holy shit,
a much deviated mind.

becareful... lol

lol this theory has been long unproven and failed.
1st, if the centre of gravity is not concentrated near to the core,
and it's around the outer sphere like the one in the rubber earth crust's case,
the resultant gravitational force will way much different.

the hollow core earth will also result in different distribution of mass and density,
leading to a huge change in its moment of inertia,
and furthermore causing totally different rotation angular velocity.

a hollow planet this size?
dude planet is formed naturally through the clumping of dust and asteroids, and earth was melted during its formation,
thus a solid sphere will be formed, not hollow.
the heavy substances such as heavy metal will sink to the bottom and the lighter one emerges on the surface.
to get a hollow core earth?
there must be some highly intelligent and advance race intervening in the act of creation and hollow out the core,
and putting a sun inside.

as you must know too,
the formation of star require certain critical mass and enough density of gas, with sufficient rotational kinetic energy as they are racing around the centre, as the gases are being concentrated at the centre, temperature continue to rise and the critical temperature for nuclear fusion will be reached, fusion happens and the star shines. the burning of star sends out wave of solar flare, solar wind and etc, carrying away the dust and asteroids without enough inertia to stay in orbit.

a burning sun will not collapse into black hole because it is balanced by the pressure created by the heat of the nuclear fusion.
trying to resist the heat of a star with the earth's thin layer of crust, analogue to the skin of basketball?
not quite, it will just melt, or collapse under the strong gravity a star should have, or getting blown out by the pressure created by the sun to balance the sun's gravity.

these are just some fact, little of from the ones that support filled-core earth postulate.

ah, my second long post after my reply to the thread regarding Hawking's denial of God's intervention in the creation of universe.
read it here! http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...post&p=36264943

lol u misunderstood me.
yup at the early age we regard those tiny particles as dust.
comet is a dust ball, so are the asteroids. and the sun too.
dust clumps together due to gravitational pull, as every body that has mass exert this property.
the sun's gravitational pull is highest, as it is in the centre of the solar system, where most dust will spiral towards it and concentrate.
the thing that is different with sun it that, it shines, it burns.

normal planets formed by almost the same principle,
where dust clump for form rock, rocks clump to form larger asteroids and then planets.
you might wonder why do we see rocks but not a huge and unstable dustball.
well i mentioned that the earth was melted.
melted particles of rocks and etc just mixed together and when they cooled, we see a huge chunk of rock in space, not dustball.

read up more on the theory on the formation of stars and planets yourself if you are really interested,
as the real thing is always long to be explained here.

however,
READ FROM RELIABLE AND CORRECT SOURCE,
maintained by those widely recognized,
as you know internet nowadays don't just give you information,
it gives you flawed or incorrect ones, or those deviated from the truth and mainstream.

of course, most important of all, be wise and sensible and know how to choose to read.
book is still the best of course =)

yup indeed we as human are mostly egocentric.
we can see that from normal people's point of view,
their thinking often deviated and self-oriented.
seeing 'optimum condition' as the condition for human survival.
now we have changed the planet by a little,
and if human race were to be wiped out the nature will still progress on its path without even bothering about the existence of human or without us.
these things are dead, have no emotion but just follow the evolution of the condition from time to time and change accordingly due to certain reasons, by following the law of nature, that is physical laws.

people are often influenced to think that 'chemical' is something bad for us.
we are all made up of chemicals too.
it's just harder for human to have a neutral or non-oriented thinking and not being egocentric.
but proper education will change this.

'MIGHT' is a more proper word.
we are alien, life form in this universe.

ScrewBallX, just another question,not trying to offend you,
are you educated under the main science stream?

and possibilities are often listed or provided together,
even it is less likely to happen.
this is just as s step to protect oneself and of course,
not restricting human's thinking to just one main branch.

but then for the public's concern and for human to learn,
we often take the most likely one and establish it as the basic of our knowledge.
the 3 possibilities that hawking stated, and I repeated,
the 1st one is what we are aiming and believe this is possible in the future.
the 2nd one is, to our experience so far, true.
the 3rd one is also still unknown, just like the first one.

and these are stated for the discovery of Unified Theory,
not simply to apply to anything even though the postulate has already been busted.

the power of speech, or one's way of talking/conveying message is a very powerful tool,
and it can even be used for spreading the wrong understanding of something.
that is why in ancient time people believe in witches and shaman etc.
but now, the properly educated one doesn't trust them,
it is because they have learnt the truth, which they believe in those more than the magic and mystical power. that is science.

i'm not saying the hollow earth theory is 100% wrong.
yep we still can't penetrate to the core and see what's inside.
but observations and measurements plus inductive reasoning had lead us to the conclusion that the earth is not hollow, and has been established as the model of the earth for long.

we need to accept new ideas and changes, yes, but up to certain limit.
we only accept them when we've learned that it is more correct than the previous one, and matches our logic and observation.

for now, being in the main stream,
I would say the hollow core earth postulate is very less likely to be true, or to be established as the model of the earth.

sun?
by the way do you really mean sun, a burning star in earth's core under the hollow core earth model?
or you just mean the molten core of earth?

let's open a new thread on alien?
LOL
of course it can be something out of our imagination.

and perhaps they don't have to be carbon-based.

hawking thinks that, if life can exist on earth,
why not on other planet in the universe?
cause planet earth is just another normal planet in this universe.

btw there's a mathematical formula to calculate the potential number of existence of extraterrestrial in this universe.
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

well that would be super-less-likely to be possible.
who says stars occurs at all range of mass and at random manner?
we have such thing, known as Main Sequence of stars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence

lol this is astronomy of course.

different mass resulting in different type of stars formed.
and of course to become a star, the must be some critical mass.
although there exist some below-possible-mass-black hole,
which is tiny,
its formation which was thought impossible because of its insufficient mass,
yet its formation was due to the high pressure and temperature during the early age of the universe.
so there's reason behind this too.

to correct and answer all ScrewBallX replies here,
'Because of the Big Bang Theory, shape and size of the stars or sun is unknown and at random.'
big bang theory does not tell you so.
so stop misinterpreting science again lmao.
so not quite, please refer to the Main Sequence, something new for u to learn if you'd never heard of.

'I laugh at you Giant Impact Hypothesis. Wouldnt it knock earth out of orbit?'
????
LOL of course those scientists had shown strong evidence and through calculations they shown everything will happen so and so.
of course including the resultant earth orbit.
but are you ready for the maths? no of course. neither do we.
something that has been proven correct or pre-calculated,
there is no point of asking such simple question.
if earth would be knocked out of orbit, this theory would have been busted long ago.


'Where is the correct and reliable source? The Goverment? The Paid Goverment 3rd party? That would be like asking Najib about 1Malaysia Concept.'
???
well I see this is your problem now.
I have lots of the books, stacks of them, beside me right now.
i learnt mostly from books,
internet? well I refer partially on the net and again I will have to decide for myself where certain source are worth trusting.
and I download E books from the net.
Richard P. Feynman's lecture notes?
well those are nice ones.

internet can be made beneficial,
and the other way round too.
this depends on the user.

---

Added on September 15, 2010, 10:57 pmcalculations and those proposed equation?
those are just calculation probabilities.
and those are based on logic and, mathematical reasoning.
yes we can speculate and calculate the probability.
calculate something we haven't encounter before?
or some thing that we can't see them?
we have been doing it well,
in quantum physics,
and in string theory (although not proven 100% correct yet)
we can't see individual electrons or protons and etc.
and we can't see those strings or extra dimensions.
yet we calculated and predicted them,
it's been a tremendous success in quantum physics.
and a popular quote by James Clerk Maxwell regarding the basis of quantum physics:
the true logic of this world is in the calculus of probabilities

=)
OMG my exam is near and im still at lyn ==

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 15 2010, 10:57 PM

I laughed at his laughing on the theory lol

lol looks like you are still defending your POV and won't get over with it.
well looks like all our explanation won't help you getting any better or learning the science.
we've explained enough now.

and again,
== you are relating irrelevant stuffs above again.

and LOL my friend questioned me:
why is there on earth such person like you?
someone who doesn't believe in science,[COLOR=blue]
and instead created a new branch of theories that are biased and deviated from the actual main stream that you have fabricated.
and would compare you to the witches, shaman and prophet in the past,
that fooled people with there saying and the fake truths.
We are sad to see that there is such Malaysian,
furthermore we have had science education prepared for everyone.
or is it insufficient?
and I'm even more disappointed that some even got influenced and actually trusted your pseudo-science.
a forum is not intended for educating people wrongfully,
or no one will have any confidence in it.
a forum is a place where we share true valuable information,
and discuss about some unsolved discrepancies, then find out the truth and discard the wrong one.
so be a responsible guy and Malaysian in LYN.
we are going 2020 dude. modal insan arr, professionals arr.

well I don't know.
if you think my words aren't powerful or convincing,
or I don't have the real knowledge/ my knowledge are all crap and made-ups,
well I have nothing to say.
this is a forum, people have their freedom to talk and choose whether to believe or not.
perhaps because you think this Lowyat forum does not have professionals that can compete with you,
or has no people with those scientific knowledge that can overturn your theories.

let me introduce you another forum.
run by physicist, mathematician, PhD professors, engineers and etc from all around the world, esp. US.
http://www.physicsforums.com/
post your thread there and I would like to see them getting stunned with you with your pseudo-science,
and how do they fire at you.

goodluck

oops forgot to show u how to differentiate science from non-science
the philosophy and thus method of science.
how was science developed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

wat?
from my observation this further proves that there is no hole lmao!

---

Added on September 16, 2010, 10:25 pmhey hey i just thought of another evidence to bust the hollow core earth postulate.
the rubber earth's crust?
don't look at how the crater is created.
look at how would the motion changed if it collides with an asteroid.
since it is like a sphere crust with a sun suspended in it.
when the outer crust collided with asteroid,
the momentum carried by the asteroid will definitely change the motion of crust,
furthermore it is already hard to synchronize the orbit and motion and still maintain the sun at the middle.
so the crust would have shifted and collided with the inner sun.
or taking the crust as a still frame of reference,
the inner sun would be bouncing like a ball inside another larger ball lmao.
busted again?

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 16 2010, 10:25 PM

==
holy crow.
first, newton's universal law of gravitation:
F=GMm/rr

let me state the flaw in your maths above.
first you messed up everything.
label and statement are all messed up, and could not be understand.
I tried to do your math above but I just could extract the information.

2. how do you know the mass of the inner sun and the outer right of sphere/crust?
how do you know the density of them ==

3. the gravitational force exerted on between 2 mass still obey the inverse square law.
there is only one locus neutral point (zero gravity), not everywhere.
when getting close to one side of mass, the resultant gravity will be dominant on that side.

4. to do the calculation you need the correct dimension and the mass of the whole structure,
which you don't have here, and definitely would not be able to find out.

5. such a complicated system (the hollow sphere with a core suspending at its centre),
the math would have been far more complicated.

last of all,
I might not be the champion of national math olympiad,
yet I did win some title in some national and overseas math competitions.
=)
whose word is more convincing now?
and don't tell me the next reply you are going to type is,
'I can claim that I'm Math olympiad too! no one can disprove it!'

okay okay enough =)

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 16 2010, 11:09 PM

lmao no wonder so many things missing.
copy oso duno copy.
those letters and power signs are Latex based or watever it is,
can't be copied.

anyway this has nothing to do with his theory haha

adding, that original equation from NASA is true

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 16 2010, 11:48 PM

btw what is 'TS'?
ScrewBallX?
yep it is correct to ask questions or problems here that you doubt about.
however there is no point to keep holding onto something like a freak and not ready to put it down.
we are here to educate and correct the wrong statements and faults.
that is why all of us have been trying so hard to keep on explaining.
of course some replies here might seemed harsh because everyone is trying to defend their ideas and reject others'.
this is just discrepancies between our ideas and what we believe as truthful.
disagreement on different ideology may even lead to arguments or clashes.
but it can still be avoided if one keeps and open mind and ready to accept their fault, furthermore learning new and better things.

I'm science educated student but then I realize not everyone is the same as I,
so I don't expect everyone must be good in science and thus no one will believe in pseudoscience such as the hollow core earth.
when this happens, people believing in wrong science and got the wrong idea, deviated from the true logic and science,
this is when we stand out and correct them.

what we can see here is ScrewBallX don't seemed ready to accept all these nor have an open mind which is ready to accept different, correct ideology.
that's why so many were flaming at him.

answering you question.
now we are all attracted to earth's gravity,
but it doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist between you and me, the dust particles, or the daily objects around you.
it is just that their gravitational pull now is too small until it is negligible as compared to earth.
at the early stage of the formation of planet, everything are just almost the same size,
that is why they have almost equal gravitational force to the clumping of dusts to happen.

and now we are not being sucked into the centre of sun,
simply because we are in an ellipse(elongated circle) motion around the sun.
this idea may be abstract and hard to understand.
in circular motion, a centripetal force is resulted/needed to hold the orbiting object in the circular path,
or else it will go on in a straight line motion.
sun's gravity is provide the centripetal force to hold the planets in their orbits, and it is what makes planets orbiting around it, and not going in straight motion and leave the solar system.

no no no i don't see these as insult,
i see it more as a form of debate in this forum.
the same as critique.
most malaysians just don't like the idea of critique, and they find it hard to accept other's critique.
the same here. we see critique as something bad and insulting.
however, the truth is, critique is what let us see our fault and flaw, and thus guide us towards improvement.

in fact earth is still constantly pulling more dust every moment.
some are small, and some are big, those big ones are asteroid, ranging from few cm to few metres.
yep the olden time, when you say earth is round, you will get caught by the church and labeled as Satan or devil.
that is why Galileo Galilei got killed by the church.
because he believed in science and started the revolution of modern science to seek for the truth.
that is also why we have science as we see today, free from the influence of other party (such as church or other religion body)

here is the irony,
in the olden days, people who claimed that earth is spherical will get trouble from the church, because what church says is considered 'true'.
today, the table has turned.
people claiming that earth is hollow got fired by so many. I would describe TS as the church and we as galileo galilei,
today people no longer trust 'church' , but scientist (galileo galilei).

a theory is established as the model of the physical because it best describe the nature.
however from our experience, true, for many theories have been busted and got replace by better ones.
but then again, such trend will not keep going on perpetually.
as we improve, we always get closer to the truth.

let's look at the case of earth,
first earth is flat,
then it is said to be round and spherical.
and then we sent satellite and observe,
the earth bulges a little at the equator, due to it's spin.
and then human wanted to know the internal structure of earth,
that is why there were so many different theories about the earth's internal structure,
hollow core earth is one of them.
and thru experiment, measurements and inductive speculation,
we concluded that earth is not hollow. and the hollow core earth postulate has been busted.
and it can no longer be revived, just like the case of 'flat earth'.
understood?

now the established model can be modified,
but just on the composition and structure of the inner earth, not the hollow one.
for example at fist we may see the core as solid,
and then improvement made,
the core is molten as w see today.
but the model still hold true,
and hollow core earth is still busted.

---

Added on September 17, 2010, 3:12 pmyup now the thread and its content had spoiled the real meaning of 'PhD School'.
if he is here to seek for truth and ready to learn,
it's okay and correct to do so at PhD School.
but..

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 17 2010, 03:12 PM

eh guys note the use of term
'physician'
physician means medical practicer/ doctor.
the one study Physics and work in this field,
we call them Physicist. =)

gratz.
you have posted more evidence regarding the non-hollow core earth again.
random it might seem,
or you don't know how to differentiate and choose supportive evidence for ur hollow core earth postulate.
instead you are busting it with us now =)

yep i did read.
the recent posts of you seemed biased towards the non-hollow core earth theory more than your original idea,
as you might not realize,
but you sometimes do provide supportive evidence for the existing earth model.

LOL
this news is totally unrelated to ur argument.
again ==
the title of this news is '3-D model shows big body of water in Earth's mantle'
indeed you are so cute ScrewBallX. =)