Maxwell Render | Official public forum

What do you think about this theory. I dont know could this be the thruth,
but its very interresting theory anyway.

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

It's a very elegant proposition, I like it.

Same here!! Thanks for the great link!

Interesting...the Europa (clip 2) video is amazing. This guy should be careful...his theory makes way too much sense...

New York Times supported Neal's theory - I read it like couple days ago, but I can´t find the link. Just google it - You might find it.

Oh.. that link is lower down on that site

This theory would explain why dinosaurus Rex was a predator - not a carcass eater. Less mass equals less gravity. They are saying that Rex couldnt ran but if the gravity were lower - how about then?

pretty cool!

well...just a thought...basically we have:

- a planet's gravitational pull on its periphery, a function of mass vs. size ( about 9.m/s² @ ~4000mi radius for Earth )

vs.

- centrifugal force ( Earth's rotational speed is 15deg/h, or ~1000mph @ 4000mi radius )
- external gravitational pull from other celestial bodies

For a planet to remain constant size, these factors would need to be in perfect balance...what exactly are the real chances of that?

Regarding Earth's gravity in a historical sense, I don't believe the theory asserts that Earth's mass has changed appreciably ( how could it change...lots of meteors? ), just it's diameter. Observed gravitational force would be greater at the surface of a smaller sphere of equivalent mass ( gravitational force varies inverse to the square of distance from a body of given mass ). However, this would likely be offset by a greater rotational speed...given a constant mass, as diameter increases, rotational speed would naturally decrease. Therefore, assuming his theory is correct, observed gravitational force at any point in history is most likely not possible to accurately predict, but may not necessarily be much different than it is for the current rotation/diameter.

Either way, at first glance, this interesting theory surely makes more sense to me than any I've previously heard...but I'm no scientist...

Pretty interesting, thanks for the link dude.

This is interesting but puzzling at the same time ... and it brings questions.
It does not address an immediate question of "what" fills the earth to make it balloon like that. If nothing fills the earth (conservation of mass is the more likely), then what mechanism causes the core molecules to expand? Is it centrifugal forces ?

Also, in general, is it likely that under pressure the electrons of an atom are orbiting closer to their nucleus than if the atom had no pressure ? Is it a varying atomic radius (depending on pressure) that might create this type of expansion on a large body such as a planet or moon ?

PS. I find it had to believe that the smaller (young) version of a planet would have less gravity (the mass must be the same and so should the gravity)

You´re right, but laws of gravity+everything else should be concidered again if that expansion is truth. Some lately found stars hasnt big gravity even they are 100 times bigger than earth. Gravity is therefore more complex thing

Well, we know what is happening to a sun when it goes nova ... expanding to incredible size and then collapsing to a condensed miniature version of itself.

Maybe a mini-version of that is happening to all celestial bodies so long as they have an active core (a furnace).

There might be a chance that we dont know anything

Calico Jack wrote:There might be a chance that we dont know anything

Well, it supports the idea of aether ... that there is no such thing as vacuum. Planets are essentially swimming in an ocean of eather composed of an unknown and extremely light ingredient. High pressure regions of eather create globules that we perceive as atoms, electrons, and other particles. Electromagnetic waves are mere ripples on the eather ocean, the same way that sound waves are ripples in the atmosphere "ocean".

If eather globul-izes (a made-up word) to form detectable particles (what we call mass) then it might be possible to consider planets as merely regions of eather with high barometric pressure... with the core of each planet being an epicenter of globule-ization of eather.

Ok ... enough with theories .... but this is fascinating stuff though
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm