Is planet earth hollow?

Status
Not open for further replies.
the flying graysons said:
Between perception of the movements of the particles of the solar wind through space time
Click to expand...
Because the motive force for the outflow of coronal material (solar wind) is the radiation pressure of the underlying photosphere. Wouldn't matter if the sun was 'held' stationary the coronal outflow and cme's would still continue.

ProfessionalMackem said:
Rotating body of material, when enough mass is achieved, a natural nuclear reactor hollows out the middle? Centrifugal force would take over. Just a theory mind.
Click to expand...
It's not a theory though mate, it's baseless conjecture that lacks a shred of empirical data or evidence to back it up.....Unlike tower 7 ;)

Theses more plot holes than an episode of Colombo in the stuff you've posted it's hardly worthy of response really mate. Natural nuclear reactor hollows out core man, come on. If he can explain the series of reactions that leads to the proton-proton chain of fusion in the middle of the earth than im all ears. It physically is impossible at every level for fusion to at start and propagate for the lifespan of the earth. What does he say about the same reactions that would surely occur in the gas giants? The gas Giants could not exist in this model.

And the smoking now gun for any nuclear fusion process is of course masses of neutrinos that are produced. No mention of where they are hiding.

ProfessionalMackem said:
Lets talk about the magnetic field. Is there a general consensus on how ours comes about? This is thor'd from Jan Lamprect's book hollow planets. Sorry can't link but cut n paste.

Magnetic Field Mysteries –

In this age of computers and satellites, we still do not know how the magnetic field of the Earth or any other planet is generated. The Dynamo theory has its origins in the molten core idea. One thing we do know about the Earth’s magnetic field is that it originates at the centre of the Earth. It is said that convection currents in the molten core generate the magnetic field. It follows that since the Earth rotates, the molten core also rotates. If the core is generating the magnetic field, then the magnetic field’s north and south magnetic poles should coincide with the Earth’s north and south geographic poles. This also holds true for any other planets. If this explanation is true, then a planet can only have a magnetic field when the following conditions are satisfied:

1) The planet must be hot enough to have molten core.

2) It must rotate fast enough to generate a magnetic field. Scientists get their fair share of unexpected surprises. It was so in the case of Mercury when it turned out to have a magnetic field in spite of its slow rotation and in spite of it possibly not having a molten core.

The Earth’s magnetic field is tilted 11 degrees away from its axis of rotation. Many other planetary fields are tilted anomalously. Some scientists admit there are problems with the dynamo theory: “At present. . . scientists have only one surviving theory for the origin of planetary magnetic fields. . . the dynamo theory. Akasofu notes, however, that since a planet’s rotation is such an important source of energy for its dynamo, the observed large tilts of planetary magnetic fields with respect to their rotation axes pose ‘a great puzzle.

98% of charged particles are repelled by our magnetosphere. So there must be weak spots in it to trap the other 2% and cause the northern/southern lights. These charged particles are accelerated massively and injected with some unknown energy. What is this energy and where does it come from? It is linked to the super-rotation of our upper atmosphere which at 150-400km altitude rotates 20-30% faster than Earth?



Exactly! We hang our hats on these laws but they fail to explain 100% of our observable universe. We are missing some fundamentals somewhere along the line.
Click to expand...
They explain 99.99% of the observable universe mate. Newtons laws work perfectly well. It's how we can send spacecraft to the edges of the solar system aNd time they arrival to the nanosecond. My opinion is that yhe theoty of everything if and when discovered simply refine newtons laws unt he way he refined keplers third law.

Kepler wasn't wrong, he just didn't know WHY he was right. Up stepped sir Isaac to tell him why. Someone will else will step up in good time in much the same fashion.

You really ought to have a look at "newtons version of keplers third law"

Breathtakingly elegant and a wonder of the human mind.
 
Last edited:


moshpit said:
Because the motive force for the outflow of coronal material (solar wind) is the radiation pressure of the underlying photosphere. Wouldn't matter if the sun was 'held' stationary the coronal outflow and cme's would still continue.


It's not a theory though mate, it's baseless conjecture that lacks a shred of empirical data or evidence to back it up.....Unlike tower 7 ;)

Theses more plot holes than an episode of Colombo in the stuff you've posted it's hardly worthy of response really mate. Natural nuclear reactor hollows out core man, come on. If he can explain the series of reactions that leads to the proton-proton chain of fusion in the middle of the earth than im all ears. It physically is impossible at every level for fusion to at start and propagate for the lifespan of the earth. What does he say about the same reactions that would surely occur in the gas giants? The gas Giants could not exist in this model.

And the smoking now gun for any nuclear fusion process is of course masses of neutrinos that are produced. No mention of where they are hiding.


They explain 99.99% of the observable universe mate. Newtons laws work perfectly well. It's how we can send spacecraft to the edges of the solar system aNd time they arrival to the nanosecond. My opinion is that yhe theoty of everything if and when discovered simply refine newtons laws unt he way he refined keplers third law.

Kepler wasn't wrong, he just didn't know WHY he was right. Up stepped sir Isaac to tell him why. Someone will else will step up in good time in much the same fashion.

You really ought to have a look at "newtons version of keplers third law"

Breathtakingly elegant and a wonder of the human mind.
Click to expand...
From your perspective
 
AlpineExile said:
I meant the direction silly, but nice to know that quantum foam is that stable: when and where do you think your quantum foam 'bubbles' finally go pop?
Click to expand...
From the relativistic perspective of one of the photons of the so called solar wind ?
 
the flying graysons said:
From the relativistic perspective of one of the photons of the so called solar wind ?
Click to expand...
What?

How about the slight difference in where this 'solar wind' came from?

When the solar wind hits the Earth you've got an error of 1 AU after said solar wind has only travelled the grand distance of 1 AU. Somehow I think we'd have noticed such an error in their angle of arrival?
 
the flying graysons said:
From your perspective
Click to expand...

You get him told! :lol:

moshpit said:
Because the motive force for the outflow of coronal material (solar wind) is the radiation pressure of the underlying photosphere. Wouldn't matter if the sun was 'held' stationary the coronal outflow and cme's would still continue.

You really ought to have a look at "newtons version of keplers third law"

Breathtakingly elegant and a wonder of the human mind.
Click to expand...

I have and it's canny most of the time, but can it be used to predict the motion of a planet orbiting a binary star system? If not, why not if it's so class?
 
Last edited:
AlpineExile said:
What?

How about the slight difference in where this 'solar wind' came from?

When the solar wind hits the Earth you've got an error of 1 AU after said solar wind has only travelled the grand distance of 1 AU. Somehow I think we'd have noticed such an error in their angle of arrival?
Click to expand...
How about what?

I am full of morphine mate can't even recall what your original error was now.
;)
That helical model is no more or less wrong than the copernicun atomic view of the solar system is all I am saying. Both have strengths and weakness but to call one of them an absolute truth is nonsense
 
"About what?" How about the tripe you posted that I was replying to in that post ....

But still, at least PM has just given you yet another 'like', which in all probability was your sole aim.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
You get him told! :lol:



I have and it's canny most of the time, but can it be used to predict the motion of a planet orbiting a binary star system? If not, why not if it's so class?
Click to expand...
You're trapped in your own circular argument mate. There are no 'problems' with Newton's laws. They work absolutely perfectly and nobody (except you :lol:) appears to be suggesting otherwise.

When we talk about the laws of gravity etc breaking down at the sub-atomic level you have to remember that Newtonian Mechanics turn out to be a private case of Quantum Mechanics. In some situations, the behavior of the sub-atomic particles can be described well enough by Newton's Laws, but the more general theory is that of Quantum Mechanics. To see the beauty and understand the basics of Quantum Mechanics, I would recommend reading about it in 'Feynman's Lectures on Physics' by R. P. Feynman.

If you could quantify what the problems are with exoplanets around binary stars I'll try and help becasue there are no issues that i've ever seen, and like i say i'm in the middle of of a degree studying them!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top