We know from measuring the electric gradient of our atmosphere that our planet is negatively charged relative to the ionosphere. The potential difference is about 300,000 volt.
It’s the potential difference between the ionosphere and the surface of our planet that keeps our atmosphere from escaping into space. The much weaker gravitational force isn’t able to do this on its own.
The negative charge on the surface of our planet is most likely matched with a corresponding positive charge at its centre. This would mean that there’s a repelling electrical force inside Earth.
Since gravity is measured from the centre of astronomic bodies, and not from their surfaces, as is the case with the electrostatic force, there can be no net gravity at the centre of planets, moons and stars.
This means that there’s nothing to prevent astronomic bodies from being hollow. There’s no force at the centre of such bodies to counter the effect of internal electrical repulsion. Nor is there anything to counter centrifugal forces due to spin.
If a cavity was to develop inside an astronomic body, there would be no way to make it disappear.
This was first recognized by Isaac Newton in his mathematical work on gravity. In his shell theorem he demonstrated that there’s nothing to stop astronomic bodies from developing empty cavities. When the astronomer Edmond Halley suggested to Newton that our planet may be hollow, Newton didn’t object. There was nothing in Newton’s theory to counter Edmond Halley’s suggestion.
Now that we know that there most likely is a strong repelling force inside all astronomic bodies, there is even less reason to object to such a notion.
The enormous pressure that undoubtedly exists at the core of all astronomic bodies is no argument for a solid core. The pressure inside the walls of a tunnel doesn’t make tunnels collapse. The same is true for any cavity inside our planet.
Seismic evidence for a solid core is often used as an argument. However, reconciling seismic data with a solid core is difficult. Using a hollow Earth model is easier. Jan Lamprecht demonstrated this in his work on the subject.
Even NASA appears to accept the possibility of hollow planets. According to their own measurements, Jupiter’s core is less dense than its outer layers.
The only serious objection to a hollow Earth model is the fact that gravity at the surface of our planet indicates that it must be made up of something extremely dense. The latest suggestion is a super-dense crystal at Earth’s core. This material, which only exists in theory, and no-one has ever been able to produce in a laboratory, has all sorts of fantastic properties. This is all required in order to reconcile observed seismic and gravitational data with current theory.
However, there’s a simple way around this. By recognizing that our planet is a gigantic charged capacitor, we can make the suggestion that the dielectric material inside capacitors will add to the gravitational force when sufficiently charged.
This Post Has 0 Comments