>>>>>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to >>>>>sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" >>>>>all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. >>>>>A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal >>>>>cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >>>>>Since I have proof absolute that you said >>>>> "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 >>>>>you won't have a leg to stand on.
>>>> We were talking about doppler shift at the source. >>>> there isn't any in BaTh.
>>>>>>>> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>>>>>>>So the entire universe could be enclosed in such a shell and >>>>>>>we'd never know it. But what would be outside it?
>>>>>> inverse space. x = 1/X
>>>>>Not the question I asked.
>>>> No but its a good answer anyway.
>>>Only for a drunk.
>> It explains infinity. Space is inverse, It goes to zero when X = >> infinity..
>Only for an extreme drunk. >We mathematicians say division by zero is undefined. >a = b, given. >a^2 = ab, multiplying both sides by a. >a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2, subtracting b^2 from both sides. >(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b), factorising. >a+b = b, dividing both sides by (a-b). >b+b = b, because a = b, given. >2b = b, because b+b = 2b >2 = 1, dividing both sides by b. >Since 2b = b, proven, it follows a = 2b >and we can prove all numbers = 1, so all numbers are equal >but some are more equal than others. No infinity involved.
That's typical relativist logic. They will believe it.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:14:09 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 1:39 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:35:45 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> >> wrote:
>> >"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >> >news:lru1f5t6m6j2e4ho8hdecjtqrjqpeq5127@4ax.com... >> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:15:22 -0000, "Androcles" >> >>>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to >> >>>sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" >> >>>all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. >> >>>A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal >> >>>cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> >>>Since I have proof absolute that you said >> >>> "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson >> >>> http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 >> >>>you won't have a leg to stand on.
>> >> We were talking about doppler shift at the source. >> >> there isn't any in BaTh.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:54:28 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 9:43 am, amor...@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote: >> In article <80v1f5hg1od5qmuumsgu39gtpuh8fmn...@4ax.com>, >> Henry Wilson DSc <H@..> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:47:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> >>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:58:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@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.
That's right. One must consider the strength of the shell. Tennis balls are quite stable, spinning or not. Why not neutron stars?
>>>>>>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to >>>>>>sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" >>>>>>all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. >>>>>>A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal >>>>>>cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >>>>>>Since I have proof absolute that you said >>>>>> "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 >>>>>>you won't have a leg to stand on.
>>>>> We were talking about doppler shift at the source. >>>>> there isn't any in BaTh.
>>>>>>>>> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>>>>>>>>So the entire universe could be enclosed in such a shell and >>>>>>>>we'd never know it. But what would be outside it?
>>>>>>> inverse space. x = 1/X
>>>>>>Not the question I asked.
>>>>> No but its a good answer anyway.
>>>>Only for a drunk.
>>> It explains infinity. Space is inverse, It goes to zero when X = >>> infinity..
>>Only for an extreme drunk. >>We mathematicians say division by zero is undefined. >>a = b, given. >>a^2 = ab, multiplying both sides by a. >>a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2, subtracting b^2 from both sides. >>(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b), factorising. >>a+b = b, dividing both sides by (a-b). >>b+b = b, because a = b, given. >>2b = b, because b+b = 2b >>2 = 1, dividing both sides by b. >>Since 2b = b, proven, it follows a = 2b >>and we can prove all numbers = 1, so all numbers are equal >>but some are more equal than others. No infinity involved.
> That's typical relativist logic. They will believe it.
They already do, except they call 1/0 "infinity" as a typical relativist like you does. They have to, they believe in black holes.
http://bbc.co.uk/i/nslc4/ Broadcast on: BBC Two, 11:20pm Tuesday 3rd November 2009 Black holes are one of the most destructive forces in the universe, capable of tearing a planet apart and swallowing an entire star. Yet scientists now believe they could hold the key to answering the ultimate question - what was there before the Big Bang?
The trouble is that researching them is next to impossible. Black holes are by definition invisible and there's no scientific theory able to explain them. Despite these obvious obstacles, Horizon meets the astronomers attempting to image a black hole for the very first time and the theoretical physicists getting ever closer to unlocking their mysteries. It's a story that takes us into the heart of a black hole and to the very edge of what we think we know about the universe.
Nightcrawler wrote: > "BradGuth"-_- <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message_-_ news:05e0d78e-9094-4987-be3d_-_-e97b041db9de@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
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>news:osi2f5labhciqgut13v4164plvm9uphll1@4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:35:45 -0000, "Androcles" >>>> <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to >>>>>>>sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" >>>>>>>all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. >>>>>>>A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal >>>>>>>cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >>>>>>>Since I have proof absolute that you said >>>>>>> "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 >>>>>>>you won't have a leg to stand on.
>>>>>> We were talking about doppler shift at the source. >>>>>> there isn't any in BaTh.
>>>>>>>>>> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>>>>>>>>>So the entire universe could be enclosed in such a shell and >>>>>>>>>we'd never know it. But what would be outside it?
>>>>>>>> inverse space. x = 1/X
>>>>>>>Not the question I asked.
>>>>>> No but its a good answer anyway.
>>>>>Only for a drunk.
>>>> It explains infinity. Space is inverse, It goes to zero when X = >>>> infinity..
>>>Only for an extreme drunk. >>>We mathematicians say division by zero is undefined. >>>a = b, given. >>>a^2 = ab, multiplying both sides by a. >>>a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2, subtracting b^2 from both sides. >>>(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b), factorising. >>>a+b = b, dividing both sides by (a-b). >>>b+b = b, because a = b, given. >>>2b = b, because b+b = 2b >>>2 = 1, dividing both sides by b. >>>Since 2b = b, proven, it follows a = 2b >>>and we can prove all numbers = 1, so all numbers are equal >>>but some are more equal than others. No infinity involved.
>> That's typical relativist logic. They will believe it.
>They already do, except they call 1/0 "infinity" as a typical relativist >like you does. >They have to, they believe in black holes.
> http://bbc.co.uk/i/nslc4/ >Broadcast on: > BBC Two, 11:20pm Tuesday 3rd November 2009 >Black holes are one of the most destructive forces in the universe, capable >of tearing a planet apart and swallowing an entire star. Yet scientists now >believe they could hold the key to answering the ultimate question - what >was there before the Big Bang?
>The trouble is that researching them is next to impossible. Black holes are >by definition invisible and there's no scientific theory able to explain >them. Despite these obvious obstacles, Horizon meets the astronomers >attempting to image a black hole for the very first time and the theoretical >physicists getting ever closer to unlocking their mysteries. It's a story >that takes us into the heart of a black hole and to the very edge of what we >think we know about the universe.
A black hole is just a big neutron star or similar. where's the problem?.
><main>{hello world}<mode></code}print p = np. Quantum Mechanics:-_- >Nightcrawler wrote: >> "BradGuth"-_- <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message_-_ news:05e0d78e-9094-4987-be3d_-_-e97b041db9de@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
> > On Oct 30, 9:07 am, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in > > > messagenews:441e8ea2-89e4-4b3d-8091-50f193628723@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.
>> > On Oct 30, 9:07 am, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in >> > > messagenews:441e8ea2-89e4-4b3d-8091-50f193628723@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.
The moon is hollow. A nuclear explosion caused a bloody great cavity.
>>> > On Oct 30, 9:07 am, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>>> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in >>> > > messagenews:441e8ea2-89e4-4b3d-8091-50f193628723@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.
> The moon is hollow. A nuclear explosion caused a bloody great cavity.
The Moon has many hollow areas within it just as Earth has. Yes, there were many explosions back "in the day". The main thing that affected the Moon's interior was its close proximity to a very large mass.
Your website is very hard to read. The background shouts while the textual additions whisper. And we make it a policy not to download exec files. You could do so much better, Henry Wilson!
>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>news:osi2f5labhciqgut13v4164plvm9uphll1@4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:35:45 -0000, "Androcles" >>>>> <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to >>>>>>>>sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" >>>>>>>>all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. >>>>>>>>A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal >>>>>>>>cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >>>>>>>>Since I have proof absolute that you said >>>>>>>> "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson >>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 >>>>>>>>you won't have a leg to stand on.
>>>>>>> We were talking about doppler shift at the source. >>>>>>> there isn't any in BaTh.
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>>>>>>>>>>So the entire universe could be enclosed in such a shell and >>>>>>>>>>we'd never know it. But what would be outside it?
>>>>>>>>> inverse space. x = 1/X
>>>>>>>>Not the question I asked.
>>>>>>> No but its a good answer anyway.
>>>>>>Only for a drunk.
>>>>> It explains infinity. Space is inverse, It goes to zero when X = >>>>> infinity..
>>>>Only for an extreme drunk. >>>>We mathematicians say division by zero is undefined. >>>>a = b, given. >>>>a^2 = ab, multiplying both sides by a. >>>>a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2, subtracting b^2 from both sides. >>>>(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b), factorising. >>>>a+b = b, dividing both sides by (a-b). >>>>b+b = b, because a = b, given. >>>>2b = b, because b+b = 2b >>>>2 = 1, dividing both sides by b. >>>>Since 2b = b, proven, it follows a = 2b >>>>and we can prove all numbers = 1, so all numbers are equal >>>>but some are more equal than others. No infinity involved.
>>> That's typical relativist logic. They will believe it.
>>They already do, except they call 1/0 "infinity" as a typical relativist >>like you does. >>They have to, they believe in black holes.
>> http://bbc.co.uk/i/nslc4/ >>Broadcast on: >> BBC Two, 11:20pm Tuesday 3rd November 2009 >>Black holes are one of the most destructive forces in the universe, >>capable >>of tearing a planet apart and swallowing an entire star. Yet scientists >>now >>believe they could hold the key to answering the ultimate question - what >>was there before the Big Bang?
>>The trouble is that researching them is next to impossible. Black holes >>are >>by definition invisible and there's no scientific theory able to explain >>them. Despite these obvious obstacles, Horizon meets the astronomers >>attempting to image a black hole for the very first time and the >>theoretical >>physicists getting ever closer to unlocking their mysteries. It's a story >>that takes us into the heart of a black hole and to the very edge of what >>we >>think we know about the universe.
> A black hole is just a big neutron star or similar. where's the > problem?.
In Oz. Anything it doesn't understand it invents a quick solution to, according to its faulty intuition. It's called a "Wilson".
>>In article <9rv3f5pd5ap964d4g4mh0hleiq9o3ok...@4ax.com>, >>Henry Wilson DSc <H@..> wrote:
>>>That's right. One must consider the strength of the shell. >>>Tennis balls are quite stable, spinning or not. >>>Why not neutron stars?
>>Gravity. We've been over this.
>There's no gravity inside a honogeneous shell, dopey. It could easily be >hollow.
I never claimed there was. There is, however, a force that exerts on the shell itself. Make the shell sufficiently large/dense and it will collapse in on itself.
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >news:phs4f51pvc48d8pac92i1up75lfcariaqm@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 23:12:58 -0000, "Androcles" >> <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> >>>The trouble is that researching them is next to impossible. Black holes >>>are >>>by definition invisible and there's no scientific theory able to explain >>>them. Despite these obvious obstacles, Horizon meets the astronomers >>>attempting to image a black hole for the very first time and the >>>theoretical >>>physicists getting ever closer to unlocking their mysteries. It's a story >>>that takes us into the heart of a black hole and to the very edge of what >>>we >>>think we know about the universe.
>> A black hole is just a big neutron star or similar. where's the >> problem?.
>In Oz. Anything it doesn't understand it invents a quick solution to, >according to its faulty intuition. It's called a "Wilson".
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:59:43 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> What are the required conditions for spinning matter to condense into a HOLLOW >> ball rather than a solid one?
> Perhaps you could tell us how you think neutron starts come > to exist in the first place, Henry!
Gravity.
It condensed lots of matter into a spinning ball...then a bloody big explosion in the middle blew out an enormous spherical cavity. It wasn't enough to blow the star completely apart though.
>>>In article <9rv3f5pd5ap964d4g4mh0hleiq9o3ok...@4ax.com>, >>>Henry Wilson DSc <H@..> wrote:
>>>>That's right. One must consider the strength of the shell. >>>>Tennis balls are quite stable, spinning or not. >>>>Why not neutron stars?
>>>Gravity. We've been over this.
>>There's no gravity inside a honogeneous shell, dopey. It could easily be >>hollow.
>I never claimed there was. There is, however, a force that exerts on >the shell itself. Make the shell sufficiently large/dense and it will >collapse in on itself.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:55:51 -0500, "Darla" <darlap...@aol.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >news:eh05f5tu7vk99tatkkciarvchf3c9t56tu@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 02:12:15 -0500, "Darla" <darlap...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> > On Oct 30, 9:07 am, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>>>> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>> > > messagenews:441e8ea2-89e4-4b3d-8091-50f193628723@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.
>> The moon is hollow. A nuclear explosion caused a bloody great cavity.
>The Moon has many hollow areas within it just as Earth has. >Yes, there were many explosions back "in the day". >The main thing that affected the Moon's interior was its close proximity to >a very large mass.
>Your website is very hard to read. >The background shouts while the textual additions whisper. >And we make it a policy not to download exec files.
You are the loser. my programs are harmless. I wrote them.
Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:59:43 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> What are the required conditions for spinning matter to condense into a HOLLOW >>> ball rather than a solid one?
>> Perhaps you could tell us how you think neutron starts come >> to exist in the first place, Henry!
> Gravity.
> It condensed lots of matter into a spinning ball...then a bloody big explosion > in the middle blew out an enormous spherical cavity. It wasn't enough to blow > the star completely apart though.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:45:54 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:59:43 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>> What are the required conditions for spinning matter to condense into a HOLLOW >>>> ball rather than a solid one?
>>> Perhaps you could tell us how you think neutron starts come >>> to exist in the first place, Henry!
>> Gravity.
>> It condensed lots of matter into a spinning ball...then a bloody big explosion >> in the middle blew out an enormous spherical cavity. It wasn't enough to blow >> the star completely apart though.
> Bzzzt! > Henry, Henri--implosion not explosion!
> Do some self-education, Henri!
Wormey, as usual you are confused. This is what I am suggesting could happen.
The thing first condensed into a ball. Then, under intense gravitational pressure, the conditions in the cente became such that a mini nuclear fusion explosion occured, expanding and fusing the outside shell into a very strong structure. So it became a hollow ball, still attracting more external matter.
There are plenty of stable hollow balls around Wormey. Have a look in any shop..
>>>>The trouble is that researching them is next to impossible. Black holes >>>>are >>>>by definition invisible and there's no scientific theory able to explain >>>>them. Despite these obvious obstacles, Horizon meets the astronomers >>>>attempting to image a black hole for the very first time and the >>>>theoretical >>>>physicists getting ever closer to unlocking their mysteries. It's a >>>>story >>>>that takes us into the heart of a black hole and to the very edge of >>>>what >>>>we >>>>think we know about the universe.
>>> A black hole is just a big neutron star or similar. where's the >>> problem?.
>>In Oz. Anything it doesn't understand it invents a quick solution to, >>according to its faulty intuition. It's called a "Wilson".
> Prove I'm wrong then.
The fuckwit's fallacy: "Prove I'm wrong"... Burden of proof is upon the claimant. Bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes. Prove I'm wrong then. The Easter Bunny lays chocolate eggs. Prove I'm wrong then. The Tooth Fairy buys children's milk teeth. Prove I'm wrong then. Time dilates as speed increases. Prove Einstein wrong then. Where's the problem? The problem is in Oz, it's called an illogical Wilson.
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:59:43 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> What are the required conditions for spinning matter to condense into a >>> HOLLOW >>> ball rather than a solid one?
>> Perhaps you could tell us how you think neutron starts come >> to exist in the first place, Henry!
> Gravity.
> It condensed lots of matter into a spinning ball...then a bloody big > explosion > in the middle blew out an enormous spherical cavity. It wasn't enough to > blow > the star completely apart though.
Then the inside is padded and called a cell, the ideal habitat for a Wilson.
In article <6ph6f55f1irodr6qi2qgvtll6ndoari...@4ax.com>, Henry Wilson DSc <H@..> wrote:
[Where do neutron stars come from?]
>The thing first condensed into a ball. Then, under intense gravitational >pressure, the conditions in the cente became such that a mini nuclear fusion >explosion occured, expanding and fusing the outside shell into a very strong >structure. So it became a hollow ball, still attracting more external matter.
The surface of this "hollow ball" will be subjected to a gravitational force of, conservatively, a billion g's. It's going to take more than "a very strong structure" to withstand that - it's going to take magic.
|
