What would happen if the earth were hollow?

Originally posted by Sly1one
Because consequently the fundamental building blocks that make up mass only function due to spin or "orbit"...I would imagine if you reduced the spin/orbit of electrons to nothing mass wouldn't exist...and consequently neither would gravity.

There is a state of matter called plasma, and hydrogen plasma has no electron. There is no evidence such particles without the electron are massless. On the contrary, we can measure things like the mass to charge ratio of such plasma atoms with a good deal of precision, and these measurements contradict your idea.

I posted this video on another conspiracy forum a couple days ago. People keep calling me a disinformation agent. I think it's funny, but seriously?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I am sorry, but I believe it is angular movement that causes gravity...what about the planes they use to train astronauts? That plane goes up and down at angles and results in periods of weightlessness...further, it is the spin of any space station that results in gravity on the inside...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Sly1one
Because consequently the fundamental building blocks that make up mass only function due to spin or "orbit"...I would imagine if you reduced the spin/orbit of electrons to nothing mass wouldn't exist...and consequently neither would gravity.

There is a state of matter called plasma, and hydrogen plasma has no electron. There is no evidence such particles without the electron are massless. On the contrary, we can measure things like the mass to charge ratio of such plasma atoms with a good deal of precision, and these measurements contradict your idea.

edit on 10-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Thanks for the reply and clarification and reply.

I am curious though if there is evidence of a large mass object not spinning on its axis that would have a gravitational effect...I don't think it would. Wouldn't it need to be spinning on its axis to have a gravitational effect? or at least have a "core" that is spinning on ITS axis?

reply to post by Sly1one

I am curious though if there is evidence of a large mass object not spinning on its axis that would have a gravitational effect...I don't think it would. Wouldn't it need to be spinning on its axis to have a gravitational effect? or at least have a "core" that is spinning on ITS axis?

I do not believe any core is necessary...hence my reply to Arbitrageur about the planes used for astronaut training and the space stations forming gravity simply by movement....

Originally posted by Sly1one
Thanks for the reply and clarification and reply.

I am curious though if there is evidence of a large mass object not spinning on its axis that would have a gravitational effect...I don't think it would. Wouldn't it need to be spinning on its axis to have a gravitational effect? or at least have a "core" that is spinning on ITS axis?

It's hard to find an object that's not spinning at all, however if your idea is that the faster an object spins, the more gravity, we can find objects that rotate very slowly, such as the moon. Since the same side of the moon always faces the Earth, it's rotational period is very slow. On mercury the rotation is even slower, since its day is about twice as long as its year (1.999 actually).

www.universetoday.com...

The rotation of Mercury is a little strange to Earth bound creatures. It rotates on its axis very slowly compared to its orbital period. One rotation takes 175.97 Earth days according to NASA’s Solar System Exploration webpage, while one orbital period only takes 88 Earth days. The day is 1.999 times as long as a single year. The planet’s equatorial rotational speed is 10.892 km/h. These periods are given in solar days. In sidereal days Mercury rotates every 58.647 days and orbits twice during every three rotations.

We planned the messenger probe flyby of Mercury based on Mercury's gravity so we know it has gravity as expected from formulas that don't rely on rotation.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I am sorry, but I believe it is angular movement that causes gravity...what about the planes they use to train astronauts? That plane goes up and down at angles and results in periods of weightlessness...further, it is the spin of any space station that results in gravity on the inside...

The plane you refer to has been not so affectionately called the "Vomit Comet" but I don't understand why you think this says anything about angular movement and gravity. You may as well mention a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. They still experience gravity as they accelerate to terminal velocity, where air friction then balances out the acceleration. In the "Vomit Comet" they accelerate like a skydiver does but don't have the same air friction. There's a lot of confusion about this since it's sometimes described as a "zero-g" feeling but it's anything but zero-g. Even the astronauts which appear to be in zero-G conditions, are not. Gravity on the ISS is not that much lower than it is on Earth. The Zero-G appearance is an illusion.

www.universetoday.com...

if you’re up at the altitude of the International Space Station, you only experience 90% of the force of gravity you’d feel on the surface

90% gravity is not zero G, it only looks like it, and on the vomit comet it's 99%+ of full gravity they are experiencing at all times. They are also subject to other, non-gravitational forces due to the plane's maneuvers.

Spinning space stations can appear to provide "artificial gravity", but this is not a true gravitational effect. It's more like the effect you get from twirling a ball on a string...there are forces involved, but they are not gravitational forces.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Sly1one
Thanks for the reply and clarification and reply.

I am curious though if there is evidence of a large mass object not spinning on its axis that would have a gravitational effect...I don't think it would. Wouldn't it need to be spinning on its axis to have a gravitational effect? or at least have a "core" that is spinning on ITS axis?

It's hard to find an object that's not spinning at all, however if your idea is that the faster an object spins, the more gravity, we can find objects that rotate very slowly, such as the moon. Since the same side of the moon always faces the Earth, it's rotational period is very slow. On mercury the rotation is even slower, since its day is about twice as long as its year (1.999 actually).

www.universetoday.com...

The rotation of Mercury is a little strange to Earth bound creatures. It rotates on its axis very slowly compared to its orbital period. One rotation takes 175.97 Earth days according to NASA’s Solar System Exploration webpage, while one orbital period only takes 88 Earth days. The day is 1.999 times as long as a single year. The planet’s equatorial rotational speed is 10.892 km/h. These periods are given in solar days. In sidereal days Mercury rotates every 58.647 days and orbits twice during every three rotations.

We planned the messenger probe flyby of Mercury based on Mercury's gravity so we know it has gravity as expected from formulas that don't rely on rotation.

Thanks for the elaboration but my idea isn't solely about the speed of rotation but the speed of angular momentum in relation to the objects size/mass. The ratio being the larger the object and the faster the rotation the more gravity as seen with Jupiter. The lower the mass and speed in relation to each other the lower the gravity. Mass/size being a point of reference for Speed in determining how much gravity is experienced.

So in instances like mercury and the moon they may be rotating "slowly" but they are also fairly small and the gravity experienced on both is less than earth about 38%(mercury) and 17%(moon).

One other way of illustrating what I'm talking about is the amount of space a point on the surface of a planet travels through on its orbit and how fast it makes a full rotation being the indicator of how much gravity is created or experienced.

I understand how impossible this would be to test as you would need a completely stationary mass as a control for any experiment and that simply doesn't exist.

So I guess well never know if its simply mass or mass in angular momentum that creates gravity and how much.


edit: They determined the gravitational effect from mercury on the probe without considering the rotational speed of the planet yes but what I'm implying or asking rather is that only a certain mass can be attained from a certain rotational speed due to the weight of elements and how they distribute themselves according to their atomic weight. Slower rotation will have denser/heavier elements and faster rotation having more mass from its ability to retain even hydrogen and helium such as in Jupiter case. This contributes not only to its mass but its overall size. Im implying that the size of the planet/mass is a consequence of its angular momentum and gravity is a consequence of the angular momentum AND the mass accumulated.

reply to post by blahxd67


Sorry I'm late but,

Florida

Originally posted by firsttimecaller
reply to post by blahxd67

 

Sorry I'm late but,

Florida

Are you saying this proves earth is hollow? If so, it doesn't. Earth's crust goes much much deeper than that.It's 3 to 6 miles deep. the link you posted only mentions 100 feet deep.

A common theory is that there is an electromagnetic powered sun at the core of hollow earth if it were to be hollow. Here is a good website on this theory. www.2012.com.au...

then it would be like a nestle's wonderball candy.. i wonder what kind of prize is inside... but really if the earth were hollow, there would be a good chance that if enough gasses/heat built up in the middle the earth would explode if there were no relief valves like volcanoes and such..it would be a bad scenario

Originally posted by Sly1one
I understand how impossible this would be to test as you would need a completely stationary mass as a control for any experiment and that simply doesn't exist.

False. The idea can be tested without finding such a mass.

So I guess well never know if its simply mass or mass in angular momentum that creates gravity and how much.

Just define what you think the mathematical relationship is and it can be tested. It's not necessary to have a stationary body to test it, all that you need are bodies rotating at various rates and you have enough of those to test your math. So, what is your math?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Sly1one
I understand how impossible this would be to test as you would need a completely stationary mass as a control for any experiment and that simply doesn't exist.

False. The idea can be tested without finding such a mass.

So I guess well never know if its simply mass or mass in angular momentum that creates gravity and how much.

Just define what you think the mathematical relationship is and it can be tested. It's not necessary to have a stationary body to test it, all that you need are bodies rotating at various rates and you have enough of those to test your math. So, what is your math?

well to be completely honest I haven't done the math...its simply been a rough thought or idea I had been discussing/pondering up to this point.

I don't want to derail the OP too much though so I will have to make a new thread on it to discuss this further.

I do appreciate your input though so thanks for that.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

...but I don't understand why you think this says anything about angular movement and gravity

Well, when you SEE people FLOATING in a weightless state, it would seem SEEING IS BELIEVING...

reply to post by blahxd67


One of my favorite subjects.

The cause of our Earth's magnetic field has been wildly debated for hundreds of years. Yes, mainstream and conventional science have settled with the 'molten core' theory, but there are many scientific studies and papers by intelligent individuals with alternate theories, some more 'unconventional' than others.
Here is just one example,

Scientific paper published in New Journal of Physics (co-owned by the Institute of Physics and the German Physical Society), ‘Secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field: induced by the ocean flow?’
Magnetic field, scientific study

Gaseous planetary bodies like our sun and other large planets of our solar system have magnetic fields. Maybe magnetic fields are generated under different native circumstances or it could be more of a universal effect from unknown cosmic forces.

Personally, I think a spinning planetary body in formation would have zero gravity in its center, so mass would accumulate where gravitational and centrifugal forces are balanced within the area of the spinning matter, and that form would be a sphere with openings at the top and bottom, like a hurricane of matter in space – not as a solid body with a solid center (the center has zero gravity)

Not to mention, our planet rings like a struck bell after an earthquake.

There are many, many well written books on hollow earth studies with examples of evidence and scientific research. I have almost all of them

reply to post by ArchaicDesigns


Here's an article on why the earth rings like a bell
www.theregister.co.uk...

reply to post by ArchaicDesigns


Who wrote these books anyways? Are they credible researchers? Would you care to share the names of the books with me as well?

Originally posted by totallackey
Well, when you SEE people FLOATING in a weightless state, it would seem SEEING IS BELIEVING...

I have an idea for a sequel to the movie called "I know what I saw".

The sequel is called: "You Don't Know What You Saw"

If you could climb up a long ladder to the altitude of the ISS, and get on a scale, the scale would show you weigh about 90% of your weight on Earth's surface. The astronauts in the ISS are subject to the same 90% gravity.

But our eyes and other senses of perception fool us all the time, so what else is new?

Weightlessness

A common conception about spacecraft orbiting the earth is that they are operating in a gravity free environment. ...

Spacecrafts are held in orbit by the gravity of the planet which they are orbiting. In Newtonian physics, the sensation of weightlessness experienced by astronauts is not the result of there being zero gravitational acceleration (as seen from the Earth), but of there being no g-force that an astronaut can feel because of the free-fall condition, and also there being zero difference between the acceleration of the spacecraft and the acceleration of the astronaut. Space journalist James Oberg explains the phenomenon this way:[1]

The myth that satellites remain in orbit because they have "escaped Earth's gravity" is perpetuated further (and falsely) by almost universal misuse of the word "zero gravity" to describe the free-falling conditions aboard orbiting space vehicles. Of course, this isn't true; gravity still exists in space. It keeps satellites from flying straight off into interstellar emptiness. What's missing is "weight", the resistance of gravitational attraction by an anchored structure or a counterforce. Satellites stay in space because of their tremendous horizontal speed, which allows them — while being unavoidably pulled toward Earth by gravity — to fall "over the horizon." The ground's curved withdrawal along the Earth's round surface offsets the satellites' fall toward the ground. Speed, not position or lack of gravity, keeps satellites in orbit around the earth.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I imagine that eventually, someone will be stupid enough to finally dig down to the first layer beneath the crust and create Earth's very own man-made Mt. Olympus.

Nah. Geothermal drills have hit magma a few times. Nothing much happened.

But there is a project to go further.
www.iodp.org...

edit on 3/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

www.iodp.org...

After reading some of the proposals on page 8, it sounds like "BP' is fishing. Discussing the actual drilling time verses the labor involved. About 13-24 % of the time actually drilling, the rest pulling the worn bits for replacement.
Sounds like any Mega Construction outfit....... ' you got the bucks? ....... sure, we can accommodate ya '

Not saying it can't be done, but at a $Mill a day, sure....... And just who's going to pay for this.
Thanks for the Link Phage, enlightening....!

dang no one thinks out of the box anymore

my main question is if the center is a crystal are we missing out on lots of other things like how crystals effect our magnetic field or actuallly there should be a way to tap that crystals resonating as energy..

many many new ideas