World upside down

[sir.clip]

We could test the theory by flying upwards and seeing if we arrive in Australia.

Ya.
Do it i bet it turns out just grand altogether.

 

[sir.clip]

Just tell your 6yr old to pay attention during Science lessons at school. A decent teacher will be able to answer all the questions they have. Or try the thing called Google, it has a considerable database of scientific knowledge.

Mind your head on the way out

Sure look it, i'll follow the crowd.

 

[Borp]

But if space itself is expanding, including all the space between the atoms of the earth, and the atoms that make up whatever measuring instrument we use, then any expansion of that space would not be detected because the proportions are all the same. In other words, the earth could be expanding but we can't measure its expansion because the measuring devices are also all expanding and making it look like the earth is staying the same size. Did you ever think of that? Eh? Eh?

Not that we need anymore science in this thread. But small things (anything smaller than a galaxy) isn't expanding. The atoms in small things aren't expanding.

 

[twentythreedom]

Sure look it, i'll follow the crowd.

Right

 

[NoXion]

Ya but thats all based on Theory of scientific consensus. And scientist can get it wrong sometimes

Scientific theories are built on observable facts. Yes, scientists have got things wrong in the past. This is because new facts came to light which forced scientists to revise their models. What facts can you bring to the table which contradict the scientific consensus that the Earth has not significantly altered its size or mass since it's formation?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Yes I did. That fails to account for the fact that energy density of matter has not changed since measurements began. Also if the energy density of matter was greater in the past then this should be reflected in various natural historical records, geological, cosmological, etc.

Pfft! Whatevs, poindexter.

 

[sir.clip]

Right

bumping our heads altogether, blind leading the blind

 

[sir.clip]

Scientific theories are built on observable facts. Yes, scientists have got things wrong in the past. This is because new facts came to light which forced scientists to revise their models. What facts can you bring to the table which contradict the scientific consensus that the Earth has not significantly altered its size or mass since it's formation?

The innocence of a child's eye.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Ya.
Do it i bet it turns out just grand altogether.

It will never work.

 

[NoXion]

The innocence of a child's eye.

My alleged naiveté is irrelevant. Where are the facts supporting the expanding Earth model?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Personally I prefer this model of the universe.

 

[sir.clip]

My alleged naiveté is irrelevant. Where are the facts supporting the expanding Earth model?

Ok, lets say that the surface of the earth is at a constant, and everything under our feet it is expanding outwards. then all the measurements Eratosthenes and those after would all be correct. One mistake they might have made was believing the world could be a sphere. The earth actually could be an inverted sphere. so looking to the sky is looking into the center of the universe, like looking into a spoon dish, or bowl...

 

[xenon]

its a giant core of molten nickel iron at temperatures way above what we use on it but not hotter than the sun. Its spin gives the earth its magnetic field.

It is hotter than the sun pound for pound. But then so are you Dotty. Oo misses. We all are.

Gravity. Is all about the mass, not the gas.

 

[NoXion]

Ok, lets say that the surface of the earth is at a constant, and everything under our feet it is expanding outwards. then all the measurements Eratosthenes and those after would all be correct. One mistake they might have made was believing the world could be a sphere. The earth actually could be an inverted sphere. so looking to the sky is looking into the center of the universe, like looking into a spoon dish, or bowl...

What about the energy density issue that I mentioned to ItWillNeverWork ?

 

[NoXion]

Also, the model implies a preferred reference frame, which is something discounted by relativity.

 

[sir.clip]

What about the energy density issue that I mentioned to ItWillNeverWork ?

i am not sure how energy density works or is calculated and i not sure what a preferred reference frame is.

 

[sir.clip]

Also this thread is heading in wrong direction.
its supposed to be about us looking into the universe not out into the universe.
The earth expanding is just a side line that could be happening?

 

[NoXion]

i am not sure how energy density works or is calculated and i not sure what a preferred reference frame is.

According to relativity, matter and energy are interlinked, interchangeable. A planet's worth of mass equals a *lot* of energy which produces a gravitational field, modelled as a curvature of space and time, which are also fundamentally unified in relativity.

In relativity, the universe is modelled using a coordinate system centred at one or more points in space-time. These coordinate systems don't necessarily match up with each other, meaning that two objects moving at greatly different speeds and directions won't necessarily agree on what they observe at the same third point. Relativity resolves this apparent paradox by embracing it; they're only observers after all, and any observers at the third point will have their own coordinate system.

 

[sir.clip]

According to relativity, matter and energy are interlinked, interchangeable. A planet's worth of mass equals a *lot* of energy which produces a gravitational field, modelled as a curvature of space and time, which are also fundamentally unified in relativity.

In relativity, the universe is modelled using a coordinate system centred at one or more points in space-time. These coordinate systems don't necessarily match up with each other, meaning that two objects moving at greatly different speeds and directions won't necessarily agree on what they observe at the same third point. Relativity resolves this apparent paradox by embracing it; they're only observers after all, and any observers at the third point will have their own coordinate system.

Thank you for the explanation. I will take some time to digest this information and try to make sense of it as at first glance it is just a jumble of words, some if which I do not understand. If you have any drawings,sketches or links to help me understand it would be very much appreciated..
One question I do have. If your beliefs are true, then would there be zero gravitational pull at the center of the worlds core as we know it?
If yes. Then could the center of the world be the same place as the center of the universe. Like a huge doughnut kind of shaped thing.

I am Trying to draw a diagram of it in microsoft paint but it is hard going.

 

[Signal 11]

could the center of the world be the same place as the center of the universe. Like a huge doughnut kind of shaped thing.

No.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

If your beliefs are true, then would there be zero gravitational pull at the center of the worlds core as we know it?

You simply won't believe what happens to the gravitational force acting on a massive body inside a spherical shell!

 

[NoXion]

Thank you for the explanation. I will take some time to digest this information and try to make sense of it as at first glance it is just a jumble of words, some if which I do not understand. If you have any drawings,sketches or links to help me understand it would be very much appreciated..
One question I do have. If your beliefs are true, then would there be zero gravitational pull at the center of the worlds core as we know it?
If yes. Then could the center of the world be the same place as the center of the universe. Like a huge doughnut kind of shaped thing.

I am Trying to draw a diagram of it in microsoft paint but it is hard going.

This might help you to understand what I'm talking about: Special relativity - Wikipedia

There is no net gravitational pull at the centre of any body - not just Earth - because the attraction of the matter surrounding that point cancels itself out. However, any object at the centre of the Earth would still be orbiting the sun. For this reason the centre of the Earth *cannot* be the centre of the universe, which according to modern understandings of space-time is not a coherent concept.

 

[sir.clip]

Thanks, I will try and get my head around all this.

I did a sketch of how i think, my kids think the universe is constructed.

 

[NoXion]

Why is there space on the outside of the Earth in this model? There's no empty space under the Earth's surface, and we know this from examining the vibrations that travel through the Earth as a result of earthquakes.

 

[sir.clip]

Why is there space on the outside of the Earth in this model? There's no empty space under the Earth's surface, and we know this from examining the vibrations that travel through the Earth as a result of earthquakes.

I think its called a nucleus. the central and most important part of an object

 

[NoXion]

I think its called a nucleus. the central and most important part of an object

The centre of the Earth is called the core, and it consists of solid iron, not empty space.

 

[sir.clip]

The centre of the Earth is called the core, and it consists of solid iron, not empty space.

Iron has atoms, atoms have nucleus.. nucleus is universe/space

 

[NoXion]

Iron has atoms, atoms have nucleus.. nucleus is universe/space

Atomic nuclei are centrally located within individual atoms, but not within objects in general. Atomic nuclei are neither universes nor empty space.

 

[sir.clip]

Ok so I've been reading up when time allows. And have decided that which ever way I attempt to tackle this idea of a hollow earth or inverted sphere or earth inside out, NoXion will continually pull up contray evidence based on scientific research probable's. Like seismic research, general relativity etc etc.

Let it be known that I have doubts about modern scientific evidence. As I believe alot of it is like a pyramid scheme.
Thoughts and ideas are based on probable's and theories.
And of course It's also a bit tough to understand mathematic formulas, physics, chemistry, biology and remember to feed the cat and pay the paper boy.

For me to give support to the kids. And the totally posible idea that there could be a universe below our feet, I will have to ditch modern science for a while and follow the spiritual path.

'Shambhala' is coming up as an interesting avenue to pursue. Considering this is supposedly older than any of the organised religions.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Ok so I've been reading up when time allows. And have decided that which ever way I attempt to tackle this idea of a hollow earth or inverted sphere or earth inside out, NoXion will continually pull up contray evidence based on scientific research probable's. Like seismic research, general relativity etc etc.

Let it be known that I have doubts about modern scientific evidence. As I believe alot if it is like a pyramid scheme. Alot of work thoughts and ideas are soley based on probable's and theories.
It's also a bit tough to understand mathematic formulas, physics, chemistry, biology and remember to feed the cat.

For me to give support to the kids idea that there could be a universe below our feet I will have to ditch modern science for a while and follow the spiritual path.

'Shambhala' is coming up as an interesting avenue to pursue. Considering this is supposedly older than any of the organised religions.

It's not difficult. Seriously. My proposal of flying into space to see if you can locate Australia is exactly the sort of experiment a child can visualise to prove this idea of yours wrong.

Also, you may have heard of a bloke called Columbus.