The earth's core is hollow? (Big bang and bubbles III)

[Christ slave]

Christ Slave' date=' get over the martyr complex. No one here dislikes you or attacks you because you profess to be a Christian.

 

Your posts are attacked because they are illogical, poorly argued, irrational and deluded.

 

Elves and dinosaurs living in a bubble under the surface of the Earth. This idea backed up with pictures of a Sturgeon.

 

Claims of superiority over the philosophers and thinkers of 2000 years ago backed up with analogues of Cosmic Chickens and Christ Dogs.

 

Drivel about Atlantis and searchs at the North Pole for tunnels to the big bubble which is apparently a vacuum and exerts pressure and has things living in it.

 

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?[/quote']Perhaps you should get over reading my posts and responding to me? I don't understand your incessant need to fight with me. I rarely even talk to you and you find the need to constantly make me that martyr. Put me on ignore. This not a request, this is a demand of respect, because henceforth I have no need to even talk to you, as you persistently like to nose in where you don't belong.

 

It would be beneficial to the entire community if you would simply put me on ignore because you have some unnatural attraction to bickering with me. I was posting to Sayo, not you, and I'd be willing to think you know that.

[Christ slave]

This is utter' date=' complete, irredeemable, coagulated nonsense. Speculation often gives rise to scientific discoveries. Many/most such discoveries arise out of speculation. Speculation does not, cannot, never will [b']prove [/b]anything.

Whether or not the truth lies within. the proof lies without..

That is exactly what I meant when I said it's on the grounds of speculation--scientific discovery, that is. Does not the ground give rise to things? Without the ground, where is a reference point to rise? Why you called it nonsense and then agree with me I do not know for certain.

[5614]

If indeed this is simply the start of a "theory", and perhaps scientifically one might not consider it a "theory" but more of an "idea", then if threads are not allowed to be started to pose an idea for others to add onto, perhaps you should let me know, lest you get aroused to anger with me further.

Then to make it valid and worthwhile IMO you need to do 2 things:

 

1) Add some proof to your 'idea' to make it realistic and a bit more of a scientific theory &

 

2) Disproof the current theory... your idea doesnt work because of the theory of how planets form and the theory of planets in general and the theory of seismic activity and the theory of volcanoes and the theory of gravity and the theory of the Earth.

 

And theories are the best you are going to get in science -- I think you know that, just don't make a comment about all of #2 being theories. And there's a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. I think it will rain solid weapon grade uranium tomorrow - that's a theory, it would not be a scientific theory because there's no proof or evidence, it's totaly unrealistic, illogical and impossible.

[Ophiolite]

That is exactly what I meant when I said it's on the grounds of speculation--scientific discovery, that is. Does not the ground give rise to things? Without the ground, where is a reference point to rise? Why you called it nonsense and then agree with me I do not know for certain.

In an earlier post, the one I was replying to you made the following statements.

Not all things are proven solely on the grounds of scientific discovery, but often (frequently) on the grounds of speculation

To paraphrase your statement, you are stating "Some things are frequently proven on the grounds of speculation."

This is what I characterised as "utter, complete, irredeemable, coagulated nonsense".

Nothing is ever proven on the grounds of speculation.

Speculation can give rise to thoughts and concepts that may be later proven by experiment or observation.

Those are two completely separate things. Indeed proof through experiment is the very antithesis of proof by speculation. The first lies at the heart of the scientific method, the second is a logical contradiction. So, no, in this regard I definitively did not agree with you.

Is the distinction between the two clear now? You have stated that some proof can be by speculation. This is nonsense. If you agree we can proceed with further discussion of your ideas.

[Christ slave]

Actually, what I meant is that speculation leads to proof. It is quite clear speculation itself is not proof, so yes, let us move forward.

[Ophiolite]

Excellent. May I suggest that there may be other contradictions in your writing that have produced some of the reactions you have experienced. If so a slightly more rigorous editing regimen may eliminate these.

I'm re-reading your opening post to make further observations (or questions)......

[Ophiolite]

CS, we have examined and analysed hundreds of meteorites. Simplistically they fall into two classes: the stones and the irons. Observations of the asteroids at various wavelengths, and determination of their densities where pairs co-orbit, confirms they are of the same material.

Current theory on the origin of planetary systems in general and ours in particular hold that the terrestrial planets are formed of similar materials, combining via accretion at the birth of the solar system. The theory is supported by an abundance of detailed observations.

That being the case there is no possibility of a hollow earth as you postulate.

 

Other contra-indicators include:

1) The evidence of seismic waves quoted by 5614

2) The inadquate strength of crustal material to sustain its form around a hollow interior.

3) The need for an impossibly dense material below the crust to explain the observed density of the Earth.

 

CS, I appeal to you to abandon this flight of fancy and put your imagination to work understanding the wonders that science has already revealed about the World.

 

Edit - PS: May I suggest this, directed by you to Aardvark, is not helpful

"as you persistently like to nose in where you don't belong"

This is a public forum. Aardvark, like you, is a member of the forum. He does belong here. He is free, within reason, to say what he wishes. You have posted some ideas, starting several threads. You must expect disagreement and even vilification on occasion. You really cannot post ideas, that I think you know are controversial, and not expect a reaction. By all means ignore Aardvark if you wish - that is your loss. But please don't say he does not belong here responding to any post that is made.

[Aardvark]

Put me on ignore. This not a request, this is a demand of respect, because henceforth I have no need to even talk to you, as you persistently like to nose in where you don't belong.

 

You don't have the right to demand anything of me, especialy you don't have the right to demand respect. This is a public discussion forum, i belong here just as much as anyone else.

 

 

It would be beneficial to the entire community if you would simply put me on ignore because you have some unnatural attraction to bickering with me. I was posting to Sayo, not you, and I'd be willing to think you know that.

 

Don't you understand the concept of a public forum? If you wish to carry out a private discussion with Sayonara then use the PM service, all public postings you make are open to the public for comment and discussion.

 

As to bickering with you, this is a discussion forum. People put forward different ideas and present reasoning, evidence and logic to back them. If you find that too hard then you need to reconsider whether you want to continue with your posting.

 

I note that you haven't been able to response to any of the objections make to your ideas, either by me or my felow forum members.

[Christ slave]

Edit - PS: May I suggest this' date=' directed by you to Aardvark, is not helpful

"as you persistently like to nose in where you don't belong"

This is a public forum. Aardvark, like you, is a member of the forum. He does belong here. He is free, within reason, to say what he wishes. You have posted some ideas, starting several threads. You must expect disagreement and even vilification on occasion. You really cannot post ideas, that I think you know are controversial, and not expect a reaction. By all means ignore Aardvark if you wish - that is your loss. But please don't say he does not belong here responding to [b']any[/b] post that is made.

His nosing in on my personal business and character is where he doesn't belong. Me and you have been getting along pretty well lately, and I'm glad...but let's not be shallow. I am not telling Aardvark to build a fence in the public area, but I am telling him to build a fence away from me, at least...and if you knew some of his other posts, you'd agree.

[Christ slave]

I note that you haven't been able to response to any of the objections make to your ideas, either by me or my felow forum members.

"My fellow forum members"? Okay, fine.

 

But, anyhow, stop throwing around accusations, no one ever said I had to counter-argue everyone's objections. I never claimed to know everything.

[5614]

Obviously, but you should at least try to proove your idea... this is a science forum.... to proof your idea right you must prove the current one wrong... which involves doing what I said in post #52 (esp. the 2nd point).

[Christ slave]

Obviously, but you should at least try to proove your idea... this is a science forum.... to proof your idea right you must prove the current one wrong... which involves doing what I said in post #52 (esp. the 2nd point)[/i'].

Oh I know, but I have several options to that: provide proof of fallancy

call them liars

or provide some other findings

 

I don't want to get into those options in this thread yet, be patient. I am trying to discuss middle earth as a possibility now and the implications, and it seems some people like you are too far ahead of the game and want to rush rush. Be patient, please You want a hypothesis.

[CPL.Luke]

Christ slave are you familiar with occams razor?

 

if not it is the idea that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is almost always right (paraphrased)

 

in your idea of a hollow earth you havn't provided any mechanism for the formation of a hollow earth, nor any reason why it could exist. nor any evidence that any of this is needed.

 

you are currently assuming a huge portion of your idea. according to occams razor the previous standing theories about planet formation and gravity and whatnot would be considered correct.

 

by the way have you read Journey To The Center Of The Earth by Jules Vearne(sp)

 

its a good book, that talks about very similar things.

[Christ slave]

Well, I figure if you can see a bubble form, perhaps planets, like bubbles of air or other elements that form when submerged in foreign substances (such as matter within space, air within water, air within magma, or something else), this explains why planets are so perfectly round.

 

If you'd look at the formation of bubbles and their characteristics when floating on the surface of a glass of milk or spiraling down a drain, they take on the very properties of what we might assume to be gravity.

 

The smaller bubbles cling to the outside of a larger group of bubbles while spinning around a larger bubble in the middle. At this rate, it's obvious then to see that using the properties of bubbles can help to explain the physics on the larger scale (galaxies, solar systems, etc.).

 

If a larger bubble is in the center of a group of bubbles and all the smaller bubbles surface around it, perhaps it has not much to do with some mysterious "gravitational" center than it does with some other laws of physics working together to make gravity function.

 

A bubble by nature because of its perfect round composition is able to exist and free-float without bursting. Likewise, why is this? Because of the air pressure from the outside being equal all around, likewise, if this is the case, then perhaps the pressure being equal around a planet or some other object are what create the illusion of gravity, some force claimed to be located at the center of an massive object, solid object. What if the object doesn't have to be solid at all?

 

If you were to expand an ordinary bubble to the size of a planet, would it indeed appear to be a real planet? Perhaps we should consider before blindly accepting illusions.

[mmalluck]

Surface tension is what makes bubbles possible.

 

Surface tension is what makes water stick to itself, it's why water beads up on a newly waxed car, and why water rises up capillary tubes.

 

What you're suggesting is that gravity is nothing more than a form of surface tension. While your observation may suggest this, these observations do not scale up to the size of planets.

 

Lets look at one of the equations given to us by the webpage I just listed .

 

Pi is the pressure inside the bubble.

Po is the pressure outside the bubble.

r is the radius

T is the surface tension of the material.

 

The Earth has a radius of 6378.1 kilometers

 

Now outside the bubble (intersteller space) there is almost no pressure.

For our argument we'll say that the pressure outside the earth is very very small or 1e-9 Atms.

 

The pressure inside our bubble must be larger than what is outside (negative absolute pressure doesn't exist). You want it to be a small amount, but this simply isn't the case. All the material on the earth presses down and exerts a force. The deeper you go into the earth, the more material over you pressing down on you. As you approch the deepest parts of the earth, you have the greatest pressure on you.

 

For this illistration we'll say the entire skin of the "earth bubble" is only 1Km thick and composed of water (in all reality the material is much more dense, is more than a kiliometer thick, and not a bubble, thus leading to greater pressures).

 

A column of water 1Km high will exert a pressure around 100 atms. This must be the pressure inside the bubble.

 

If we plug all of these numbers into the previous equation and solve for tension... we find that the tension force is equal to T=1.61565262 × 10^13 N/m or a fricken huge force!

 

No known material has a surface tension this high. Nothing even comes close. In comparison mercury, which is known for it's high surface tension only has a T=.465 N/m

 

Some other force (gravity ) is holding this ball of rock together.

[swansont]

A bubble by nature because of its perfect round composition is able to exist and free-float without bursting. Likewise, why is this? Because of the air pressure from the outside being equal all around, likewise, if this is the case, then perhaps the pressure being equal around a planet or some other object are what create the illusion of gravity, some force claimed to be located at the center of an massive object, solid object.

 

What causes the air pressure?

[Christ slave]

Okay, so suppose the "skin" of the earth is 8,000 miles thick. Why would the pressure be greater? And, at any cost, suppose the earth's "skin" was so thick that it went all the way deep as to form a solid sphere.

 

Okay, so, supposing this is the case, wouldn't the tension be greater, as you proposed? So, then, how can you argue this theory when your own proposal suggests that a solid sphere is actually even more wild of a data result?

 

Something is obviously flawed here, and while you suggest that, I am quite glad you're beginning to see things as I see them. In another threads (Big bang and bubbles: some philosophy)

What you're suggesting is that gravity is nothing more than a form of surface tension. While your observation may suggest this, these observations do not scale up to the size of planets.

[Christ slave]

The Moon is even more hollow than the Earth, due to its very thin shell(some 90 miles thick). Scientists noted that when a sizeable meteorite hit the moon, its shell would vibrate and ring like a bell. Similar effects could be produced by aiming a powerful sonic beam at the Moon from Earth. This could only mean that the Moon is hollow, as are all heavenly bodies. This would also mean that it would not take much force to destroy or relocate it.

I wonder if this is true.

[Christ slave]

What causes the air pressure?

The same thing as "gravity"--in other words, outerspace or whatever. So, this is also why an object's gravity speeds up the further it falls, why air is thinner up high, etc.

[mmalluck]

And' date=' at any cost, suppose the earth's "skin" was so thick that it went all the way deep as to form a solid sphere.

 

Okay, so, supposing this is the case, wouldn't the tension be greater, as you proposed? So, then, how can you argue this theory when your own proposal suggests that a solid sphere is actually even more wild of a data result?

[/quote']

 

In conclusion of my post I said that surface tension is not strong enough to hold this planet together. The attractive force is too small compaired to the force that's needed. I didn't say it was impossible, just that another force is nessesary, mainly Gravity.

 

Surface tension is a minor force that works to hold near by molecules of a simular substance together. The force is caused by minor electrostatic differences in the shaping of electron cloud of the molecule. Surface tension is but a merely an illistration of a specific force which is often refered to as the van der Waals force. This force is also what is responcible for allowing gasses to be come liquids and liquids to become solids. It's domain is very small and can not exert much force over a distance greater than a few molecules lengths.

 

Gravity is a weak force (in the grand scheme of nuclear forces) that can attract molecules together over impressive spances of space. It's stronger than the van der Waals force by many fold, as seen by my previous calculations. Though not as much is known about gravity, it is quite clear that gravity and van der Walls forces are distinctly different.

[Christ slave]

I simply challenge gravity as a separate force...I think it may be a complex interworking of another or several forces.

[swansont]

The same thing as "gravity"--in other words, outerspace or whatever. So, this is also why an object's gravity speeds up the further it falls, why air is thinner up high, etc.

 

So the vacuum of space pushes on the atmosphere? Why doesn't a vacuum I create in the lab spontaneously push the remaining air out of a chamber?

[Christ slave]

So the vacuum of space pushes on the atmosphere? Why doesn't a vacuum I create in the lab spontaneously push the remaining air out of a chamber?

I don't know, why do planets not go crashing into the sun? Why do they instead uniformly orbit about each other? Why do they roll around each other as if space itself is some sort of woven material?

[mmalluck]

I don't know, why do planets not go crashing into the sun? Why do they instead uniformly orbit about each other? Why do they roll around each other as if space itself is some sort of woven material?

 

What does that have to do with anything? Swansont poked a hole in your argument, so you change topics?

[Christ slave]

What does that have to do with anything? Swansont poked a hole in your argument, so you change topics?

Essentially he's arguing a vacuum of outerspace and his argument can be challenged to other things that we know to be true, at least this is what I interpreted it. Perhaps I do not understand what he meant?

 

Elaborate for me, then, please. Thank you.