planet might collapse on itself, can I remedy this by making it from diamond like iceaura said?
Click to expand...

Diamond is not infinitely strong, so there is still a limit in terms of how large it could be. But it could be fairly large. Also note that materials like graphene would likely be a better choice overall.

Also if the planet is full of gas, such as oxygen, can it retain it's shape like a balloon?
Click to expand...

That would help, although keep in mind that a planet will react nothing like a balloon. For example, it will take hours for an increase in pressure (caused by, say, an external force) to propagate to the other side of the planet. Also as you add gas you add mass, and that may actually cause more problems (due to gravity) than you solve (due to outward pressure.)

Also I don't understand what you're saying about gravity. If the hollow planet is spinning will I forced to the side or will I float around inside the planet? I need a yes or no answer pls.
Click to expand...

If a hollow planet is spinning and you are floating you will continue to float.

If a hollow planet is spinning and you are standing on the inside surface near the equator you will be "forced to the side."

Would people collect at this internal equator as well, or would they still be able to walk around?
Click to expand...

They would be able to walk. As they walked away from the equator they would feel like they were walking "uphill" until the slope became too steep.
 
exchemist said:
Chung,

1) re Sheldrake, I repeat, if you can refer me to something WRITTEN on the subject I'll read it, but if all you are going on is the claims of a YouTube video, then you can keep both it and the ideas it peddles. OK?

2) re the geoid, please read this:

***

and then point out to me in what respect the variation of Earth's gravity is NOT understood by current science.
Click to expand...


quoting the said wiki:

"The gravitational field of the earth is neither perfect nor uniform. A flattened ellipsoid is typically used as the idealized earth, but even if the earth were perfectly spherical, the strength of gravity would not be the same everywhere, because density (and therefore mass) varies throughout the planet. This is due to magma distributions, mountain ranges, deep sea trenches, and so on..."

That means to me the importance of the quality, density (and therefore mass) of the shell of the hollow earth. The academe got stuck in the solid earth with molten iron core theory so they explained it in terms of the so called center of gravity, they assume to be in the center of the earth.

In actuality, the center of gravity is on the middle portion of the shell of the hollow earth. If this mantle forming the shell is 800 miles, the center of gravity lies at around the 400 mile deep portion due to the push/curvature of space time on the surface and the counter-acting push gravity generated by the inner sun within the hollow earth. The geoid would become unnoticed if the earth is not hollow because it will tend to diffuse the effect of the density of the outer shell.

Don't denigrate youtube or video format, it is a medium of information exchange just like a written article. In all media false assumptions and truth can exist.



The following message appeared in my latest try to include a link to written material:

"To be able to post links or images your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 11 posts.
Please remove links from your message, then you will be able to submit your post."
 
exchemist said:
Try reading this, Chung: *** link disabled a reply***

You see, science does actually have the power to explain these things eventually, contrary to what you may have been led to believe by your studies on YouTube.
Click to expand...


quoting from the said scientific hypothecation:

"Why the difference in gravitational signatures? The answer, the group found, lay in the crust’s thickness at the time of impact: Impacts to regions with thinner crust do more damage, easily sending shockwaves into the denser, underlying mantle — which, in turn, draws more dense material to the surface, creating a mascon. Regions with thicker crust, by contrast, are more resistant to impacts and internal upheaval. .."


The moon fits the bill for a hollow space object that was towed through a portion of space littered with debri such as the asteroid belt:

The asteroid belt is said to be the remains of the imploded planet Maldek and it would be easier to visualize the shell of the hollow moon, having some ability to rebound and produce a shockwaves that created mascon during its encounter with the asteroid belt. If it is a solid object, such rebound and shockwave would be less and the impact will burrow through the crust more deeply.

Science does actually have the power to explain these things eventually but in the meantime, a lot of hypothecation come into play. Even Einstein's work was a lot of hypothecation that eventually attained a crystallization in the academic view.

Consider my views as that offered using theoretical physics but the link you included is in the same nature and both views have the power to explain these things.

No, YouTube is not my main source and I consider it a valid form of information as many other media, in fact, NASA and the academe points of view are all represented in many video format available in the said site.
 
exchemist said:
Hmm, I'd missed this. Maybe I'm wasting my time and should knock it on the head with Chung.
Click to expand...

By being too dogmatic, you are not being a true student of the universe. You are fitting yourself into a type of priest during the inquisition period, who liked to knock the head of those who have contrary views to your dogma.

Theoretical physicists could be denigrated as knucklehead when they initially advanced their thought experiment. But thought experiment is a necessary ingredient of the scientific process, especially in this case where we have limited resources to conduct experiment with the earth.

However, it is evident that the military industrial complex were conducting such experiment all along using sonar, underground nuclear detonations, frequency weapons etc. Many of this secretive groups are stationed in the arctic regions and most probably trying to penetrate the hollow earth for conquest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top