> On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
> > > > Pressure accrues. > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
> > > > What could produce “ reduced pressure and/or lower density ” > > > > at the center of the earth ?
> > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that the > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for your > > > brains to squirt out!
> > > Double-A
> > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or even > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this final > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
> > ~ BG
> If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would > you care about gravity? Get the point?
> Double-A
At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
> On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
> > > > > Pressure accrues. > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
> > > > > What could produce “ reduced pressure and/or lower density ” > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
> > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that the > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for your > > > > brains to squirt out!
> > > > Double-A
> > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or even > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this final > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
> > > ~ BG
> > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
> > Double-A
> At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
> How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
> ~ BG
The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that IS feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side attracting the opposite side.
> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
> > > > > > Pressure accrues. > > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
> > > > > > What could produce “ reduced pressure and/or lower density ” > > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
> > > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has > > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that the > > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for your > > > > > brains to squirt out!
> > > > > Double-A
> > > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as > > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) > > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or even > > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this final > > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
> > > > ~ BG
> > > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would > > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
> > > Double-A
> > At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
> > How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
> > ~ BG
> The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that IS > feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side attracting the > opposite side.
> Double-A
However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd be representing gravity).
If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
> On Oct 30, 9:07 am, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in > > messagenews:441e8ea2-89e4-4b3d-8091-50f193628723@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 29, 7:10 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote: > > >> Brad·Guth's “hollow earth” theory is insane. Pressure accrues. > > >> Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
> > >> The center of earth is like that but, instead of water, > > >> you have zetta·tons of blazing·hot steel pressing down on you.
> > > It's just a theory, although hollow is relative.
> > Hollow is defined, not relative.
> > > How about a reduced pressure and/or lower density interior?
> > The pressure at the center is created through compression, not > > gravitational attraction AT THE CORE, rather the matter trying to get > > TO/THRU the core via the resultant vector created by ALL of the matter > > of the earth, not just at the core.
> > However, do to this compression the matter at the core will have a > > higher specific density, thus a bit more gravity than the same material > > would have without a large mass trying to press through equally from > > all sides.
> That’s really odd, because in deep underground caves or mine shafts, > other than the expected atmospheric pressure increase that’s obvious > and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km depth unless you plan on > artificially cooling that column of air in order to get a 100% > increase per 3.5 km), there’s hardly any other significant geology > pressures for our physiology to contend with, including while swimming > or scuba diving in those deep underground lakes or aquifers, and > there’s certainly not any big increase in gravity (if anything it only > measurably increases ever so slightly), and there’s certainly no > objective way of telling if the inner core is merely that of a dense > shell that’s hollow inside, or not. > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2...
The fact that gravity increases measurably in deep caves/mines tells you that the interior of the Earth is denser than the rock above you. Otherwise gravity would have already begun to decrease.
Double-A
My dearest Double-A! The centerline gravity Has begun to decrease. It's the downward semi-lateral crust density that increases a bit more quickly than that centerline decrease that causes the increase in net gravitational force as one goes deeper into the crust. For a time.
Measuring devices used so far have no way of distinguishing the semi-lateral forces from the centerline force, so they measure the net force as having increased. There is, of course, a semi-lateral force at the surface which, if separated from the centerline force, would be found to be at minimum, and it increases quickly as spelunkers and divers explore to deeper levels.
At a glance, it may seem that the semi-lateral forces cancel. That is only true if they are 180 degrees out of phase. There are infinite directions of pull that are less than 180 degrees out of phase. The downward semi-laterals do eventually get cancelled more and more by the upward forces. One must go extremely deep before the net decrease would begin to establish itself.
What you call "gravity" must be the greatest fun for all of you! You must try to imagine the real vectorial forces upon you and shy away from Newton's centerline-only gravitational image. Such an imagication is quite limiting.
The sky is a "limit", and it stretches out in infinite directions. So why not the ground also? Is the Earth not infinite vectorisations within a finite boundary?
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: >> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
>> > > > > > Pressure accrues. >> > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
>> > > > > > What could produce “ reduced pressure and/or lower density ” >> > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
>> > > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has >> > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that the >> > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for your >> > > > > brains to squirt out!
>> > > > > Double-A
>> > > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as >> > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) >> > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or even >> > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this final >> > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
>> > > > ~ BG
>> > > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would >> > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
>> > > Double-A
>> > At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
>> > How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
>> > ~ BG
>> The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that IS >> feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side attracting the >> opposite side.
>> Double-A
>However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk >of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless >you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd >be representing gravity).
>If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
> ~ BG
Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron star?
It could easily be hollow.
There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
In article <5sa1f5lm6ollp6vjmlva7p7mfjmiao1...@4ax.com>, Henry Wilson DSc <H@..> wrote:
>Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron >star?
>It could easily be hollow.
No, I'm pretty sure it couldn't. It couldn't spin fast enough without tearing itself apart and it would cease to be a neutron star long before it got to that point.
I guess "It could easily" means "I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about and the mathematics is completely beyond me, but I'm going to wave my hands rapidly and guess that it could".
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
>>> > > > > > Pressure accrues. >>> > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
>>> > > > > > What could produce " reduced pressure and/or lower density " >>> > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
>>> > > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has >>> > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that >>> > > > > the >>> > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for >>> > > > > your >>> > > > > brains to squirt out!
>>> > > > > Double-A
>>> > > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as >>> > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) >>> > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or >>> > > > even >>> > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this >>> > > > final >>> > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
>>> > > > ~ BG
>>> > > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would >>> > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
>>> > > Double-A
>>> > At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
>>> > How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
>>> > ~ BG
>>> The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that IS >>> feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side attracting the >>> opposite side.
>>> Double-A
>>However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk >>of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless >>you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd >>be representing gravity).
>>If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
>> ~ BG
> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome > gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning > neutron > star?
> It could easily be hollow.
Nobody thinks the Earth is hollow, and he doesn't read my posts. Nobody is drunk, the only thing that is hollow is his cask of cheap red wine.
> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
So the entire universe could be enclosed in such a shell and we'd never know it. But what would be outside it?
> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome > gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron > star?
> It could easily be hollow.
No Henry, Henri--the centrifugal force from the perspective of a rotating coordinate system goes to zero at the core.
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:58:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron >> star?
>> It could easily be hollow.
> No Henry, Henri--the centrifugal force from the perspective > of a rotating coordinate system goes to zero at the core.
I know that.
It could never become hollow if it was solid....but how do you know it was ever solid?
On the other hand, there could have been a massive explosion at the centre that created a giant cavity but wasn't strong enough to blow the whole thing apart.
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:26:11 -0800 (PST), amor...@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan
Morgan) wrote: >In article <5sa1f5lm6ollp6vjmlva7p7mfjmiao1...@4ax.com>, >Henry Wilson DSc <H@..> wrote:
>>Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >>gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron >>star?
>>It could easily be hollow.
>No, I'm pretty sure it couldn't. It couldn't spin fast enough without >tearing itself apart and it would cease to be a neutron star long before >it got to that point.
It might become a tennis ball instead
>I guess "It could easily" means "I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking >about and the mathematics is completely beyond me, but I'm going to wave my >hands rapidly and guess that it could".
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >news:5sa1f5lm6ollp6vjmlva7p7mfjmiao1na6@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> >>>However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk >>>of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless >>>you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd >>>be representing gravity).
>>>If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
>>> ~ BG
>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning >> neutron >> star?
>> It could easily be hollow.
>Nobody thinks the Earth is hollow, and he doesn't read my posts. >Nobody is drunk, the only thing that is hollow is his cask of cheap >red wine.
I suppose you will now include "Wilson says the Earth is hollow" in your list of misquotes? ...you know, the ones that are going to see you done for defamation...
>> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>So the entire universe could be enclosed in such a shell and >we'd never know it. But what would be outside it?
> > On Oct 30, 9:07 am, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in > > > messagenews:441e8ea2-89e4-4b3d-8091-50f193628723@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Oct 29, 7:10 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote: > > > >> Brad·Guth's “hollow earth” theory is insane. Pressure accrues. > > > >> Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
> > > >> The center of earth is like that but, instead of water, > > > >> you have zetta·tons of blazing·hot steel pressing down on you.
> > > > It's just a theory, although hollow is relative.
> > > Hollow is defined, not relative.
> > > > How about a reduced pressure and/or lower density interior?
> > > The pressure at the center is created through compression, not > > > gravitational attraction AT THE CORE, rather the matter trying to get > > > TO/THRU the core via the resultant vector created by ALL of the matter > > > of the earth, not just at the core.
> > > However, do to this compression the matter at the core will have a > > > higher specific density, thus a bit more gravity than the same material > > > would have without a large mass trying to press through equally from > > > all sides.
> > That’s really odd, because in deep underground caves or mine shafts, > > other than the expected atmospheric pressure increase that’s obvious > > and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km depth unless you plan on > > artificially cooling that column of air in order to get a 100% > > increase per 3.5 km), there’s hardly any other significant geology > > pressures for our physiology to contend with, including while swimming > > or scuba diving in those deep underground lakes or aquifers, and > > there’s certainly not any big increase in gravity (if anything it only > > measurably increases ever so slightly), and there’s certainly no > > objective way of telling if the inner core is merely that of a dense > > shell that’s hollow inside, or not. > >http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2...
> The fact that gravity increases measurably in deep caves/mines tells > you that the interior of the Earth is denser than the rock above you. > Otherwise gravity would have already begun to decrease.
> Double-A
> My dearest Double-A! > The centerline gravity Has begun to decrease. > It's the downward semi-lateral crust density that increases a bit more > quickly than that centerline decrease that causes the increase in net > gravitational force as one goes deeper into the crust. > For a time.
> Measuring devices used so far have no way of distinguishing the semi-lateral > forces from the centerline force, so they measure the net force as having > increased. > There is, of course, a semi-lateral force at the surface which, if separated > from the centerline force, would be found to be at minimum, and it increases > quickly as spelunkers and divers explore to deeper levels.
> At a glance, it may seem that the semi-lateral forces cancel. > That is only true if they are 180 degrees out of phase. > There are infinite directions of pull that are less than 180 degrees out of > phase. > The downward semi-laterals do eventually get cancelled more and more by the > upward forces. > One must go extremely deep before the net decrease would begin to establish > itself.
> What you call "gravity" must be the greatest fun for all of you! > You must try to imagine the real vectorial forces upon you and shy away from > Newton's centerline-only gravitational image. > Such an imagication is quite limiting.
> The sky is a "limit", and it stretches out in infinite directions. > So why not the ground also? > Is the Earth not infinite vectorisations within a finite boundary?
> -- > Darla
That's certainly a whole lot better way of saying it, though still complex and as you say, it's not going to be limited to all that Newtonian centerline-only gravitational stuff as we travel inward (below the crust). It must be nearly as complex and/or downright interesting for that of our Selene/moon interior, that’s no longer fluid under that extremely thick and substantially mineral saturated crust, other than encountering a few layers or geode pockets of mineral brines.
What’s at the residual hot core of our Selene/moon?
>>>>However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk >>>>of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless >>>>you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd >>>>be representing gravity).
>>>>If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
>>>> ~ BG
>>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >>> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning >>> neutron >>> star?
>>> It could easily be hollow.
>>Nobody thinks the Earth is hollow, and he doesn't read my posts. >>Nobody is drunk, the only thing that is hollow is his cask of cheap >>red wine.
> I suppose you will now include "Wilson says the Earth is hollow" in your > list > of misquotes? ...you know, the ones that are going to see you done for > defamation...
The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Since I have proof absolute that you said "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 you won't have a leg to stand on.
>>> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>>So the entire universe could be enclosed in such a shell and >>we'd never know it. But what would be outside it?
> You've forgotten to mention his being a twice arrested "wife beater" > as well as a drug induced "Satan worshiper", because that's exactly > what their Zionist/Jewish policy includes and approves of, as well as > slave ownership and apparently body snatchings for live organ > harvesting, along with their kosher approved SEC and its Ponzi Madoff > types that have no remorse about stealing from God, their own kind, or > their putting dark-skinned folks on a stick, and more recently > excessively irradiating 100,000 dark-skinned Jewish kids.
> ______________________________ > So Einstein harvested organs, owned slaves and worshipped Satan while on > drugs?
Of course, Einstein did make some great contributions to mankind. The URL below describes Einstein's greatest invention in detail.
Considering how intently the Mass Media, and GTR Guru's on the public dole, hyped and hypes Einstein's General Relativity,
a model that uses rubber clocks and rulers to waste time, money and minds on such pursuits as time travel, worm holes, gravitons, warping through space, etc.
as mankind's greatest intellectual achievement,
comparing Einstein's greatest invention to
Edison's inventions that gave man audio and video recording, electrical power generation and distribution systems with generators, motors, meters, lamps, heaters, etc.
and the Watson, Crick DNA model that is used every day to improve health, fight crime, design better food crops, etc.
No doubt, Einstein, like Maddock, Marx, the Biblical authors, Ayn Rand, Uncle Al, etc. was a master words smith, but when one measures his works by their positive benefits to mankind, one realizes that:
Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:58:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >>> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron >>> star?
>>> It could easily be hollow. >> No Henry, Henri--the centrifugal force from the perspective >> of a rotating coordinate system goes to zero at the core.
> I know that.
> It could never become hollow if it was solid....but how do you know it was ever > solid?
>>>Nobody thinks the Earth is hollow, and he doesn't read my posts. >>>Nobody is drunk, the only thing that is hollow is his cask of cheap >>>red wine.
>> I suppose you will now include "Wilson says the Earth is hollow" in your >> list >> of misquotes? ...you know, the ones that are going to see you done for >> defamation...
>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to >sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" >all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. >A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal >cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >Since I have proof absolute that you said > "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson > http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 >you won't have a leg to stand on.
We were talking about doppler shift at the source. there isn't any in BaTh.
You'd better get a good lawyer.
>>>> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>>>So the entire universe could be enclosed in such a shell and >>>we'd never know it. But what would be outside it?
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:47:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:58:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >>>> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron >>>> star?
>>>> It could easily be hollow. >>> No Henry, Henri--the centrifugal force from the perspective >>> of a rotating coordinate system goes to zero at the core.
>> I know that.
>> It could never become hollow if it was solid....but how do you know it was ever >> solid?
> It's a force called gravity--look it up!
What are the required conditions for spinning matter to condense into a HOLLOW ball rather than a solid one?
> Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:58:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
> >>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome > >>> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron > >>> star?
> >>> It could easily be hollow. > >> No Henry, Henri--the centrifugal force from the perspective > >> of a rotating coordinate system goes to zero at the core.
> > I know that.
> > It could never become hollow if it was solid....but how do you know it was ever > > solid?
> It's a force called gravity--look it up!
Ever heard of helium? (where the hell do you think it comes from?)
Ever heard of CO2, methane and radon gas?
What happens when a 500 Mt chemical or nuclear reactions take place at 500+ km deep?
>>>>Nobody thinks the Earth is hollow, and he doesn't read my posts. >>>>Nobody is drunk, the only thing that is hollow is his cask of cheap >>>>red wine.
>>> I suppose you will now include "Wilson says the Earth is hollow" in your >>> list >>> of misquotes? ...you know, the ones that are going to see you done for >>> defamation...
>>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to >>sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" >>all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. >>A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal >>cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >>Since I have proof absolute that you said >> "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson >> http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 >>you won't have a leg to stand on.
> We were talking about doppler shift at the source. > there isn't any in BaTh.
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >news:lru1f5t6m6j2e4ho8hdecjtqrjqpeq5127@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:15:22 -0000, "Androcles" >>>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to >>>sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" >>>all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. >>>A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal >>>cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >>>Since I have proof absolute that you said >>> "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson >>> http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 >>>you won't have a leg to stand on.
>> We were talking about doppler shift at the source. >> there isn't any in BaTh.
>>>>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to >>>>sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" >>>>all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. >>>>A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal >>>>cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >>>>Since I have proof absolute that you said >>>> "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson >>>> http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 >>>>you won't have a leg to stand on.
>>> We were talking about doppler shift at the source. >>> there isn't any in BaTh.
>>>>>>> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>>>>>>So the entire universe could be enclosed in such a shell and >>>>>>we'd never know it. But what would be outside it?
>>>>> inverse space. x = 1/X
>>>>Not the question I asked.
>>> No but its a good answer anyway.
>>Only for a drunk.
> It explains infinity. Space is inverse, It goes to zero when X = > infinity..
Only for an extreme drunk. We mathematicians say division by zero is undefined. a = b, given. a^2 = ab, multiplying both sides by a. a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2, subtracting b^2 from both sides. (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b), factorising. a+b = b, dividing both sides by (a-b). b+b = b, because a = b, given. 2b = b, because b+b = 2b 2 = 1, dividing both sides by b. Since 2b = b, proven, it follows a = 2b and we can prove all numbers = 1, so all numbers are equal but some are more equal than others. No infinity involved.
> >>>>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to > >>>>sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" > >>>>all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. > >>>>A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal > >>>>cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. > >>>>Since I have proof absolute that you said > >>>> "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 > >>>>you won't have a leg to stand on.
> >>> We were talking about doppler shift at the source. > >>> there isn't any in BaTh.
> >>>>>>> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
> >>>>>>So the entire universe could be enclosed in such a shell and > >>>>>>we'd never know it. But what would be outside it?
> >>>>> inverse space. x = 1/X
> >>>>Not the question I asked.
> >>> No but its a good answer anyway.
> >>Only for a drunk.
> > It explains infinity. Space is inverse, It goes to zero when X = > > infinity..
> Only for an extreme drunk. > We mathematicians say division by zero is undefined. > a = b, given. > a^2 = ab, multiplying both sides by a. > a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2, subtracting b^2 from both sides. > (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b), factorising. > a+b = b, dividing both sides by (a-b). > b+b = b, because a = b, given. > 2b = b, because b+b = 2b > 2 = 1, dividing both sides by b. > Since 2b = b, proven, it follows a = 2b > and we can prove all numbers = 1, so all numbers are equal > but some are more equal than others. No infinity involved.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:35:45 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> > wrote:
> >"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message > >news:lru1f5t6m6j2e4ho8hdecjtqrjqpeq5127@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:15:22 -0000, "Androcles" > >>>The nobody Wilson reads my posts... any time you want to > >>>sue, go ahead, Google has the archives. Oh, and err... "suppose" > >>>all you want to, even in civil cases a modicum of proof is required. > >>>A preponderance of the evidence is good enough, only in criminal > >>>cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. > >>>Since I have proof absolute that you said > >>> "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson > >>> http://tinyurl.com/2rk695 > >>>you won't have a leg to stand on.
> >> We were talking about doppler shift at the source. > >> there isn't any in BaTh.
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:47:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:58:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >>>>> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron >>>>> star?
>>>>> It could easily be hollow. >>>> No Henry, Henri--the centrifugal force from the perspective >>>> of a rotating coordinate system goes to zero at the core.
>>> I know that.
>>> It could never become hollow if it was solid....but how do you know it was ever >>> solid?
>> It's a force called gravity--look it up!
>What are the required conditions for spinning matter to condense into a HOLLOW >ball rather than a solid one?
I can't imagine that it would ever do that. The equator of the object can be spinning fast enough to resist gravity, but the north and south poles will be subject to gravity and collapse inwards. A rapidly spinning object will deform into a disk (assuming it doesn't fly apart first), not an empty shell.
> In article <80v1f5hg1od5qmuumsgu39gtpuh8fmn...@4ax.com>, > Henry Wilson DSc <H@..> wrote:
> >On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:47:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:58:11 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
> >>>>> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome > >>>>> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron > >>>>> star?
> >>>>> It could easily be hollow. > >>>> No Henry, Henri--the centrifugal force from the perspective > >>>> of a rotating coordinate system goes to zero at the core.
> >>> I know that.
> >>> It could never become hollow if it was solid....but how do you know it was ever > >>> solid?
> >> It's a force called gravity--look it up!
> >What are the required conditions for spinning matter to condense into a HOLLOW > >ball rather than a solid one?
> I can't imagine that it would ever do that. The equator of the object can > be spinning fast enough to resist gravity, but the north and south poles > will be subject to gravity and collapse inwards. A rapidly spinning object > will deform into a disk (assuming it doesn't fly apart first), not an > empty shell.
> Alan > -- > Defendit numerus
How very true. However the extremely thick and robust crust of our Selene/moon has to be quite different than our 98.5% fluid Earth.
|
