|
|
Post by cameron on Mar 25, 2007 7:28:39 GMT -4
Someone posted this to me. Any of you great minds like to tackle it?
]When the planet was in its molten form, spinning into existence before it cooled, how could it possibly remain solid to the core? It is against all logic and laws of force. When you look at the drawing of Donati’s Comet from 1853 for instance, you see how matter is hurled to the outside around a bright core or ‘sun’.
The earth is basiscally the same.
The very spin of a planet in the making creates centrifugal force which throws matter to the outside, very much like a spin dryer in which the clothes spin around a hole in the centre.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Mar 25, 2007 8:16:52 GMT -4
If the Earth was hollow the moons orbit would be messed up but would the moon being hollow compensate for this?
|
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 25, 2007 8:18:54 GMT -4
Someone posted this to me. Any of you great minds like to tackle it? ]When the planet was in its molten form, spinning into existence before it cooled, how could it possibly remain solid to the core? It is against all logic and laws of force. When you look at the drawing of Donati’s Comet from 1853 for instance, you see how matter is hurled to the outside around a bright core or ‘sun’.
The earth is basiscally the same.
The very spin of a planet in the making creates centrifugal force which throws matter to the outside, very much like a spin dryer in which the clothes spin around a hole in the centre.
It is very very wrong. If a planet was spinning fast enough to overcome its own gravity then it will just fly apart rather than create a hollow in the center. The reason that clothes in a washing machine form a hollow is that they are being pushed up against the drum, for a spinning planet there is no equivalent of the washing machine drum, the crust is far too weak to be able to contain the outward pressure that would be produced by a spun hollow planet (and there would be other little problems like the atmosphere being thrown off as well). As for the reference to Donati's Comet I would need the see the drawing that the person is referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Mar 25, 2007 8:41:26 GMT -4
I posted
So lets recap you think the quote above is the way the Earth and Moon were formed. Because of this you think the Earth and the Moon are both hollow. Furthermore you think the Earth and the Moon both being hollow would account for the Moons orbit. Is this accurate of you're thoughts?
To which he replied:
Plus: together with all the orbits of all the other spheres within a system - which, apparently, spins as well - who, apparently, interact in proportion to their nature, distance and all that, of course.
Orbit, Sphere, Spin ... hmmm, the aforementioned appear to have blatant commonalities. I think you are on to something here
Any ideas on the hollow moon hollow earth bit? I'm trying to get him to post the picture of the comet.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 25, 2007 8:42:55 GMT -4
Understanding the density of the interior of the Earth is based "in part" on our understanding of the mechanics of Earthquakes.
As the seismic waves from Earthquakes pass through the earth, they encounter different densities of matter. The waves increase/decrease speed, are deflected, etc. This is a well understood phenomena.
For hollow Earth proponents to be correct, they must provide evidence that Earthquake scientists are wrong.
In other words...not very likely..
|
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Mar 25, 2007 8:48:16 GMT -4
Wiki: Donati's Comet includes a copy of the drawing. In any case, the tail of a comet is not "hurled to the outside" due to any sort of spin, it is pushed out by the solar wind.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Mar 25, 2007 9:18:30 GMT -4
What laws of physics cover this subject. I know all somehow but who are the main players Newton i gather who else.
BTW thanks for the help i learn loads from you guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Mar 27, 2007 9:00:15 GMT -4
Understanding the density of the interior of the Earth is based "in part" on our understanding of the mechanics of Earthquakes. As the seismic waves from Earthquakes pass through the earth, they encounter different densities of matter. The waves increase/decrease speed, are deflected, etc. This is a well understood phenomena. For hollow Earth proponents to be correct, they must provide evidence that Earthquake scientists are wrong. In other words...not very likely.. Apparently they misinterpret the data im trying to get him to post how. darkconspiracy.trhonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=2091&start=105 |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 27, 2007 9:54:18 GMT -4
There seems little point in tackling the details until you get him to realise the difference between 'all logic and laws of force' and all his understanding of logic and laws of force.
Reasoning with someone who starts from the basis that their understanding is perfect and that all contrary evidence is wrong or distorted is difficult if not impossible, so save your breath, frankly.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Mar 27, 2007 9:58:55 GMT -4
I had to laugh when he posted:
When you research this subject, you might realise how little evidence the scientists produce for their indisputable ‘facts’
They have penetraded only a few miles into the Earth and their theories of what exists at deeper levels are just that – just like the hollow earth theories - theories.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 27, 2007 11:02:51 GMT -4
The moment of inertia of a spheroid of non-uniform density depends on knowing how density varies with depth, or radius. The devastating tsunamis in southeast Asia displaced enough mass to alter Earth's rotation, computably so. Computing how much the rotation was slowed depends on knowing accurate the Earth's moment of inertia. And the computed slowing in the rotation is empirically verifiable according to astronomical sidereal measurement. If the Earth were hollow, its moment of inertia would not be the same as is now understood.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Mar 28, 2007 7:02:44 GMT -4
It is very very wrong. If a planet was spinning fast enough to overcome its own gravity then it will just fly apart rather than create a hollow in the center. The reason that clothes in a washing machine form a hollow is that they are being pushed up against the drum, for a spinning planet there is no equivalent of the washing machine drum, the crust is far too weak to be able to contain the outward pressure that would be produced by a spun hollow planet (and there would be other little problems like the atmosphere being thrown off as well). As for the reference to Donati's Comet I would need the see the drawing that the person is referring to. I got a classic reply to this here we go: If thats actually the case then Newton could never have created gravity because the apple would have fallen up. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 28, 2007 11:15:22 GMT -4
Newton created gravity now? Wow....
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 28, 2007 11:17:32 GMT -4
It's a sound point, in a way though. Ask him why he finds it incredible that the planet could hold itself together when it has no trouble holding onto an atmosphere, oceans, us, etc.
If he contends the Earth spun faster in the past, ask him how fast it would have to spin to hollow out and what evidence he has that it ever spun that fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 28, 2007 11:29:33 GMT -4
The problem is still that hollowing is conjectured to have arisen from contained rotation, such as in a washing machine spin cycle. Your interlocutor's estimate of the required tensile strength of Earth's crust in such a model would likely be enlightening. Does he contend the Earth has a uniformly thick shell? If so, how does he account for hollowing beneath the poles where rotation would have a limited effect?
|
|
