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

[mmalluck]

I could be mistaken, but didn't first suggest that....

 

if you dig a hole in the earth, the elements surrounding the hollow center (the vaccum) begin to cave in--causing what we call gravity.

 

This suggest that gravity is due to the vacuum, air pressure, etc. but this isn't the case.

 

It's the other way around. Gravity is responsible for air pressure. Gravity is responsible for the earth's iron core. Gravity is the reason planets and stars orbit each other.

 

I can explain myself further if you wish.

 

My question now is how would you go about changing gravity to allow for hollow planets, but not break other fundementally accepted concepts of how gravity works?

 

I don't think it can be done, but you're more than welcome to try.

[Christ slave]

I could be mistaken' date=' but didn't first suggest that....

 

 

 

This suggest that gravity is due to the vacuum, air pressure, etc. but this isn't the case.

 

It's the other way around. Gravity is responsible for air pressure. Gravity is responsible for the earth's iron core. Gravity is the reason planets and stars orbit each other.

 

I can explain myself further if you wish.

 

My question now is how would you go about changing gravity to allow for hollow planets, but not break other fundementally accepted concepts of how gravity works?

 

I don't think it can be done, but you're more than welcome to try.[/quote']Don't necessarily believe my suggestion of bursting the earth by digging a hole, it was simply a toss-around possibility.

 

How, what fundamentally accepted concepts of gravity? For instance, in a glass of a milk or whatever else, if bubbles form on the surface, you can easily observe the properties of gravity--a larger bubble has smaller bubbles clinging to it, and depending on the motion of the water or whatever, they may spin about in a spiral which actually take on the properties of gravity.

 

The bigger bubbles in the center, smaller bubbles around them and they spin about in spiraling motions like the orbiting of the celestial bodies. Honestly, try it, you'll begin to realize that perhaps indeed, like tiny bubbles, larger bodies take on these characteristics. If models of the solar system can appear in bubbles in a glass of milk or water or whatever, then obviously gravity has something to do with those bubbles...afterall, if bubbles can take on the properties of gravity on such a small portion, then obviously gravity must be based more on space itself and not necessarily the size of an object--or, the substance of the bubbles and the surface they're floating on (be it milk, magma, water, etc.).

 

Changing the various properties of these things, such as matter in space, soap in water, air in water, air in milk, etc. will give you your answer to gravity possibly.

[swansont]

If models of the solar system can appear in bubbles in a glass of milk or water or whatever, then obviously gravity has something to do with those bubbles...

 

By what tortured, twisted, misshapen logic is this obvious?

[swansont]

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?

 

Because angular momentum is conserved when there is no external torque on a system. Things crash into the sun all the time, and into planets, too. But planets, even though they are falling toward the sun, have roughly circular orbits and miss.

[Bettina]

CS....

 

I've been following this post right along and even though you are in some unknown nebula....your ok..

I just wanted to say that.

 

Bettina

[Hellbender]

By what tortured, twisted, misshapen logic is this obvious?

 

answer: by no logic!!!!!!!

[mmalluck]

The bigger bubbles in the center' date=' smaller bubbles around them and they spin about in spiraling motions like the orbiting of the celestial bodies. Honestly, try it, you'll begin to realize that perhaps indeed, like tiny bubbles, larger bodies take on these characteristics. If models of the solar system can appear in bubbles in a glass of milk or water or whatever, then obviously gravity has something to do with those bubbles...afterall, if bubbles can take on the properties of gravity on such a small portion, then obviously gravity must be based more on space itself and not necessarily the size of an object--or, the substance of the bubbles and the surface they're floating on (be it milk, magma, water, etc.).

[/quote']

 

Ah, my friend, while this model may mimic the workings of the universe on some basic level it by no means indicates how the universe actually works.

 

I could construct a model of our solar system using paper-mache planets, metal tracks for the orbits, and motors to drive them around. While this model may mimic the heavens, it doesn't mean the actual planets are made of paper-mache.

 

The same could be said for your bubbles.

[Sayonara]

From post #68:

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.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with that?

[5614]

Good point sayo!

 

Sound can't travel in space!

 

Plus powerful vibrations on a shell will crack it.

[mmalluck]

And just because a body resonates, does not mean it's hollow....

[Christ slave]

Ah' date=' my friend, while this model may mimic the workings of the universe on some basic level it by no means indicates how the universe actually works.

 

I could construct a model of our solar system using paper-mache planets, metal tracks for the orbits, and motors to drive them around. While this model may mimic the heavens, it doesn't mean the actual planets are made of paper-mache.

 

The same could be said for your bubbles.[/quote']No, because you are now asserting that we cannot observe or find the truth on the molecular or subatomic, quantum level as well, simply because your own intentional modeling of the universe outrules the observation of laws at work.

 

While this is true, that would mean that you believe everything is controlled by something other than the universe itself, and people who claim this are often forced to acknowledge indeed we are controlled by God, and the spiritual realm. Perhaps it was not your intent, but realize your proposal.

 

And, this is true, although people attempt to refute it. Scientists have noticed that subatomic particles are affected by the consciousness of an observer (a senser). So, with this reality, it's possible to assert that things are controlled by our consciousness, and likewise the spirit. Let's not go there, however. Your argument however fails because you are attempting to degrade the significance of observation, which only means then that observation itself is controlled by the observer. Like I said, this belief is fueld by the spirit, and it is true, I certainly believe and know, but I am not attempting to get into a discussion about this here. It may become complicated.

[mmalluck]

I smell a whole lot of troll-bait here.

 

I'm not going to touch your post with a 10-foot pole.

[Christ slave]

Perhaps that is wise.

[swansont]

Scientists have noticed that subatomic particles are affected by the consciousness of an observer (a senser). So, with this reality, it's possible to assert that things are controlled by our consciousness, and likewise the spirit. Let's not go there, however.

 

It's possible to assert anything you please. But in science, assertions mean nothing without data to back them up. Absent that, you're just blowing smoke.

 

You should have heeded your own advice and not gone there, for the smoke is thick.

 

What scientists have notices is that observation changes the properties of the state of a particle (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). This does not equate to consciousness or spirit interaction. Detection can be done by an inanimate object, and I don't think you want to argue that a chip of silicon has sentience or a spirit.

[Mokele]

I don't think you want to argue that a chip of silicon has sentience or a spirit.

 

If a microchip does have sentience or a spirit, does that mean that making it use Microsoft products is torture, and therefore immoral/criminal?

 

Mokele

[Christ slave]

What scientists have notices is that observation changes the properties of the state of a particle (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). This does not equate to consciousness or spirit interaction. Detection can be done by an inanimate object, and I don't think you want to argue that a chip of silicon has sentience or a spirit.

Yes, and if I argue that it does, then your argument is no longer necessary and you attempt to now argue my belief? Is this what you want?...do you enjoy disputes?

[swansont]

Yes, and if I argue that it does, then your argument is no longer necessary and you attempt to now argue my belief? Is this what you want?...do you enjoy disputes?

 

It was not my intention to argue your beliefs. Belief and fact are not the same. I was citing facts, which you had gotten wrong, and gave a counterexample. If you disagree with that counterexample, feel free to give some evidence to the contrary.

 

Just so we're clear, merely saying "It has a spirit" or "It is sentient" is not evidence.

 

I do enjoy certain kinds of disputes. I enjoy sharing scientific knowledge and I think that willful ignorance and ideology warping science are dangerous. So when I get to battle the latter two and do the former, I do enjoy it.

[mmalluck]

Now that some of this garbly-gook has been cleared up, I'll bite.

 

No, because you are now asserting that we cannot observe or find the truth on the molecular or subatomic, quantum level as well, simply because your own intentional modeling of the universe outrules the observation of laws at work.

 

I'll admit my model is flawed because it doesn't stem from a natural observation, but in order for your bubble model to work, it won't be natural either.

 

Lets say you wanted to model our solar system with some bubbles in a tank of water.

 

You make some device that can accurately blow bubbles to the sizes need for the plantes, moons, astroids and what not.

 

You release all the bubbles at the same time and they move to cling to the side of the tank....

Now that isn't right. We need to do something to make the bubbles move around.

 

Ah Ha! We swirl the water in the tank around so the bubbles move in circular orbits.

 

Wait a second, the planets move in elipical orbits... We'll have to add special jets of water to make these bubbles move in elipicals. Surely this now models our solar system, lets do a little test to see.

 

Lets add an artifical astroid to both models. We'll take a chunk of rock and place it within our solar system with 0 velocity relative to the sun.

 

Over time the chunk of rock begins to move and eventually plumets directly into the sun.

 

Now we do the same thing in our bubble tank. We blow a bubble with 0 velocity with respect to the large bubble in the center of the tank.

 

As soon as we release the bubble, it begins to swirl around like the other bubbles due to the currents of the tank.... Now this isn't right....

 

We'd have to add yet another set of forces (currents in the tank) that act to keep a body at rest from orbiting, but rather make plumet directly into the center bubble of the tank.

 

We go on and on adding more curents to our tank to make it exactly model our solar system, but at that point all of the "natural" tendancies of the bubbles have been negated. We're using artifical means to make this model work. It's not much different than paper-mache plantes and steel tracks.

 

I'd like to introduce you to the idea of Occam's Razor. It's the idea that the simplest explanation is usually the most correct.

 

Either the solar system is govened by a single force (gravity) that simply explains motion of our solar system or theres all kinds of mysterious currents that push the planets about but pushes objects at rest directly into the sun.

[Christ slave]

I believe outerspace is indeed that mysterious current...like a glass of water, so is outerspace. I do not understand why people do not realize outerspace is indeed the swirling glass of water with bubbles (and it separates out the densist material to the least dense, radiating from dense to space itself). In other words, I believe outerspace works like the local level, and even wormholes support the drain idea (my toothpaste spit going down the drain like a galaxy).

[Aardvark]

I do not understand why people do not realize outerspace is indeed the swirling glass of water with bubbles (and it separates out the densist material to the least dense, radiating from dense to space itself).

 

The reason that people do not realise that outerspace is a swirling glass of water is because it isn't.

 

All observation clearly shows that outer space is a vacuum.

 

 

In other words, I believe outerspace works like the local level, and even wormholes support the drain idea (my toothpaste spit going down the drain like a galaxy).

 

Just because something swirls doesn't make it a mini-galaxy or worm hole.

[Christ slave]

No, but it's a good place to start--and, anyhow, space itself has been observed to move. However, if we're moving with outerspace, caught in its momentum, it's like being in a car and the car is stationary to your perception. Likewise, outerspace is moving, however, the earth is not stationary to it, so not everyone is necessarily standing back from it all like an unbias observer to understand it. However, they have created a whirl-pool of empty space using a system of four mirrors in four corners to cause a lightbeam to loop around...and with this experiment, you are much more stationary to it than if you're moving with the momentum of something.

 

Likewise, indeed most likely outerspace is this cup of water.

[Sayonara]

"Outer space" refers to everything outside the fringes of the Solar system.

 

So are you using the term in a different way to the rest of the scientific community, or is the space within the Solar system (termed 'inner space') special?

[Ophiolite]

"Outer space" refers to everything outside the fringes of the Solar system.

 

So are you using the term in a different way to the rest of the scientific community' date=' or is the space within the Solar system (termed 'inner space') special?[/quote']I think it is you, Sayonara, who is living in a segregated scientific community. Outer space is anything beyond the Earth's atmosphere. Period.

[BlackHole]

Planetry cores are definitely not hallow (a vacuum). Actually it's a very dense place. It's where nuclear fusion takes place. Nuclear fusion is a process in which two nuclei join, forming a larger nucleus and releasing or absorbing energy.

[swansont]

Planetry cores are definitely not hallow (a vacuum). Actually it's a very dense place. It's where nuclear fusion takes place. Nuclear fusion is a process in which two nuclei join, forming a larger nucleus and releasing or absorbing energy.

 

Any evidence that fusion is actually taking place in planet cores?