So you belong to the priesthood of the academia
You mean people who have an education?
Let met guess, you either didn't get in or you flunked out your first term. Thus your hatred for education.
So you belong to the priesthood of the academia
You mean people who have an education?
Let met guess, you either didn't get in or you flunked out your first term. Thus your hatred for education.
Let met guess, you either didn't get in or you flunked out your first term.
I'll take your non-reply as an affirmative.
Unfortunately, that violates the definition of "Planet" (spherical under its own gravity). What you would have is a very large space craft, not a planet.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.
I don't believe that "morphic resonance" has anything to do with acoustics but with a kind of mental telepathy.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:
Watch and learn. Here another one just for you:
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!
Unfortunately, that violates the definition of "Planet" (spherical under its own gravity). What you would have is a very large space craft, not a planet.
I don't believe that "morphic resonance" has anything to do with acoustics but with a kind of mental telepathy.
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.
Look, the whole import of my post was that someone then CHECKED the MIT measurements and found their conclusion was all balls. That's what I mean about you taking your brain out. You've read my post but seem unable to take in what it means!
I know you may WANT to believe G is variable but the accurate, proper measurements show that any variation there must be very small indeed and far far less that the MIT experiment found. So there is no problem to which your wacky theory is the solution.
But as for me, I prefer to be a common man and a student. I am more freer to chose what inspires and stimulate my own growth. I am not boxed-in by their disciplines, although I can admire them.
DUDE, it's called WIKIPEDIA... USE IT (don't abuse it).Well in that case, I would say I have no knowledge of its definition and I am following my own path of understanding.
Science - physics/astronomy is borrowing a discipline from Mathematics in their computations. They should be as professional about it and use the definition of the word "constant" as defined by Math from which they borrow.
But as for me, I prefer to be a common man and a student. I am more freer to chose what inspires and stimulate my own growth. I am not boxed-in by their disciplines, although I can admire them.
Do you understand this?
That's great. But you will learn far more by asking "what is 1 plus 1?" than saying "I believe that 1 plus 1 is 3! I heard someone say that on a YouTube video once, and I believe them because I am not boxed-in by all those fossilized mathematics teaching the 1+1=2 dogma! I am open minded and free!"
Chung, if you want to make the point that very, very small variation in G cannot be ruled out then of course you are quite right and nobody would disagree. That's why the astronomers and the physicists in the 2 papers I cited carefully state upper bounds to any scope for variation, rather than making a flat assertion that G is a constant.
But this illustrates the difference between observations and theories in science. The observations can only rule out variation in excess of the upper limits they state, because no physical measurement can be absolutely accurate. That is what they are saying, NOT that they have positively identified variations in G. You have to realise that Science is NOT LIKE accounting or mathematics in this respect.
Their findings are CONSISTENT with the THEORY of gravitation that takes it to be constant: F = GmM/r². All theories are models of the world that are considered good until data comes along that cannot fit it. The 2 papers show data that still fits. So they do not justify revising the theory to allow for G to vary.
You are most welcome to speculate about the possibility and consequences of a very small variation in G, so long as this is NO BIGGER THAN the upper limit set by these findings. But this will NOT be enough for it to be used to explain any of the phenomena you originally listed, and in fact all of those have other explanations already.
Do you understand this?
What chung appears to be saying here is that he's freer to make up whatever he wants, without any regard for reality.
Can a planet exist with no core, just empty space? Perhaps a bubble of molter rock could solidify filled with gas. How thick would the crust have to be for the planet to remain intact?
Water: If the planet contained some water would it pool at the bottom of the planet, or would it constantly slosh around?
Gravity: Would the spinning of the planet act as a centrifuge forcing the contents of the planet to the sides? So people in a hollow Earth would walk on the crust internally, as we do externally? Their 'sky' would be a ceiling with people walking on it!