Can a hollow planet exist?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Larry Johnson, Jun 10, 2013.

  1. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158


    No it will not collapse on itself if there is a presence of inner sun that generates a push gravity towards the shell. The people will be pushed towards the inner concave walls of the 800 mile thick shell but their weight will be less because there will be less space-time curvature within the containment. And for that matter, they are subject to a different kind of time dilation than that on the surface.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158
    Some videos and links

    Newton vs Einstein:
    [video=youtube_share;4yyb_RNJWUM]http://youtu.be/4yyb_RNJWUM[/video]


    link for a Sheldrake material.


    Time and Gravity
    [video=youtube_share;YByqTYzeJww]http://youtu.be/YByqTYzeJww[/video]


    Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK
    [video=youtube_share;JKHUaNAxsTg]http://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg[/video]
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158

    Woo-woo from post# 17

    Gravity is a push:
    [video=youtube_share;Nsda1U3Vdfk]http://youtu.be/Nsda1U3Vdfk[/video]


    * Tunnels and Portals:

    "The curvatures around space objects may intersect and create a current that can be used as space elevator or an invisible cosmic sail wind to speed up travel.

    The galactic central sun can use these tunnels to send new energies (via a relay mode or directly) to our sun and then to earth.

    When space tunnels or such phenomena occur, portals may become visible. Flying a compatible ship through them will be like zipping with the speed of tachyon. Travel will be faster than light."

    [video=youtube_share;p4-rlmqJ24o]http://youtu.be/p4-rlmqJ24o[/video]
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,405
    OK Chung, as I don't do YouTube videos I've focused on the one WRITTEN link on the variation of the gravitational Constant, G. This link is to a Huffington Post article by Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist, who has a book out that he is promoting, called "The Science Delusion". In the article he refers to a very simple experiment (using the classical c.19th lab equipment set-up, i.e. the 2 balls on the torsion balance method) done in 2002 at MIT by Gershteyn et al, which seemed to show spatial anisotropy of G, between roughly 6.6 and 6.7 x 10 ⁻¹¹, varying between these values daily.

    But Sheldrake says nothing about the much more rigorous work done a couple of years later, reported here:

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0209093.pdf

    which fairly comprehensively demolishes Gershteyn and suggests in the final para some possible artifacts that could account for the variations reported.

    I also found another paper, here:http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/498/2/871/fulltext/36546.text.html

    by astronomers who researched the possibility of long term variation of G in time. This used helioseismology, on the basis that any variation in G would lead to a ratio of H to He in the sun different from prediction, since a change in the force of gravity would alter the rate of "burning" of the solar reactions over time. They were able to set an upper limit of variation that is extremely small.

    So, while I do agree with you that the observed constancy of G is purely empirical, it HAS been checked, thoroughly, and it DOES seem to be constant, the eccentric views of one elderly biologist notwithstanding.
     
  8. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158

    It varies, so it is not a constant. Have they found out why?

    May be I have theorized already what they needed. Gravity as we experience on earth's surface is due to the curvature of space induced by the resonance flow from inner sun compressed by resonance of helios permeating the entire heliosphere.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2013
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,405
    You've taken your brain out. Re-read my post and try again.
     
  10. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158
    No need to be hurt. "They were able to set an upper limit of variation that is extremely small." With much more rigorous work done a couple of years later, G is a fairly constant constant that varies slightly.

    The observed constancy of G which is purely empirical has been checked and the upper limit of variance was set under the rigorous work done (for a couple of year that they were doing it). It has become a "varying constant".
     
  11. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158
    Shepherd Moons Pushing the Ice Crystals

    Here is a live demonstration of Push Gravity from NASA (without admitting it):
    [video=youtube_share;-SrHxbwTW8U]http://youtu.be/-SrHxbwTW8U[/video]
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,611
    You do not have a theory. As with the rest of the post it appears you use scientific terms without understanding them.

    What you have is an unevidenced wild-assed conjecture. Youtube videos are not very good evidence.

    There is always variation in measurements (another scientific principle you apparently do not 'get') so no physical constant can be measured with zero variablity, there are always error bars.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,724
    It must be tiring to cling to the surface of the Earth that keeps trying to push you away!
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,405
    OK. Look, a prudent scientist doesn't claim zero variation , he puts an upper limit on its variability, according to the accuracy of the determinatin he has made. That does not make the quantity a variable. Look up Error bars.
     
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Newton's shell theorem. There's no gravitational field inside the shell. If the shell of the hollow planet is spherically symmetrical then the gravitational field = 0. If the hollow planet shell is approximately spherical symmetric then the internal gravitational field will be slightly > 0. Since that's the case what do you think the physics would reveal if we put a small amount of water inside a non-rotating spherically symmetric hollow planet? Very small total water mass relative to the total mass of the spherical shell. What happens to the water if the hollow planet is rotating slowly [like Earth]? Once the shell is rotating the Kerr metric tells us the shell can no longer be spherically symmetric and the shell mass increases because the angular momentum associated with the rotating shell is summed to mass not associated with the rotation. For the case of approximate non rotating, approximate spherically symmetric [like Earth], a very small mass of water relative to the mass of the shell, the water should migrate to the center of the sphere due to a very small gravitational field associated with the rotation and imperfections in the spherical symmetry.
    Newton's shell theorem.
    http://www.math.ksu.edu/~dbski/writings/shell.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2013
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,724
    Agreed but for a different reason. If there is water in the shell, evenly distributed, there WILL be a net gravitational field - caused by the water. This will tend to collect the water near the center although there will not be a strong centering force. (And at smaller sizes forces like surface tension will dominate.)
     
  17. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158

    A Pi is a constant, though it is somewhat problematic due to long lines of numbers off the decimal point. It has never been reported to vary. But the so called 'universal' gravitational constant varies. When the Newtonian formula is applied G turns to have variances either via certain time differences they were applied or the location they were applied.

    The application of Pi can create a drawing of circle, while the application of Newton's gravitation formula results to a derived G which varies.
     
  18. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158
    If you derived Pi from a certain circle, you should be able to produce a similar circle using the Pi you derived.

    With G, you can derive it this year to a limit of accuracy but when you apply it several months thereafter to the same degree of accuracy you derived, you must arrive at the same actual result. And apparently, that was not the case because Sheldrake verified it had 1.3% variance. That may be negligible for some but when applying to planetary mass, it can result to big numbers.
     
  19. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158
    An inflated basketball retains its shape even when subjected to shock because there is a counter force inside that pushes the shell outwards. A hollow planet may only exist if there is a push towards the shell acting in equilibrium towards all the points of the inner shell and in equilibrium with any force that tends to collapse the outer shell towards the center.

    In answer to the OP, that is how I can envision it to be feasible.
     
  20. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    It should be mentioned that Rupert Shelldrake is a woo-woo artist.

    One of his claims to fame relates to the concept of morphic resonance. Cute sound bite phrase, isn't it?

    This claims that there is some species memory or group mind. When a threshold number of members of a species gains some particular knowledge, all other members of the species become aware of that information.

    It is alleged that monkeys on an island learned some technique, which spread to all others on that island. When the threshold number was reached, monkeys on another island became aware of the technique.​


    I wonder if he made this up or became an advocate of somebody else's woo-woo.
     
  21. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    We have a disciple of his here.
     
  22. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158

    I don't know Sheldrake really. I just happen to agree with that particular view of G being not constant. Do you believe it is a constant, despite it varying (not due to instrumentation calibration)? If you do, then go back to your math teachers and indoctrinate them about a new definition of constant.

    Now for morphic resonance, I wouldnt know how others define it. But here are demonstrated abilities of sound to influence the shape of matter. If you don't believe this, take it up to the video maker or ask your professors to debunk it as just another woo-woo:
    [video=youtube_share;uENITui5_jU]http://youtu.be/uENITui5_jU[/video]

    Watch and learn. Here another one just for you:
    [video=youtube_share;wvJAgrUBF4w]http://youtu.be/wvJAgrUBF4w[/video]

    Apparently, Tesla believe also that frequency/resonance have major effect in creating a grid into which particles fall in to create various configurations. If that is a woo-woo, then tell your teachers to learn it!
     
  23. chung Registered Member

    Messages:
    158
    So you belong to the priesthood of the academia. Your major job is now to be a parrot!
     

Share This Page