Is onze aarde hol?

quote:

Op donderdag 24 februari 2011 18:53 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

Nee. Newton heeft zijn stelling doelbewust anders opgesteld dan dat hij weet. Als hij namelijk wel had gepubliceerd wat hij werkelijk dacht dan was hij ter plekke afgemaakt of ballingschap geplaats. Hopelijk kun je raden door welke kinderverkrachtend instituut.

quote:

Op donderdag 24 februari 2011 19:34 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

[..]

ze lachten om Albert Einstein, ze lachten om Niels Bohr, ze lachten om Alfred Wegener. Dit betekend niet dat Bozo de clown de nieuwe Einstein, Bohr of Wegener is.

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.

Like the glued water in a bucket that refuses to spill if one swings the bucket in a fast circle, so too was this same law of motion centrifugal force attempting to hurl all of the material outward from the forming planet’s axis of rotation. So finally, in this silent titanic struggle between two natural forces, a balance was struck. When the swiftly whirling sphere had drawn itself down to an approximately 8000 mile diameter, the compromise between gravitational and centrifugal force was reached. But there is more.

There is a special characteristic of centrifugal force and we must not overlook this important trait. The strength of ’c’ force becomes greatly lessened as it approaches right angles to the direction of spin. A simple day-to-day example of this behavior is water in a basin. If you remove the drain plug and allow the water to start emptying from the basin, what will you eventually observe? A vortex or whirlpool, an empty space surrounded by rapidly rotating material. Now imagine this same principal in action concerning the contracting body which was to become our Earth.

At right angles to the rotational axis, in other words the ’poles’, the c force was considerably weaker than elsewhere, especially the equator, therefore although at the Earth’s equator the c force was able to halt the material’s inward progress at about an 8000 mile diameter, it was considerably less successful in the Polar regions, there stopping the contraction at about 1400 miles. The inevitable outcome of this natural compromise is that our planet concluded its evolution and solidified as an 8000 mile hollow sphere with 1400 mile diameter Polar Openings.

Now it is at this stage in the logic that Gardner advances and Reed falters. Because of his study of astronomical records and photography as specifically relating to nebula and comets, Gardner became aware of the whole truth. In the precise center of these translucent spheres is a proportionally small incandescent ball. Between this luminous interior orb and the shell of the nebula is a large intervening space; said another way, the nebula is hollow except for the bright sphere in its center. Why? Well, where is the one other location at at which c force is quite weak, besides at the poles?

The answer of course is at the precise center of rotation, and once again the logic is so straightforward that we may readily examine a common household example to support the argument. What would be the result if you sprinkled a layer of powder upon the top of a record player and then turned the record on high speed? The powder would fly off of the record...except for a small portion at the precise center.

Based upon his studies of the planetary nebula through observatory photographs, Gardner was able to surmise that the very thick shell of the Earth is approximately 800 miles thick, the Polar Openings 1400 miles across, and the gravitationally suspended Central Sun (the incandescent orb locked by gravity in the exact planetary center) some 600 miles diameter. Because of the enormity and very gradual curve of the Polar Aperture, it is impossible to visually detect it; this is the same as the fact that we do not ’see’ that the Earth itself is round. The curve is much too gradual to observe.

Based on the nearly constant merger of warm interior air with very cold exterior Polar air, the Polar Openings are almost always covered by a thick cloud layer. This explains why when viewed from satellites the openings look just as they would if there actually were the mythical ’polar ice caps’ which government policy claims are at the Earth’s extremities. Gardner was led inexorably to his monumental science discovery by the vast quantity of inconsistent information which he continually encountered during his years of study dealing with, especially, high Arctic expeditions.

Chief among the numerous mysteries are,

1) a dramatically improving climate in the very far north
2) the extreme peculiarity of the famous Northern Lights or Aurora Borealis
3) the eccentric behavior of the compass in very high latitudes

quote:

Op donderdag 24 februari 2011 19:34 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

[..]

ze lachten om Albert Einstein, ze lachten om Niels Bohr, ze lachten om Alfred Wegener. Dit betekend niet dat Bozo de clown de nieuwe Einstein, Bohr of Wegener is.

quote:

Op donderdag 24 februari 2011 21:01 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:

[..]

Maar waar zijn dan de berekeningen? Zijn theorie is leuk, maar als voorbeelden worden vloeistof en stof systemen gebruikt. Werkt deze theorie ook met gesmolten metaal als vloeistof (vele malen zwaarder dan water zoals in het voorbeeld) en vaste zware stoffen?

quote:

Op donderdag 24 februari 2011 21:07 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:
The best scientific argument against that of a hollow Earth or any hollow planet is gravity. Massive objects tend to clump together gravitationally, creating non-hollow spherical objects we call stars and planets. The solid sphere is the best way in which to minimize the gravitational potential energy of a physical object; having hollowness is unfavorable in the energetic sense. In addition, ordinary matter is not strong enough to support a hollow shape of planetary size against the force of gravity; a planet-sized hollow shell with the known, observed thickness of the Earth's crust, would not be able to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium with its own mass and would collapse.

Someone on the inside of a hollow Earth would not experience a significant outward pull and could not easily stand on the inner surface; rather, the theory of gravity implies that a person on the inside would be nearly weightless. This was first shown by Newton, whose shell theorem mathematically predicts a gravitational force (from the shell) of zero everywhere inside a spherically symmetric hollow shell of matter, regardless of the shell's thickness. A tiny gravitational force would arise from the fact that the Earth does not have a perfectly symmetrical spherical shape, as well as forces from other bodies such as the Moon. The centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation would pull a person (on the inner surface) outwards if the person was traveling at the same velocity as the Earth's interior and was in contact with the ground on the interior, but even the maximum centrifugal force at the equator is only 1/300 of ordinary Earth gravity.

The mass of the planet also indicates that the hollow Earth hypothesis is unfeasible. Should the Earth be largely hollow, its mass would be much lower and thus its gravity on the outer surface would be much lower than it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_earth

Met andere woorden, de centrifugale of centripetale kracht verliest het van de zwaartekracht. Opgelost!