by Crazyguy 280 Replies latest watchtower bible
Prologos,
But you are not talking about an empty hollow sphere you are talking about a hollow sphere with a whole planet inside, unless I am missing something. You were talking about the water canopy above the earth right?
If this was just a hypothetical thought about what happens inside an empty hollow sphere then I owe you an apology.
I think most of Prologos theories are explained in the 1864 paper published by Pierre-Jules Hetzel. 'Journey to the Center of the Earth', the paper was written by Professor Jules Verne, a specialist in Earthybibliogravitationynessosology.
Caedes, MASH, these are just fun exercises, and certainly not prologos' original thoughts, so what would be there to apologise for?
The fact that an overhead layer in a sphere is gravity neutral, but contributes pressure (unless in orbit) applies to the so-called water canopy as well, but once fallen and underfoot, i's effect is negligible. but if one sees the flood story in the context of the then accepted world view of a flat earth with a hemi-sphere-only firmament, the the mass above would have have no counterweight, unless the "turtles-all-the-way-down" base were heavyweights. The gold at the base of the rainbow was a nice balancing act too.
It would be rewarding to see how our present-day research subjects -mysteries will be solved through research in the future.
always 'food' not just for 'mammoths' but for thought.
Caedes, I am internet challenged. but take a piece of paper and draw a xy axis coordinate system one with garvity up, with distance increasing to the right to the right. Use any values, but to get to the other side of the world, to the bottom left, you have to pass through the ZERO point in the center.
That's not how gravity works.
The planets are in free fall, basically zero gravity.
They fall because of gravity. You've got it exactly backwards.
It is a comforting thought that even during the big bang ther was zero gravity at the center of the universe, and it still is.
Even if anything you are saying were true, the universe would have to be a perfect sphere for this statement to be true. It's not.
Caedes, MASH, these are just fun exercises, and certainly not prologos' original thoughts, so what would be there to apologise for?
For wilfully spreading misinformation and making claims to be able to do all kinds of math that you clearly can't do.
The fact that an overhead layer in a sphere is gravity neutral.
That isn't correct, you may be confusing the hypothetical mass inside a hollow sphere. It is correct to say that the mass does not experience any affects from the gravity of the sphere. Even in that specific scenario the sphere would be subject to it's own gravity acting on itself so it would not be 'gravity neutral'. Plus of course in the case you are suggesting there is a planet inside the sphere so the gravity of earth would act on your sphere as well.
The fact that planets are near perfect spheres shows how effectively gravity acts to pull even rock and metal into a spherical shape. That alone should be enough to put paid to any nonsense about a water canopy.
Mash,
Sadly, I suspect you may be right.
Just goes to show...
...some guys will bend over backwards to find reasons to believe something.
Caedes, point well taken but it is a language issue, in short terse sentences, only the bare essentials of a thought are expresses. When I mean gravity-neutral, I talked about the effect inside an onion-like layered entity. If you
Follow the the graph line of the strength of the gravitational pull from the maximum at the surface (if any) to the zero at the center, one realises there is a steady or incremental decline. This means that the layer above, like layers down a mine shaft have CRASED to contribute to the strength of the downward pull. how otherwise could the force have declined? It follows that if the inner layers of your choice could be removed, there would be no gravity force left.
What gravity is, a property of mass, a tensioning of space, an exchange of graviton-radiation, the action of the Hicks Boson, does not matter here. The intriguing question is, with all that mass pulling in all direction at the center of mass, if there were no pressure, would one be pulled apart by all the outward masses' action? apparently not, Gravity forces CANCEL each other out. Globular Star clusters, Elipticals seem to have managed to deal with gravity without a common rotation*. but like you said,
These ideas are fine in an ideal scenario, like the Laws of motion of Kepler, working only for point-masses. You do not want to be OVER-MASS (you can not be overweight) floating inside that gravity-free cavity and pull the fragile ceiling down when coming too close.
Vidiot. you are right there never was a real water canopy,
it was ICE, ice cream castles in the air--Joni Mitchel.
* WT and other central command structures must hate that concept. Yet it exists in nature.
the net acceleration of an object inside a spherical object a at distance r from center of a is equal to the acceleration caused by a point object of similar mass to that of distance less than r to the center of a. the result is easy to verify.
in other words no acceleratin in the center of earth and less acceleration in a mineshaft. Also no acceleration inside a hollow sphere. Hope that clears something up.
bohm: thank you and we remember that acceleration is equivalent to the pull of gravity.
