Onar Åm is a Norwegian physicist with a sufficiently open mind to consider Earth expansion a valid alternative to conventional fixed size Earth plate tectonics. He was the one who first suggested this possibility to me, and therefore the person I can thank for my deep dive into physics that ended up in my theory as laid out in my two books on the subject.
However, I don't think Onar Åm is much impressed by my theory, and he has lately come round to criticize it. In particular, he finds the hollow Earth model that I'm defending difficult to accept. He finds a solid Earth model a more likely explanation for the many oddities related to Earth's geology, gravity and history.
Luckily for the two of us, we agree on the observed facts. We both believe that Earth has expanded over time, and that gravity was weaker in the past. Our disagreement is confined to the mechanisms behind these changes. His criticism of my view was therefore an opportunity for me to explain my position in simple terms.
Here's what I wrote to him in reply to his issues:
The problem with the "growing Earth" model, when it comes to explaining how Earth's gravity has increased over time is that the added matter would have to have been as dense as the original matter in order to produce a linear increase in gravity with the expansion of our planet. With Earth currently having a diameter twice that of Earth during the time of giant insects, gravity would currently be 100% what it was. But calculations made by people like Stephen Hurrell suggest that surface gravity is up a whopping 300% or more since then.
If the added matter is less dense than the original, surface gravity would not go up as much as 100%. It could even go down. The added matter must therefore have been much denser than the original material. Alternatively, Newton was wrong in assuming that mass is the only factor determining the gravity of objects.
This is why I believe charge and capacitance play a role in gravity. The added matter could in that case be much lighter than the original material, because the expansion would cause Earth's capacitance to increase. With added charge, gravity goes up, and we have a solution to the giant insect problem.
This would also solve the asteroid problem. Such rocks have little capacitance, and hold therefore little charge. Hence their low gravity. As for Earth's internals, I suggest you read Jan Lamprecht's paper where he demonstrates that seismic data does in fact support a hollow Earth model. I know sufficiently much about seismology to say that his thinking is both sound and clear. It's a good honest read.
Furthermore, I believe that planets are formed in a swirling fashion. The material that makes up planets spins as it's pulled together. This spinning motion will produce a hollow in much the same fashion that storms have an eye in their middle.
Planets are born with a hollow, and the hollow never disappears because there's no gravity inside this hollow. All the pressure that gravity causes is in the shell. The hollow in the center has no more pressure than whatever atmosphere there is.
My guess is that the central atmosphere is hot, charged and spinning. There's a storm of sorts in Earth's center that contributes in a major way to Earth's magnetic field.
This was posted as a comment in a Facebook group, and a certain Kazunori Miura found it sufficiently interesting to add this tidbit of information: Olivine in the mantle increases in volume during the phase transition to granite. 2SiO4 + CH4 -> 2SiO2 + CO2 + 2H2O
Miura's comment fits well with my observations when it comes to the volume of matter inside our planet. There must have been a swelling of matter in order to explain the current geology of our planet. Without a swelling, the crust would not be as thick as it must be to explain earthquakes that go as deep as 700km.
However, Onar Åm must have seen this as further support for a growing Earth model. He wanted me to elaborate on my position, which gave me the opportunity to say the following:
The reason I ended up concluding that Earth is hollow is that I saw no other way to explain how it has been growing. There's not enough radiation to explain a big increase in Earth's mass. Chemical and nuclear processes may cause expansion, but not enough to explain it all.
Furthermore, expansion has been increasing exponentially, which would mean that whatever is going on is also increasing exponentially. The only explanation I could find for all of this was a hollow Earth which would naturally expand at an increasing rate once expansion starts due to its shell becoming thinner.
However, all of this would result in a drop in surface gravity. Hence, the need to modify Newton's assumption about gravity.
Still not convinced, Onar Åm repeated his preference for the growing Earth model, to which I replied:
I would stress that the added matter we're talking about must be very dense indeed, so you end up with the need to invent a mechanism where such matter can be created. We're not talking about hydrogen atoms, but iron, silicon and other such heavy elements.
I'd say that it's more likely that Newton overlooked the possibility that charge could have something to do with gravity than that Earth has a mechanism inside of it where heavy material comes into existence from virtually nothing.
Whichever way we look at it, the growing, expanding or swelling Earth poses some fundamental problems, and that in itself is quite exiting. I'm looking forward to your explanation on how all these heavy materials are being created in the depth of our planet. Who knows, you might yet convince me that our planet is indeed growing and not merely expanding.
 |
| Meganeura, lifesize model (from Land of the dead blog) |
No comments:
Post a Comment