Zero Gravity at the Center of the Sun

[htert2020]

Consider that the Earth is hollow. And consider the evidence that gravity is not
what is expected at the bottom of a deep mine. ... If this agreed with the depth that seismic measurements
can be interpreted to give - then that is real evidence of a hollow Earth.
Mo

This is intriguing information. Can you elaborate a bit on how the hollow-Earth theory suggested by the deep-mine measurements conflicts with seismic measurements? I'm not too familiar with seismic measurement technology.

If Earth turns out to be mostly hollow, then what would that say about other planets of the solar system, or even the sun? It may raise questions such as whether the sun itself is hollow, and if so, that would directly contradict standard nuclear fusion theory and support EU. A hollow Earth could also shed interesting light on how a planetary Faraday electric motor might cause the Earth to rotate on its axis.

[faceoff]

Sorry solar, but I do believe that I'm in a proper thread. It was just a little digression. Than again not, 'cause this discussion took me back to 1994, when I get to analyse proportions within the numbers due to a number of atoms in a minimal structure of an Iron box. Strange, but it lead me to the idea of an electro-magnetic nature of a galaxy.
Nothing of this I found here are new to me. Still, it confirm mine investigation, based upon the presumption that with the "black wholes" and "dark matter" scientists, at that time, gave themselves boost into wrong direction. Gravity theory seemed quite empty, and model of the galaxy set upon 6+2+1 looked much more realistic. Back then no one took it seriously, not until Hawking made a similar presumption of a Galaxy as a Nut shell, with a radiations of a "black wholes".
Well, radiation yes, Black wholes NO.
Center of a galaxy is under such a traction that it's highly probable that nothing can get into it, with a massive stars surrounding it, circulating in high velocity. And it might be that projections of the forces within the center inducts EMF.
Of course, this does not prove anything, but it does not exclude EU theory.

[edcrater]

Hi all, this is a great topic!
Here's my 2 cents.

Imagine a planet made entirely of water [because it is incompressible], with a tube inserted from one side to the other, passing through the center of mass. In the tube is a ladder. On the outside of the tube is a line of handholds. An astronaut in a spacesuit starts climbing down inside the tube, and at the same time a diver starts pulling himself down the handholds, through the water. As the astronaut gets further down, the net gravity on him is less, due to there being some mass 'above', rather than all below. As he gets to the center, he is weightless. What about the diver? As he descends, the pressure on him increases due to the weight of water above. He experiences increasing pressure as he descends. As he gets deeper and deeper, there are 2 effects going on. The first is the increasing pressure with depth, and the second is that the gravity acting on a given volume of water is getting weaker, just as it is for the astronaut.

The effect of lowering gravity acting on each successive shell of water means there is less inward pull and less increment of increase in pressure for each shell, working inwards. Therefore the contribution to pressure of the innermost water will be very small in comparison. Therefore the pressure will increase relatively quickly with depth and then flatten out with only incremental rises. Thus the pressure at the center will not be the extreme that the establishment claims. The pressure will still be a maximum at the center, but pretty uniform over a large part of the inner volume. Whether this is enough to cause a temperature high enough to light the 'nuclear fusion' will depend on the size of the planet. The logic here will also work for a gas, but of course under pressure this will become liquid and then perhaps solid depending on temperature, so the pressure curve will be more complex. It probably works for terrestrial planets too, as we are told that they are only solid on the surface.

As a check on the above theory, consider a planetary sphere of water part way in. The outer shell is being pulled in by gravity. If the inner water wasn't there, the outer would collapse inwards. The inner water must therefore thrust out on the outer water by reaction, to stop it moving in. Therefore there is a force on the inner water. Even though there is low or zero gravity, there is a force compressing it, and therefore there is pressure. Theory confirmed. It is counter-intuitive, but there can be low gravity and high pressure.

{{Of course, in all this I have assumed no "plasma effects". That might change things; eager to hear views. I am aware that the plasma theory for a gas-ball says that the electrical opposition would overwhelm the gravity attraction. Also, I have never seen any calculation to show that the pressure in the center is enough to cause a high enough temperature to "light the nuclear fires", so high pressure does not necessarily support the old and discredited nuclear model.}}

[webolife]

More than $.02 worth, edcrater!
I've got a couple questions about your imagined watery planet, and our real one, based on your thought experiment:
Since liquid water is allegedly incompressible, what causes the multi-K G's of pressure on the abyssal plains or in the ocean trenches? With increasing pressure when/at what depth does the liquid planet undergo a phase change, and how would this affect the diver? I submit the possibility that if the liquid planet is rotating, which it must be, the climber experiences zero-gravity immediately upon entering the hollow tube. Care to bite on any of these brainteasers?

[moses]

Can you elaborate a bit on how the hollow-Earth theory suggested by the deep-mine measurements conflicts with seismic measurements? I'm not too familiar with seismic measurement technology.
htert2020
You might like to have a gander at this:
http://www.hollowplanets.com/journal/Seismic01.asp

I'm having trouble locating deep mine gravitometer measurements. In fact, some
articles report an increase in gravity with depth, others the opposite. Any help
would be much appreciated.
Mo

[bdw000]

Some here might be interested in the "gravity is a PUSH" idea.

Three books are:

PUSHING GRAVITY, Matthew Edwards ed. (2002). This is a collection of articles. Halton Arp starts it off.

THE GREAT GRAVITY MYTH, Gregory Leo Harrington (1983) calls gravity an EM phenomenon

GRAVITY IS A PUSH, Walter C. Wright, Jr. (1979)


I do not know why mainstream physics dismisses this idea. I don't see how Arp would embrace an idea if there were simple, unarguable, experimental refutations (but what do I know). Seems like (to a non-specialist!) a very viable possibility.

Do any of you EU specialists (I'm just a spectator) have any opinions on this, pro or con?

[junglelord]

What they know behind closed doors and what they teach to the public are two different ball games.
Thats the long and the short of it.

[edcrater]

I've got a couple questions about your imagined watery planet, and our real one, based on your thought experiment:
Since liquid water is allegedly incompressible, what causes the multi-K G's of pressure on the abyssal plains or in the ocean trenches? With increasing pressure when/at what depth does the liquid planet undergo a phase change, and how would this affect the diver? I submit the possibility that if the liquid planet is rotating, which it must be, the climber experiences zero-gravity immediately upon entering the hollow tube. Care to bite on any of these brainteasers?

Thanks for your input.

My example was intended to be as simple as possible to tease out what's going on. Thus the water was assumed incompressible, and the planet not rotating to avoid dynamic effects.

The high pressure in the oceans is just the normal increase of pressure with depth that the diver experienced initially - I suppose it is linear for quite a way. This pressure clearly does not lead to increasing temperature, as the ocean depths are cold. Interestingly, they don't get warm from being closer to the hot liquid magma. So, they never boil, and they never seem to freeze either, or icebergs would be popping up everywhere, with a consequent hazard to navigation. Imagine a ship being hit below from a rising ice-berg; a good Hollywood disaster plot.

The astronaut [climber?] in the tube does not experience zero-gravity as soon as he enters the tube because that is at the surface of the planet. [The tube is open-ended and in the vacuum of space throughout, because the planet has no atmosphere { I'm ignoring water vapor too! }]. He has to hold on else he will fall down the tube, just as he would fall down a mineshaft. He only gets zero-g when he arrives at the center, when he would just float there. These conditions would apply whether the planet was rotating or not, I suppose, but let's keep it simple! These issues are brain-twisting enough with variables at a minimum!

[MGmirkin]

Pressure is caused by any kind of force, so if the gravity is 0, there could not be pressure caused by force of gravity. Sorry, but I failed to see where is the 0 point in the example with the wooden blocs.

Wooden blocks is probably not the best example.

Think of it this way:

Put a person in the middle of the sun (not literally; ow!). In each direction there is approximately an equal amount of matter / mass pulling him in all directions. The net outward force is zero, so he doesn't move from the center.

Pressure, on the other hand is something else.

All the atoms or charged particles are being gravitationally attracted to each other (in theory).

Take a particle at the edge of the theoretical sphere. It's being gravitationally attracted by all the matter between itself and the opposite side of the sphere and slightly less powerfully by matter at other angles not going directly through the center of the sphere. So, that particle will be being pulled by the gravitational attraction of all the pieces of matter between itself and the opposite side of the sphere. It will feel a force pulling on it and want to move in the direction of the opposite side of the sphere. Likewise, the particle on the opposite side of the sphere will have the same attraction. In essence, both sides of the sphere will want to move closer to one another due to gravitation with each other. Carried forward to a larger scale, the entire outer sphere (composed of diametrically opposed points) will want to contract. The sphere one atom down from the outer sphere will have a similar urge to contract. And so on. At some point, you get to the center. At that point there is essentially equal gravitating mass on both sides so there's no net gravitational draw [outward] in either direction. However, all the layers above that center point are wanting to contract due to gravitation (since there's more gravitating mass on the opposite side of the center [plus the distance from center of whatever particle you're observing] than that past the plane at the distance from center of the particle you're observing; I wish I had a graphic for you, but hope that made sense). It's those layers contracting to some equilibrium state that provides the pressure on the center. Not outward gravitation (no net outward force in any direction), but inward pressure (external layers contracting). That's how the standard model proposes that fusion occurs at the center of the sun. IE, if you get a big enough ball of gas, the gravitational attraction will increase the pressure in the center so high that fusion will occur (oversimplified).

Hope I've not botched the explanation too much or made it too difficult...?

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Imagine a planet made entirely of water [because it is incompressible], with a tube inserted from one side to the other, passing through the center of mass. In the tube is a ladder. On the outside of the tube is a line of handholds. An astronaut in a spacesuit starts climbing down inside the tube, and at the same time a diver starts pulling himself down the handholds, through the water. As the astronaut gets further down, the net gravity on him is less, due to there being some mass 'above', rather than all below. As he gets to the center, he is weightless. What about the diver? As he descends, the pressure on him increases due to the weight of water above. He experiences increasing pressure as he descends. As he gets deeper and deeper, there are 2 effects going on. The first is the increasing pressure with depth, and the second is that the gravity acting on a given volume of water is getting weaker, just as it is for the astronaut.

I suppose I should have read to the end of the thread before commenting. The above seems pretty apt. Granted, if there's air in the tube, it will also tend to increase in pressure. So, perhaps it would need to be a vacuum inside the tube (except the tube might get crushed at depth by the pressure of the water outside ;o])...

But, assuming it's a vacuum in the tube and it somehow miraculously doesn't get crushed at depth (perhaps it's made out of 'unobtainium' from the movie The Core ;o]), the diver would be subject to both gravity and pressure, whereas the guy in the tube would generally be subject only to gravity.

For the guy in the tube, gravity would decrease as he descends to the center point, since he'd have increasingly balanced amounts of mass on all sides which would cancel out in an equation.

For the diver, the gravity would decrease (as with the guy in the tube) while the pressure would increase (just like diving in Earth's oceans).

The more stuff you have stacked "above" you in a gravity well, the higher the inward "pressure" will be at your location.

~Michael

[flyingcloud]

Temperature Inside Collapsing Bubble Four Times That Of Sun

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 215613.htm

When bubbles in a liquid get compressed, the insides get hot – very hot,” said Ken Suslick, the Marvin T. Schmidt Professor of Chemistry at Illinois and a researcher at the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology. “Nobody has been able to measure the temperature inside a single collapsing bubble before. The temperature we measured – about 20,000 degrees Kelvin – is four times hotter than the surface of our sun.”

[seasmith]

flyingcloud on Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:42 pm
Temperature Inside Collapsing Bubble Four Times That Of Sun

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 215613.htm

When bubbles in a liquid get compressed, the insides get hot – very hot,” said Ken Suslick, the Marvin T. Schmidt Professor of Chemistry at Illinois and a researcher at the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology. “Nobody has been able to measure the temperature inside a single collapsing bubble before. The temperature we measured – about 20,000 degrees Kelvin – is four times hotter than the surface of our sun.”

This rash of ISOLATED' TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS are becoming like the much discussed around here ' red-shift / velocity ' enumerations, ie: worthless.
The authors of your above cited article hint at as much at the end when they say:

“We used to talk about the bubble forming a hot spot in an otherwise cold liquid,” Suslick said. “What we know now is that inside the bubble there is an even hotter spot, and outside of that core we are seeing emission from a plasma.”

Without understanding the nature of the conflux of energies at the supposed point of measurement, And the whatinahell "temperature" is, the pronouncements are virtually worthless [although nodoubt perennially taxpayer funded].

~

[junglelord]

Well Sonoluminessence is producing a load of intense energy via a sound implosion into a plasma burst and its incredibly hot.
That in and of itself is very interesting....at least to me it is.

[upriver]

flyingcloud on Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:42 pm
Temperature Inside Collapsing Bubble Four Times That Of Sun

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 215613.htm

When bubbles in a liquid get compressed, the insides get hot – very hot,” said Ken Suslick, the Marvin T. Schmidt Professor of Chemistry at Illinois and a researcher at the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology. “Nobody has been able to measure the temperature inside a single collapsing bubble before. The temperature we measured – about 20,000 degrees Kelvin – is four times hotter than the surface of our sun.”

This rash of ISOLATED' TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS are becoming like the much discussed around here ' red-shift / velocity ' enumerations, ie: worthless.
The authors of your above cited article hint at as much at the end when they say:

“We used to talk about the bubble forming a hot spot in an otherwise cold liquid,” Suslick said. “What we know now is that inside the bubble there is an even hotter spot, and outside of that core we are seeing emission from a plasma.”

Without understanding the nature of the conflux of energies at the supposed point of measurement, And the whatinahell "temperature" is, the pronouncements are virtually worthless [although nodoubt perennially taxpayer funded].

~

What do you want to know about how they measure temperature? I work in this field.

Here is the latest work. Very interesting because of the sub-nanosecond resolution of the spectrum which evolves into the ultraviolet(below 300nm) indicating temperatures of higher than 30000C.
"Time-resolved spectra of single-bubble sonoluminescence in sulfuric acid with a streak camera."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhRvE..78c5301C
Now the other issue is some of the lines that are present in a spectrum. Some of them require 18eV, which is 150,000C or more. I think the only reason that we have not been able to detect x-rays is because of attenuation/extinction(65nm).

As far as understanding the "conflux of energies at that point".
That is the whole idea of science unless you have some mystical knowledge of bubbles in water.

[junglelord]

Awsome field to work in very cool Upriver.