People,
Here is the new Neal Adams site detailing, in cartoon animation, how it is that planets are growing.
http://www.nealadams.com/index.php/science/read-watch-learn
Dean
That's really nice and it makes a lot of sense. I was obviously throwing some plausible ideas out, maybe enough to make a hypothesis (less than a thesis) out of. So if you have a period when the protoplanet achieves a roundish shape and forms a solid crust, and expands later, that's what it would look like.
Rocks are gassy. I threw in crystal formation as in "geode." They also make bubbles. And who knows what all is inside. You would think that inside a big ball the gases would gather in the center because of gravitational cancellation and buoyancy. Hypothesizing an actual messages makes me more comfortable with it. I've never been able to be completely comfortable with the standard model because of gravitational cancellation. We also have a moon to pull material out from the center.
The solid crust is still quite thin. It's supposed to all be plasticized just three to ten or so miles down. When I think about it again, it occurs to me that the material that was pushing from within is all plasticized, liquid, or gaseous. What all processes might have been involved? A rain of liquid rock, eventually, from within, and a rain of water from without when that got cool enough. The outside is open to space and cools much faster. The inside leaks heat much more slowly.
Maybe there's an equivalent set of forces in the formation of geodes. Rethinking my guess, I would guess that the inside and the outside of the shell pull towards each other and squeeze the plasticized rock outwards.
···
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <silopanna@...> wrote:
People,
Here is the new Neal Adams site detailing, in cartoon animation, how it is that planets are growing.
http://www.nealadams.com/index.php/science/read-watch-learn
Dean
Thomas,
The solid crust can be quite thin if the intensity of gravity drops the more one goes down, i.e., with depth. Mass with no weight is not a problem. If the crust has to bear the weight of accumulated mass from above, then it would collpase inwards. Thus, newtonian gravity is anethema to the whole idea of the Earth being hollow.
Now, if we accept that gravity effects are due to electromagnetic attraction, then it's not hard to understand how these electromagnetic effects would fade away after a certain extent of penetration, of depth. Thus, it would be possible for the mass of a thin crust to exist without experiencing strain, without being brittle and without breaking.
Dean
···
--- In [email protected], "Thomas K" <thomaskirby169@...> wrote:
That's really nice and it makes a lot of sense. I was obviously throwing some plausible ideas out, maybe enough to make a hypothesis (less than a thesis) out of. So if you have a period when the protoplanet achieves a roundish shape and forms a solid crust, and expands later, that's what it would look like.
Rocks are gassy. I threw in crystal formation as in "geode." They also make bubbles. And who knows what all is inside. You would think that inside a big ball the gases would gather in the center because of gravitational cancellation and buoyancy. Hypothesizing an actual messages makes me more comfortable with it. I've never been able to be completely comfortable with the standard model because of gravitational cancellation. We also have a moon to pull material out from the center.
The solid crust is still quite thin. It's supposed to all be plasticized just three to ten or so miles down. When I think about it again, it occurs to me that the material that was pushing from within is all plasticized, liquid, or gaseous. What all processes might have been involved? A rain of liquid rock, eventually, from within, and a rain of water from without when that got cool enough. The outside is open to space and cools much faster. The inside leaks heat much more slowly.
Maybe there's an equivalent set of forces in the formation of geodes. Rethinking my guess, I would guess that the inside and the outside of the shell pull towards each other and squeeze the plasticized rock outwards.
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <silopanna@> wrote:
>
> People,
>
> Here is the new Neal Adams site detailing, in cartoon animation, how it is that planets are growing.
>
> http://www.nealadams.com/index.php/science/read-watch-learn
>
> Dean
>
I kind of doubt if even Newton thought that his solution for the hollow Earth was the correct one even according to his own rules.
When you use Einstein's methods gravity works differently. All gravity pulls in one direction, towards the future. You don't really have a pull. The presence of nearby mass changes the space-time curvature, therefore it changes the direction of the future in 3-dimensional space. Matter simply follows the altered world-line.
Gravity doesn't actually cancel at the center. Its gradient cancels out. Newtonian gravity is the gradient of the curve at any given point. All parts of the shell help "pull" the center towards the future. When it "cancels" that means that the particular area is not being pulled any direction in 3-space. The gravity doesn't go anywhere. It just doesn't have a gradient. It only goes one direction in the first place. Newtonian attraction is the derivative of the actual space-time curvature, or a tensor or something like that.
This means that to see the shape of the gravitational field, you draw a curve from every particle of the mass towards "flat space." The center is "downhill" from the perspective of outer space, but it is "uphill" from the perspective of the shell. So there is gravity on the inside of the shell. The shell isn't holding itself up nearly as much as it's holding itself down. It has made its impression on space-time.
A thin shell would necessarily have developed during the settling of the hot gases that made up Earth. Being denser, it would become its own center of gravity.
···
--- In [email protected], "Dean D" <silopanna@...> wrote:
Thomas,
The solid crust can be quite thin if the intensity of gravity drops the more one goes down, i.e., with depth. Mass with no weight is not a problem. If the crust has to bear the weight of accumulated mass from above, then it would collpase inwards. Thus, newtonian gravity is anethema to the whole idea of the Earth being hollow.