|
CONTRARIANTHINKER |
|
The Life Cycle of a Hot Condensing Sphere in Space By dB The 'Clangers'
Sir Isaac Newton's shell theorem looks suspect... 2nd Sept. 2006 - Note: There is an important update in the Addenda today Introduction I believe Neal Adams, the man who created Batman and the X-men, and others are correct when they claim the Earth is expanding. The hypothesis is based on the following observations. 1) The present ocean floor is no older than 700 million years (much younger in the middle), while the continents are around 2000 million years old, determined by radiometric dating. The Earth is at least 4.5 Billion Years Old. The oldest metamorphic rocks are nearly 4 Bn years old. 2) If you remove all of the oceans, what is left forms a neat spherical jigsaw of approximately half the existing Earth diameter (oceans currently cover 3/4 of the globe). 3) Ancient fish fossils are found on high land 4) Dinosaurs' skeletons and massive scale makes more sense under reduced gravity. (Note: this fact has lead all researchers to look in the wrong direction, as we will see later). The only explanation that has been offered to account for the above observations is that the Earth must be growing in mass (not just inflating) and expanding outwards. It is the 'growing in mass' bit that sticks in the craw of conventional science, since the laws of physics would have to be re-written. Although the evidence for terrestrial expansion is compelling, it must have a credible scientific explanation if it is to become accepted. As you can see, attempts to explain the Earth's expansion have so far failed to convince. In this paper I will show how an inflating Earth can also undergo a gravitational increase (at least as perceived by those unsuspecting dinosaurs who were lording over the planet). Expansion is a recent phenomenon Continental rocks are up to 2 billion years old. From this we can say that a solid crust started to form no later than 2 billion years ago. If the present oceans started forming 700m years ago, and the continents are much older (2000m years), there must have been a period when the Earth was just over half its present diameter, and was relatively stable in dimension for at least 1300m years, and quite possibly for much longer than that. What caused it to start expanding 700m years ago? It is the lack of a cohesive and credible mechanism to explain this that has until now stymied the acceptance of the 'Expanding Earth' theory. Our Hollow Earth and Moon Since the Earth appears to be expanding the most logical follow-on assumption to be made is that it is inflating. It has long been known that a seismic discontinuity exists just under half way towards the Earth's centre. Some studies suggest that this is because the Earth is Hollow. There may be evidence that our less dense and apparently older Moon is hollow too, which has in the past even led some to go as far as to suggest it is an artificial satellite! Pressure and Gravity Gravity is a weak nuclear attractive force. Gravity at the centre of the Earth would pull in all directions equally, which might lead one to think of the net sum of all forces being zero. Some researchers mistakenly imagine that net gravity would actually act outwards from the centre. Not true. At the exact centre of the Earth nucleons would still attract each other, it is just that the force would not induce acceleration in an observer, as it would on the surface. Mass would be pulled towards the observer. The observer would be squashed by PRESSURE cause by GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION. A Pre-requisite for Gravitational Expansion The only way gravity inside the planet could be less than gravity somewhere in the shell would be if matter had already been substantially depleted in terms of nucleons per square meter compared to that 'somewhere in the shell'. Gravity by itself could not cause inflation. But once irreversible nucleon depletion at the centre had occurred by another mechanism to a sufficient extent, gravity could draw matter outwards. Therefore the key to solving the evolutionary mechanism of expanding planets rests on finding a way where by the central core can be permanently depleted of nucleons, so that outwards-pulling gravity can take over the 'heavy lifting' so necessary for the sustained expansion phase the Earth has apparently been in for the last 700m years of its existence. The Dinosaur Age According to the expanding Earth theory the present oceans have been growing for 700m years. Before that there was a smaller planet made up of today's continental land masses. As we have shown, seismological data supports the notion of a hollow planet. Perhaps 230m years ago dinosaurs first appeared. This must have been after the Earth's expansion was well underway if it started 700m years ago. Currently it is believed that an asteroid impact was responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs around 65m years ago, though that theory has since been challenged. I think this is what happened.
The mechanism I now propose does not re-write the laws of physics*, yet it can account for all of the following observation-supported theories. 1) The earth has been expanding since the oceans opened up 2) The dinosaurs must have lived in lower gravity 3) Planets and moons show similar 'two-tone' surface areas as the Earth and so also must have undergone a similar growth It may even account for the red giants that mysteriously follow the cooling of stars. *it does require that Newton's illogical Shell Theorem be amended. See The 'Clangers' and also Addenda. -------------------------- A Brief History of Earth The Earth condensed from Stellar matter including heavy elements that can only be formed in supernovae.
A boundary 'skin' formed between the liquid and gas phases. Whether there ever was a solid phase at the core is a moot point.
Now, an arch has immense supportive strength. A 'spherical shell' is even stronger - essentially an arch in every direction. The dome of St. Paul's Cathedral in London and the common egg are but two manifestations of this exceptional strength to weight ratio.
The new solid, fused, annealed igneous shell of the Earth must also have had incredible intrinsic strength. Note 'support its own weight' need not be strictly true - all the shell had to was to support that fraction of it's weight beyond the density of the magma, which still exerted upwards pressure on the underside of the shell.
Volcanic action repeatedly transferred mass from the interior to the planet surface, creating (mostly undersea at the time) continental mountain ranges. Higher peaks may have protruded into the atmosphere. However, we know the land was largely submerged at the time because fish fossils are found in elevated places. If the same volume of water as we have now was covering a surface only 1/4 of the size of the present Earth, the sea would have had to be, on average, 4 times deeper.
As hot lava emerged from active volcanoes surface water would have cooled it down causing it to solidify. In this way volcanic action would naturally have lead to a thinning of the planet's core and a thickening of the crust. (I image that volcanic activity in a hotter, younger, thin-skinned smaller planet would have been much more dramatic than anything we see today, and so this process would have been quite dynamic.) The thickening shell would naturally assume a density greater than the magma immediately below for the following reasons. 1) Ejected matter would be supported by the 'arch' of the the shell and unable to return to the magma. 2) Solidifying material is naturally more dense than fluid material (ice/water is the exception, not the rule) ...there is another, but I am saving it up for the punchline....
There would come a time when the shell grew so thick magma immediately below it would actually be drawn upwards by gravity as well as forced though by pressure. This may have been what triggered the current expansion phase that commenced 700m years ago when the Earth 'cracked open' and the present oceans started to form, so eloquently demonstrated in Neal's video. The cracks that opened up were not sufficient to cause the shell to collapse, however. Instead the upward thrusting matter annealed with the existing shell, progressively expanding it. So the model in a nutshell is - the cooling shell first accumulates mass by volcanic action then eventually draws to core towards it by gravitational attraction. The Gravity Well Model A gravity well is a useful way to illustrate how mass gravitationally affects the space around it. Depiction of Single Source Gravity Well
Note: a less flamboyant but more accurate depiction of the well would be with spherical force contours
A graph of force of gravity versus diameter would look something like this.
What finally caused Earth to 'crack' and start to expand rapidly was the formation, by volcanic aggregation of shell material at the expense of the core, of a spherical gravity well. Hollow Spherical Well The gravity well of a hollowed-out expanding body would look something like this. It has a bell at the centre.
Spherical Gravity Contour Map
A graph of force of gravity versus diameter would look something like this.
Why the Dinosaurs Came & Went. The expanding planet model outlined above is fully compatible with the requirement that dinosaurs walked the Earth on a smaller planet with significantly less gravity, as I will now show. I will use shaded spheres to illustrate distribution of mass (nucleons) and a simple curve to show gravitational potential though a diameter of that sphere. 1. Mass aggregates from stellar gas and forms a skin or crust
2. Volcanic action draws matter away from mantle
3.True secondary gravity wells grow around the mean shell diameter
4. The interior gravity well flattens out
5. Gravity inverts and the heavy nuclei previously trapped in the core well are able to migrate to the shell in a sudden and self-reinforcing manner.
Now, since gravity obeys the inverse square law, the effect of this rapid migration will be to produce a gravitational increase at the planet surface. It is a sudden outwards migration of core material previously at the earth's core that did for the dinosaurs. Suddenly they could not stand up any more, poor things. By the way, the third reason why magma below the shell became progressively less dense than the shell, opening up the possibility of upwards gravitational attraction, was due to a powerful effect of cooling. As the shell hardened to solid, so the core correspondingly was cooling. This reduced internal pressure and the iron core was able to hold the magma more tightly, resulting in lower densities between the core and shell. I know that Newton's Shell Theorem says that even if the iron did mysteriously leave the core in favour of the shell, this would not affect perceived gravity on the surface. I do not think the Shell Theorem is correct, reasons given in link to same from near the top of this article. If anyone can refute, in particular, the hypothetical 'hemispherical object' proof that the ST is up creek without a paddle when it comes to short ranges and in particular inside a body, I would like to hear from you. Please, no maths that intelligent but non-ultra-academic readers can't follow. If you know what U are talking about and are correct, you should be able to explain it to the intelligent layman. Please, no 'I promise to pay the bearer the sum of five pounds' here. We deal in explicable logic. 'The ability to hold two opposing ideas at once is not a sign of intelligence - it is a sign of, at best, self-deceit.' Gravitational Computation This is a schematic of a particle caught between the gravitational pull of the shell and the core. Obviously it is an over simplification, since the mantle and the rest of the shell will contribute to the gravity field.
Earth cross section Note : at the end of this section I offer proof that Newton's Shell Theorem must be incorrect simply by taking the theorem to a limit. Now read on... The shell segment (depicted by blue circle) and core (red) acting upon the particle m
Normally we think of gravity between two separated bodies. What we have in the condensed shell with core model is essentially gravity between two bodies at a fixed distance from each other. The force acting on imaginary particle m by the shell is given by the formula
The force acting on imaginary particle m by the core is given by the formula
The ratio of these forces is given by the formula
which reduces to
Any solutions to the above equation that gives a value greater than 1 will indicate that the particle m will gravitate to the shell. Less than 1 and m will be in the sway of the core. Remember as soon as mass (and sufficient strength to support that extra mass) is added to a fixed, solid shell, the process of at least partial gravity inversion (gravity well wing formation) becomes self-reinforcing and irreversible. To find out if the shell would have mass sufficient to attract nuclei in proximity, a prerequisite for the commencement of the process of reversing the direction of the force of gravity inside the planet, we need to know, among other things, d1 and m1. m2 and d2 we can make a decent stab at, at least to well within an order of magnitude. But m1 and d1 depend on the answer to this crucial question... As the magma fused to form a crust, at what stage did the shell become self supporting? From that point onwards it became able to act as a gravity well provided the solution to
is greater than 1. This is a question that structural engineers should be able to answer. However, we have examples in nature of very thin self-supporting shells - eggs. Consider the paltry (poultry - geddit?) thickness of an egg shell compared to the volume and mass it successfully encloses. This is good for the gravity inversion hypothesis, since g varies as the inverse square of distance, but only linearly with mass. In other words, the thinner the self-supporting shell, the more likely it is to begin attracting nucleons in the immediate vicinity to it. Caveat : the thinner the shell, the closer in density it will be to the supporting magma, so at first the gravity gradient may not be enough between the inner boundary of the shell and the magma to overcome the longer range attraction from the core. Clearly there is a 'play off' here. To summarise - to a first approximation at least partial gravity inversion is dependent on 1) solid/fluid magma density gradient at the phase change (linear relationship) 2) thickness of the solid skin (inverse square relationship) 3) mass of the shell segment (linear) 4) mass of the core (linear) 5) distance from core (inverse square relationship) Once the shell is able to draw in surrounding magma the question then arises - will the core's gravity well also be overcome? Will the core spill out onto the underside of the shell, as in the section above entitled 'How Dinosaurs Came and Went? *NEW* As I research further new factoids emerge. Wikipedia says that gravity felt inside a symmetrical hollow sphere would be zilch. I do not believe this, whatever Newton said. Gravity is an interaction of nucleons or nuclei that obeys the inverse square law. Collision Theory Even if the core well remains, there is a way that the activation barrier between the shell and core wells may be breached. A catalyst to the coalescing of core and shell could come in the form of another object hitting the planet. The asteroid that is famously associated with dinosaur extinction must have transferred its momentum to planet Earth. However, if the Earth's shell was somewhat decoupled from the core by this time, the shell would have started to move before the core. In other words, the core would be forced off-centre and towards the shell.
On the Moon this may also have happened - there is evidence of large impacts. On the Moon the core may have already cooled somewhat, and so was not able to distribute itself evenly by flowing around the inside of the Moon's shell. Instead it stuck to one side, leaving the moon with irregular mass distribution. Maybe in time the side with the core stuck under it would be drawn towards the Earth. Hence we have the anomaly of the dark side of the moon.
Now for a flight of fancy.... Stars are different because of their massive size. They are simply too big to ever form a cold surface. If/once they form a thick enough skin, however, they gravity invert. The result is the formation of a red giant. A red giant is a bubble, not a vastly thinned-out gas ball. The drop in temperature is because the heat dissipation is spread out over a much larger surface. Got a better explanation? Wikipedia Says this about red giants They are stars of 0.4 - 10 times the mass of the Sun which have exhausted their supply of hydrogen in their cores and switched to fusing hydrogen in a shell outside the core. Since the inert helium core has no source of energy of its own, it contracts and heats up, and its gravity compresses the hydrogen in the layer immediately above it, thus causing it to fuse faster. This in turn causes the star to become more luminous (from 1,000 – 10,000 times brighter) and expand. Oh yeah? How? Just because the nucleus got a bit hotter? Lemme see - first it got cooler so it collapsed, but then it got hotter again then another reaction started then it pumped itself right up... or How about it just simply started expanding due to gravity inversion? Round Up If my general theory of gravitational inversion proves to be theoretically sound, once some detailed calculations are done, it can at a stroke reconcile many phenomena. 1) Why planets appear hollow (they are) 2) Why the Earth and other bodies are expanding 3) Why the dinosaur age came to an abrupt end 4) Maybe - why only one side of the Moon faces the Earth 5) Long shot - why red giants expand I am not the first to stumble upon the expanding planet hypothesis. The theory was first proposed in the 1930's when the mid-ocean ridges were first mapped. However, I owe most to Neal Adams, because, more than anything, it was his elegant animations and arguments that convinced me that the evidence for expanding celestial spheres was overwhelming. After that I simply could not stop until I had found at least one rational explanation for it. >>>BRAIN FOR HIRE<<< Provided your project contributes to, rather than corrodes, humanity, and U can afford it, I am available for blue sky lateral thinking on a freelance consultancy basis. WARNING. Please do NOT expect me to reach any 'Performance Targets' or to endorse a 'Mission Statement'. Or to wear a tie. ...you never know what might turn up....
|
