That is a fascinating area the was formed during the ice age. It was not Lake Bonneville, that is in Utah, the lake that caused the canyons, dry waterfalls and pot holes was near the Canadian / USA border as I recall.
Can a hollow planet exist?
- Thread starter Larry Johnson
- Start date
That is a fascinating area the was formed during the ice age. It was not Lake Bonneville, that is in Utah, the lake that caused the canyons, dry waterfalls and pot holes was near the Canadian / USA border as I recall.
KitemanSA
Registered Senior Member
Right you are. Lake Bonneville did indeed flood the area and help form the Columbia River gourge, but it was Lake Missoula that created the scablands (not scrublands as I stated).
None-the-less, the message remains accurate, such unusual actions did occur. Tales of earth ending floods abound because the were MANY "world ending" floods at the end of the ice age. At least the floods destroyed all the world the lucky survivers had known.
Consider things scientists proved were "facts" long ago but which have since been proven to be false.
How long were some of those "facts" held to be true before they were proven false?
I'm stating that some scientific "facts" held to be true now may well turn out to be proven false at some later time.
Also, sometimes a past "fact" which was later proven false has been resurrected in a new form, and the general concensus becomes that it is possible that the resurrected form may turn out to be true. An example of this is Le Sage's theory of gravitation in which particles called "ultra-mundane corpuscles" were responsible for gravity. His theory and the existence of "ultra-mundane corpuscles" was later proven wrong. Now there are Quantum physicists theorizing about gravitons and the general concensus is they will probably be proven to exist.
So, just because the general concensus now is that no planet is hollow, doesn't mean the general concensus among scientists will not change in the future.
How long were some of those "facts" held to be true before they were proven false?
I'm stating that some scientific "facts" held to be true now may well turn out to be proven false at some later time.
Also, sometimes a past "fact" which was later proven false has been resurrected in a new form, and the general concensus becomes that it is possible that the resurrected form may turn out to be true. An example of this is Le Sage's theory of gravitation in which particles called "ultra-mundane corpuscles" were responsible for gravity. His theory and the existence of "ultra-mundane corpuscles" was later proven wrong. Now there are Quantum physicists theorizing about gravitons and the general concensus is they will probably be proven to exist.
So, just because the general concensus now is that no planet is hollow, doesn't mean the general concensus among scientists will not change in the future.
Last edited:
True! And even though scientists currently do not think the moon is made of cheese, that consensus may change in the future as well. Perhaps even a hollow sort of cheese - Swiss? It would certainly solve our Swiss cheese shortages here on Earth.
You are a Swiss mouse, right?
More Austrian than Swiss actually.
KitemanSA
Registered Senior Member
It is not so much a matter of "consensus" as a matter of definition. The definition of planet precludes a hollow sphere.
A planet is spherical BY ITS OWN GRAVITY. A hollow sphere wouldn't be.
Hence the complications of a hollow planet coming into existence
flat universe
Registered Member
I don't believe so. Theoretically, the spin could support such a planet at the equator. However, what would support the planet in the polar regions? Rock forming minerals would not be strong enough, assuming you are talking about a planet at least the size of Mercury or larger.
That would depend on speed of the rotation and/or the density of the molten mass