Is onze aarde hol?

quote:

Op donderdag 24 februari 2011 21:41 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:

[..]

Het enige interessante aan dit onderwerp is dat ik even weer wordt gedwongen mn middelbare school natuur- en scheikunde op te frissen.

En de andere reden dat ik vaak in BNW kom, is dat ik enorm geinteresseerd ben in psychologie en de denkwijzen die hier te vinden zijn, zijn gewoon echt van WTF

Door BNW besef ik me hoe belangrijk een basisopleiding is, zoals die wordt gegeven op de basisschool en de middelbare school. Heb je nl. mensen die de basis niet goed beheersen, maar wel worden geconfronteerd met een vrij ingewikkelde wereld met een overload aan informatie, dan zal die persoon de informatie niet op waarde weten te schatten met allerlei negatieve gevolgen van dien.

Ach ja, ik ben het lang niet eens met alles wat hier wordt "gespuid", maar ik kan gelukkig nog met een open mind naar diverse zaken kijken. Ik wil niet alles maar per definitie wegwuiven omdat het indruist tegen al datgene wat algemeen geaccepteerd is bijvoorbeeld.

Bovendien proef ik uit jouw post toch weer die angst dat een BNW'er knapt en iets geks gaat doen

Maak je eerder zorgen om de maatschappij en hoe die in elkaar steekt. Er lopen zat tijdbommen rond en dat zijn echt niet allemaal BNW'ers

[ Bericht 13% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 24-02-2011 21:51:02 ]

quote:

Op donderdag 24 februari 2011 21:57 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:

[..]

Als je een holle aarde wil hebben, dan moet de centripetale kracht het winnen van de zwaartekracht. En dat doet ie dus niet.

En als je naar de binnenste 100 km van de aarde gaat:

632 / 86164 = 0,007 kilometer = 7 meter/sec

v2/r = (7*7)/100000 = 49/1000000 = 0,000049 m/s2

0,03392/0,000049= 692

Dus binnenin de aarde is de centripetale kracht 692 keer zwakker. Ik zie niet in hoe deze dan de enorme kracht van de zwaartekracht zou kunnen overwinnen als we het hebben over bollen die niet bestaan uit gas maar uit vaste materie.

quote:

In the beginning, some 4 or 5 billion years ago, when the Earth was still an enormously expanded ball of super-hot whirling gas, it gradually began to contract as it cooled. The laws of physics require cooling gases to condense and so the rapidly spinning sphere of tenuous gases began to concentrate as the heat loss continued. Self-centered gravitational attraction kept reducing the diameter of the whirling ball of cooling material...but only to a certain extent. This is the big logical distinction between the old inadequate theory of planetary formation and Gardner’s discovery.

The old notion would have us believe that the gravitational contraction continued unabated until the Earth had become molten hot under a fierce gravitational pressure. While such a scenario undoubtedly does routinely occur in the celestial evolution of particularly immense bodies, as is the case with all stars, it is definitely not the final development of typical planets.

The crucial second factor to lay stress on is centrifugal force. Remember that while gravity is attempting to draw all of the material toward the center, there is an opposing force also at work centrifugal force. Just as a figure skater spins much more rapidly when she brings her outstretched arms tightly in against her body, so too did the ever contracting proto-planet begin rotating ever more rapidly as its size decreased.

Als ik het goed begrijp, gaat het over het vormen van de planeet en dat ie dus naarmate de grootte van de planeet afnam, sneller ging draaien.

Maar goed, ik ben geen natuurkundige

[ Bericht 1% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 24-02-2011 22:07:34 ]

Dan nog een leuke die ik tegenkwam:

Impact crater evidence indicates hollow planet structure

Craters on planets present a new intriguing mystery. Geological imprints left from medium to large impacts are at odds with our current understanding of inner planetary structure.

All terrestrial (rocky) planets within the Solar System bear the scars of past celestial impacts. Craters of all sizes pinpoint locations where meteorite and asteroid debris impacted with unimaginable force. None of the planets or moons escaped the era of the 'Great Bombardment'. Falling material originates from the remains of the galactic cloud which condensed to form the planetary bodies of the Solar System. Impacts were generally larger and more frequent in the past, an indication of the gradual diminishing of potential impact material left in space.

The structure of impact craters

A crater consists of two primary regions, the excavation zone and the deposition zone.

The excavation zone is geologically concave. It is the region carved out by the force of the impact. Here, original surface material has been thrown out in all directions.

The deposition zone is convex. It surrounds the impact excavation. In this region, ejected material has been deposited creating familiar crater walls. Often, lines of debris extend for distances across the planet's surface radiating from the impact site.



Impact crater sizes

Craters exist in sizes from those no bigger than a human hand right up to massive impacts thousands of kilometres across. The size of a crater governs its format. By analysing this size relationship it is possible to determine the planetary structure beneath.

This is where some amazing facts come to light.

Small craters



Craters up to 25 Kilometres in diameter have a typical deep bowl structure. Surface material has been thrown out from impact site leaving this classic deep hole shape surrounded by a wall of loose debris.



This is the classic crater format where a body impacts a solid surface with stable foundation. When we examine crater structures from larger impacts, the classic format begins to change. Larger crater shapes show planetary surfaces reacting differently.

Medium craters



Craters between 25 kilometres and 130 kilometres in diameter are structured differently to small craters. They usually have a central peak. And in proportion to diameter, the excavation zone is much shallower.



What causes the shallow structure of medium craters?

The shallow structure of medium sized craters indicates another factor has come into play. Instead of excavating a proportional amount of material as in smaller craters, here some of the impact force has been absorbed.

But what is responsible?

The existence of a central peak is the vital clue. It is now considered this feature, unique to medium size craters, is the result of matter thrust upward immediately after the impact. Scientific theories relate it to the planet's surface effectively rebounding or springing back after such an impact. It is likened to a droplet thrown up when a marble is dropped into water.

This challenges all conventional ideas of an impact being an excavation event. A part of the force has reacted in the opposite direction.

If the planet's surface deflects inwards under the weight of an impact, then it must be assumed at the precise moment of impact, the crater would have been deeper. After the event, the depth reduced as the surface rebounded.

But what about the central peaks? The energy required to thrust matter upward into these mountainous shapes is enormous. Such energy could not be sourced from a gradual returning or reforming of the planet's surface. Rebounding must have been rapid. This action catapulted central matter upward.

However, rapid surface rebounding presents certain difficulties that challenge our current understanding of inner planetary structure.

When one considers the sheer size of many of these craters, how does a planet's already super compressed solid structure deflect inward and further compress to the extent required? And, what causes the rapid rebounding? If planets are indeed solid and compressed as we believe, then a normal concave crater should be excavated.

As we investigate further, the larger the crater the more perplexing the mystery becomes.

Large craters



Craters over 130 kilometres in diameter are different again. Their inner regions are terraced by concentric rings. The floors are very shallow. And, instead of being concave as would be expected, they are convex following the planet's natural surface curvature.

Two typical examples are; the Coloris Basin on Mercury which is 1,300 kilometres in diameter and the Mare Orientale crater on the Moon with a diameter of 900 kilometres. The floors of both craters are convex following the surface curvature of Mercury and the Moon. In the case of the Coloris Basin, Mercury's original surface crust, now extensively cracked, is seen still on the surface within the crater remaining aligned with planet's outer surface curvature.

Mare Orientale Crater on the Moon



As is clearly seen in the above photo, the floor of the Mare Orientale Crater is convex. It is aligned with the normal surface curvature of the Moon. The 'crater rim' reveals the outer boundary of the impact 'excavation zone' (900 km diameter). 'Concentric rings' are seen within the crater rim.

Coloris Basin Crater on Mercury



Again, the floor of the Coloris Basin on Mercury is convex, following normal planetary curvature. Here, the 'crater rim' indicates a diameter of 1300 km. As is normal with impact craters of this size, concentric rings are seen within the 'crater rim'.
The convex crater floor structure of large impacts

How does the crater floor from a celestial impact of this size end up convex? An impacting asteroid would excavate considerable material dispersing it in all directions form the site. An obvious large depression or excavation should be left behind in the surface of the planet. But,
contrary to observable facts, this does not happen. The crater walls are over the horizon from the centre of these large impacts!

This is an amazing situation particularly when one considers the following. The excavation Zone (crater) must have been concave at the moment of impact otherwise deposition would have occurred closer to the centre (see diagram). With the Coloris Basin, any assumed excavation hole has not been filled by volcanism. The original planetary surface is still present on the surface, aligned with planetary curvature.

This can only be caused by planetary surface rebounding.

Crustal rebounding during crater impacts

If we are to accept the convex formation of the Coloris Basin on Mercury and the Mare Orientale on the Moon are the result of surface rebounding after impact, one has to consider the sheer scale of rebounding taken place. Both involved a large portion of the planet's (or Moon's) mass.



The above diagram shows the extent of deflection and rebounding required to produce the visible features found on Mercury. A conservative estimated depth of 200 kilometres or more would have occurred. How is it possible to achieve such a deflection depth followed by subsequent rebounding to original surface level in such a short period of time? This is inconceivable on our solid and compressed planetary model! The Mare Orientale on the moon shows a similar result of 150km required rebounding.

Our current concepts cannot explain medium to large crater characteristics. On a solid planet we would expect craters of all sizes to be excavated into concave structures. But this is contrary to observable facts.

Science cannot explain these anomalies using the solid and compressed planet theory because it is flawed.

Medium to large impacts react as they do because inner planetary structure is not solid. It is hollow. A hollow planet model successfully explains all observable crater features.

Large crater impacts on a hollow planet explain crustal rebounding.



Hollow planets do not require massive compression to deflect inward at the point of celestial impact. Decompression is not required for surfaces to rebound. Larger impacts simply push the planetary wall inward over a large area. This deflects the surface away from natural gravitational balance. Deflection dampens the excavating power of the impact force. After the impact, the planetary wall 'falls' back out into gravitational balance. This happens rapidly, providing the reason for peaks in medium craters. Peaks do not remain in large craters because the volume of matter involved is large enough to fall back and level out with the floor of the crater. The surface within a major impact may rise and fall several times before coming to rest at gravitational balance. This can be compared to ripples on water after a stone is thrown in. This action produces the concentric rings and cracked surfaces seen inside large craters.

Central peaks are found in medium craters because the area rebounding is smaller. Surfaces do not rebound several times. This allows the peaks to remain intact. Small craters have a classic shape because there is insufficient force to deflect the planetary wall.

Our book The Land of No Horizon explores this issue in great depth. It exposes serious and obvious flaws in theories used to support present day beliefs concerning inner planetary structure. Relevant information omitted in the original decision making process is now assessed. It in turn presents fresh new evidence to the reader.

The Land of No Horizon uses scientific evidence and logically discusses both hollow planet structure and the expanding Earth theory. It is shown how in a growing planet, gravity accumulates and structures matter differently to what is currently believed. A planet's surface rebounds after an impact to realign with the force of gravity because of its hollow structure.

Bron: http://blog.hollowearthth(...)/Geological%20models

quote:

Op vrijdag 25 februari 2011 00:41 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Dat blijkt Er werd net voorgerekend dat de snelheid van rotatie van de aarde daar bij lange na niet genoeg voor is.

Duh... Dat had ik nog net begrepen bijdehand ventje. Dat staat zelfs nog in een van mijn quotes, dus jouw uitleg is hier een beetje overbodig.

Ik had het echter over dat stukje tekst dat ik quote. Daar ging het over het ontstaan van de planeet.... of wil je zeggen dat de aarde toen net zo snel als vandaag de dag roteerde? Als dat zo is, dan hou ik mijn mond...

quote:

Op vrijdag 25 februari 2011 01:03 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Goed, stel dat de aarde heeeel snel draaide toen al dat stof samenkwam. Waar is al dat angular momentum gebleven? Welke kracht zorgde er voor dat de samentrekkende blob opeens hol werd? Waarom vormde de stofwolk geen schijf, zoals normaal gebeurt bij die snelheden? Waarom heeft de aarde een massa die beter te verklaren is met een massieve aarde? etc etc.

Hoe moet ik dat weten? Ik claim nergens dat de holle aarde theorie waarheid is. Ik denk dat je het topic maar eens opnieuw moet gaan lezen. Begin gewoon eens bij de start post.

Of ga zelf zoeken naar de antwoorden op jouw vragen. Waarom wil je ze van mij? Dat is de hele insteek van het topic niet.

quote:

Op vrijdag 25 februari 2011 01:08 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Zie het dan als een aantal redenen waarom het niet mogelijk is

zou kunnen zijn...

quote:

Op vrijdag 25 februari 2011 01:22 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Nee. Gewoon niet kan. Kan je evt zelf experimenteel vaststellen door bijv metingen aan gravitatie te doen

Die graviatie berekeningen zouden niet kloppen, als je er van uit zou gaan dat de aarde hol is. (Dan zou de theorie/formule etc. op de schop moeten.)