not only was the earth one continent but its also hollow<im not one of those crazies on the hollow earth and alians coming out of the north pole..google doese blurr it out though..weird>ok so we all learned that mass attracts mass,,fact the deeper into the earth you go the lighter one becomes,,,fact were spinning close to 1000 mph ,,fact so lets say you dug a deep hole and hit the center of the earth ..you then would have mass pulling you equally from all sides ..so now your weightless . so that tells ya at the very least the center must be hollow....now if we did some fancy math calculations we could figure out how deep one would have to go before theres as much mass on below ya and on top of ya and that would be where the lava is and a dirt layer on the outside toward space and a dirt layer towards the hollow center...and thats just going off of the fact that mass attracts mass and the fact that you become lighter the deeper you go...so do some more calculations and take into the Centrifugal force ....................SO NOW TRY AND PROVE ME WRONG
the EARTH is expanding!!!!
- Thread starter kwhilborn
- Start date
Good grief - what a ninny! Mix in one or two facts with a bunch of nonsense - yeah, that's the way to show how intelligent you are. NOT!
I am sure the motions are in the right direction. Imagine if I was trying to show the Moon was captured, but this resulted in the Moon orbiting the Earth the wrong way around!
So I suggest you start digging a hole deep into to the Earth and tell me when you find the groundwater no long fills in the hole?
@ Bolonny,
If Mass attracts Mass as is the suggested theory then the further you go into the earth the more you are creating mass all around you. If you were in a sheltered room in the centre of the planet then you would have equal mass all around you and be weightless. I do not see how this would make the world Hollow? There are plenty of zero gravity locations that contain things. Why cannot it be nickel and iron at the core as is likely? Looks like you were banned anyways... but I was trying to explain it a bit nicer.
If Mass attracts Mass as is the suggested theory then the further you go into the earth the more you are creating mass all around you. If you were in a sheltered room in the centre of the planet then you would have equal mass all around you and be weightless. I do not see how this would make the world Hollow? There are plenty of zero gravity locations that contain things. Why cannot it be nickel and iron at the core as is likely? Looks like you were banned anyways... but I was trying to explain it a bit nicer.
Now I see it; all the others considering the Moon Capture theory have thought the Moon as moving faster than the Earth, not the Earth catching up to the Moon. Has my theory got a flaw or has it got the better dynamics?
So if the Moon and Earth were orbiting the Sun, and every 16,000 years they pass each other what features would make the Moon begin orbiting the slowly rotating Earth? Starting rotation - we'll say 1 rotation per year (tidally locked to the Sun). Could it be as slow as that? Could the Earth have been tidally locked to the Sun. Well I think it could! All the grains of dust of the protoplanetary disc would have had a tendency to be tidally locked and if the Earth is the accumulation of these components why not the Earth? Rotational momentum isn't going to appear from nowhere is it?
Now if the Earth is spinning fast this would affect the ability of the Earth to capture the Moon. Was it tidal deceleration of the repeated passing that slowed the Moon a little each time it passed? If it did the Earth would absorb this momentum and the Moon would fall into the Sun (a little) and orbit the sun at a faster rate (a little faster). If this went on too long the Moon would end up going the same rate as the Earth, but one could assume the Early Earth continued to pick up mass and hence continue to increase its gravitational strength on the Moon as it passed repeatedly.
Now we are going to cast our thoughts right into the Moon Earth situation at that time.
As the moon approached the Earth an enormous tidal bulge would appear on both the Earth and the Moon. This is a one sided bulge for neither the Earth or the Moon are rotating to any degree. So the center of mass of both the Earth and the Moon would move closer together, the G forces increased. Lifted to a higher orbit the Moon's relationship to the Sun was disrupted. Normally the centrifugal force balances the gravitational force, but now the outward forces are greater than the Sun's gravitational attraction and if the Earth can hold on it has captured the Moon. The Moon slows further as more momentum is transferred to the Earth, and with the gravitational pull of the Earth the Moon is flung into an elliptical orbit around the Earth.
Now the thing to appreciate is that the Moon is lifted up and behind the Earth and is thrown over the top of the Earth (when viewed from the Sun's perspective).
It is quite difficult keeping two threads going but just to keep those that were interested informed these were my latest conclusions regarding the Yo-yo Moon Capture theory.
So to recap some of the features of the Yo-yo capture theory:
1. There was a slow to non-spinning Earth prior to Moon capture.
2. The Earth catches up to the Moon via the natural orbital velocity difference.
3. At each pass of the planets Earth and Luna, the relative motion between the planet Luna (Moon) is slowed by speeding the Moon up (lower Lunar -Sun orbit)
(This must mean the period between conjunctions increase with time, as the orbital periods become synchronized. This bit is a logical consequence of #3.)
4. Earth Moon interact captures planet Luna (Moon) and throws it into an elliptical orbit over the top of the Earth from the Sun's perspective.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=27&t=29842&hl=&view=findpost&p=605228
It is one thing to say the Earth captures the planet Luna and throws it over itself! I have to really figure if that is possible.
It must have been possible for other planets as plenty of the planets have captured moons, but is it possible for Earth to capture Luna?
I like the way the tidal deceleration has worked to synchronize (bring them into nearly the same orbital period) the two bodies.
I recall seeing a diagram (Trippy's?)of the Moon's wavy passage around the Sun. The Moon orbits the Earth but this is more or less created from periods of dropping toward the Sun and then being flung out again. The Moon never goes backwards when viewed from the Sun.
This image gives the idea correctly, whereas most YouTube animations have the scales out so much it looks like the Moon goes periodically backwards when viewed from the Sun's perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
So to recap some of the features of the Yo-yo capture theory:
1. There was a slow to non-spinning Earth prior to Moon capture.
2. The Earth catches up to the Moon via the natural orbital velocity difference.
3. At each pass of the planets Earth and Luna, the relative motion between the planet Luna (Moon) is slowed by speeding the Moon up (lower Lunar -Sun orbit)
(This must mean the period between conjunctions increase with time, as the orbital periods become synchronized. This bit is a logical consequence of #3.)
4. Earth Moon interact captures planet Luna (Moon) and throws it into an elliptical orbit over the top of the Earth from the Sun's perspective.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=27&t=29842&hl=&view=findpost&p=605228
It is one thing to say the Earth captures the planet Luna and throws it over itself! I have to really figure if that is possible.
It must have been possible for other planets as plenty of the planets have captured moons, but is it possible for Earth to capture Luna?
I like the way the tidal deceleration has worked to synchronize (bring them into nearly the same orbital period) the two bodies.
I recall seeing a diagram (Trippy's?)of the Moon's wavy passage around the Sun. The Moon orbits the Earth but this is more or less created from periods of dropping toward the Sun and then being flung out again. The Moon never goes backwards when viewed from the Sun.
This image gives the idea correctly, whereas most YouTube animations have the scales out so much it looks like the Moon goes periodically backwards when viewed from the Sun's perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg
Last edited:
There is more pu Fush than you can throw a stick at.
I want to clear up one thing, for there seems to be a contradiction in what I have said.
1. I have said, "At each pass of the planets Earth and Luna, the relative motion between the planet Luna (Moon) is slowed by speeding the Moon up (lower Lunar -Sun orbit)
(This must mean the period between conjunctions increase with time, as the orbital periods become synchronized. This bit is a logical consequence of #3.)"
And prior to that I said:
2. "The Moon gains speed on one leg, the Moon and the Earth move toward each other relatively (as well as orbiting the Sun, so I'm not suggesting anything goes backwards). The Moon would then slow on the going-away half of the orbit. I think that means the two halves are dynamically balanced."
So I agree that these two statements are partially true but also a little contradictory too, for I would say that if there was angular momentum transferred the two halves of the orbit will not be fully dynamically balanced as a consequence. The transfer of the momentum dampens the balance.
This transfer of momentum would tend to make the Earth and Lunar spin anticlockwise looking down on the system. [I will try to use the term Luna for the planet Luna prior to its capture as the Moon.]
1. I have said, "At each pass of the planets Earth and Luna, the relative motion between the planet Luna (Moon) is slowed by speeding the Moon up (lower Lunar -Sun orbit)
(This must mean the period between conjunctions increase with time, as the orbital periods become synchronized. This bit is a logical consequence of #3.)"
And prior to that I said:
2. "The Moon gains speed on one leg, the Moon and the Earth move toward each other relatively (as well as orbiting the Sun, so I'm not suggesting anything goes backwards). The Moon would then slow on the going-away half of the orbit. I think that means the two halves are dynamically balanced."
So I agree that these two statements are partially true but also a little contradictory too, for I would say that if there was angular momentum transferred the two halves of the orbit will not be fully dynamically balanced as a consequence. The transfer of the momentum dampens the balance.
This transfer of momentum would tend to make the Earth and Lunar spin anticlockwise looking down on the system. [I will try to use the term Luna for the planet Luna prior to its capture as the Moon.]
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You mean the notion that, because there would be no gravitational attraction felt by an object at the centre of the Earth, it follows that the Earth must therefore have a hollow centre? I can well imagine the moderators might have decided this to be such an egregiously stupid hypothesis that its proponent should not be allowed to post, on what is, after all, a science forum. There must be some limits, to prevent the whole board being clogged up with baloney (as it were).
Gneiss2011
Registered Senior Member
About Neal Adams's videos, you can look a those videos by:
- potholer
- yorrike
- yorrike (companion text)
About http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/FixedorExpandingEarth.htm , the argument are so unconvincing, that I do no hope somebody wrote a refutation.
For example, the first evidence that subduction does not appen is
David Noel said:
Why the buried slabs should affect the difference of elevation between land masses and sea-floor? Where does the calculation formula come from? The text doesn't say.
Have you read the previous threads (including [thread=107740]107740[/thread] and [thread=134649]134649[/thread]) about expanding earth?
Have you read this article ?
Have you read this paper ?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
When you dig a hole deep and wide enough you may run out of groundwater to cover the bottom.
My problem is the question, if the earth was solid at one time, where did all the water come from which now covers 70% of the earth's surface. IOW, there is more water than solid ground, where once there was no water at all.
Do you want the standard answer or the Robittybob1 answer? My view on these topics are quite different from what is generally discussed. My thread on the topic (Physforum) is up to 219 pages long and still going strong.
@ Gneiss2011,
Thanks. I spent a lot of time watching and reading since your posting and you make a lot of fair points. I still am not swayed in either direction on this although I am certainly not swaying as far as I was to the Expanding Earth ideas.
One thing I have found however is a desire to learn more on this subject. I dislike being undecided on something so must know the truth.
Thanks. I spent a lot of time watching and reading since your posting and you make a lot of fair points. I still am not swayed in either direction on this although I am certainly not swaying as far as I was to the Expanding Earth ideas.
One thing I have found however is a desire to learn more on this subject. I dislike being undecided on something so must know the truth.