The New Hollow Earth

The New Hollow Earth

I had nothing deep or new to discuss today- but I did think about this interesting idea of a black hole at the center of the earth. So I dared a comment or question today, if she has the time to indulge my speculation (I also see that a comment from a poster who means well seems too simple a reply as to what is fact or not in the fossil evidence, so does she have time to deal with that?) I did think about the effects, an idea akin to Hoyle s Creation-field idea in relation to Mars before reading this post:


And making this comment:
http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/2011/03/phd-phobos-and-deimos.html


Hi,

This area of research is among the most difficult for me to sort out what is real and what is fact, but I do sympathize with your approach to what we may still expand on in our understanding of science and the world.

We are playing with ideas on ideas none of which are yet confirmed explicitly. In my own take on things I find reasons to doubt that we are doing more than operating with too little a generalization. All as a matter of interpretation.

I do not necessarily think our ideas on magnetism or the transfer of momenta between black hole like objects is a key fact one way or the other.

If this is a true physical phenomenon I also see new and strange consequences. I recall long ago reading The Hollow Earth arguments and knowing how it simply was not true how convincing it was a read.

So I will try to ask a question that makes sense. Can such effects of such an object (which may not be a hollow object but replete with structure in the vacuum) influence say our sister planets? That is, would we observe certain anomalies tied to earth in the moons of Mars?

ThePeSla

* * *

I have often wondered if an explanation for the heat in the earth was an accumulation of radioactivity. This perhaps a natural question or thought for a young high school student with an excellent very old chemistry teacher who said that they used to believe that the sun was powers by gas in oxidation as no idea of radioactivity was known in the physics of that day. What new thing might be the cause when we get our science a little more refined, I thought.

The idea that the earth expands is also a strange but credible idea to explain the cycle of continental shifts. It is not such a strange idea (again the theory behind it seems to me limited as continuous effects only- which of course is part of the picture- and a certain history with memory in relation to some origin or center.)

For want of nothing else to do I looked a little into the surreal number ideas and found relevant things and made a comment to Kea that I was optimistic about this approach. Knuth who coined the term surreal explained a lot very clearly. It seems there are coincidences here too- Conway's use of the star or * term in some ways are how I use the symbol along with some of its usual uses like bullet items or footnotes. But it too involves some idea of a direction and interpretation of the null- and as Knuth points out concerns the infinite and infinitesimal (but not in the depths beyond our center of things at zero, here again we examine the Leibniz background of things). It proves a language that will confirm some of the obvious beyond the normal level of some axioms. It mentions Feynman not generalizing things to higher dimensions for the very fact that his was a continuous view of the relativity ideas- that is space-time cones and so on.

Even Lubos has made a synchronous remark that if there is data that shows the leptons have substructure (my long position on iota particle as a general concept) that "we can say goodbye to GUT". But I think it is too soon to make such a conclusion. On the other hand I do not think a change in these less fundamental constants of nature- namely c- has to be observable or violate ideas where such physics are so founded on the continuous. The question is at the center of some creative object physical system is there one continuous object or some sort of hidden structure to the vacuum- certainly surreal ideas apply. (In fact I rather like Kea's post on the binary trees as a clear objective statement of the scope of such researches and how they would develop and be applied.)

Certainly, if there proves some substance to Hoyle's space and matter relationship, and considering Weyl with inherited memory of mass perhaps internal to particle (atomic) structure, why could we not imagine that in the general idea of atomic structure that akin to a steady state, at some global threshold in general, that atoms evolve- even breed in a sense. Some elements not on earth heretofore but not exactly extraterrestrial either (say iridium in the mass extinctions?) Much of the physics speculation and application to current particle theory and cosmology seems to me to be really a discussion of deeper and more abstract physical entities. Of course these would have the same and analogous topological logic as of higher forms.

* * *

Well, this post is clearly one of the creative science and philosophy so I present it as not necessarily some insights as hard science. I mean such ideas could be used to suggest that in the future our SUV's could have an effect on the melting ice on Titan! Boolean logic BOO has its emotional counterpart as SPOOky actions at a distance logic- and we need to understand why this can be perceived so- In any case for all the occult set the ideas of more than meets the eye has a certain ring of belief about it- something that is half believed already when governments in the hopes something as new and radical as radioactivity could contain a surprise or advantage fund such projects.

From the deeper considerations of logic and metalogic, one blog I follow points out the equivalent of the fixed point theorem and certain topological truths. In view of such papers as Knuths I find an analogy here too- after all i to the ith power is a real and computable number even if we do represent it by certain ordinal sets. I have the feeling that in this vein that Kea is postulating the existence of certain sets of them as having some idea of primacy. In my case all I had seen of Conway in relation to these numbers was the multiplication tables and in a sense this sort of binary treatment is not clear enough to explain some things- including my concept of such as quasic powers. The use of * in particular to equate zero and null are in my eyes the same mistake on a deeper level of the foundation of numbers that blinds us to deeper ideas beyond that of negative and imaginary momenta as to what is positive only as a reduction into our science philosophies. I find it quite startling that in such a logic of it there is a problem with division, a case I recently brought up but did not take seriously as formal arithmetic. This whole creative experience when I find such things sometimes gives me the feeling that what my concerns are and of what I write may be something from outside me to which I am but the mediator.

For example, Ulla, if for some of these explorers who live and breath the great anomaly, consciousness, that all can be said is that the world is here from the imagination of God, perhaps just one old nerve of that imagination where it rests and duplicates its DNA much like when He set the pairs of planets in motion (and did not quite separate a moon of Mars, before in the expanse of his game of Hackensack he loaded the dice and walked away.

* * *

I clicked on to the name Tony Smith on Kea's page- his "voodoo" physics. I find it remarkable how many echoes of similar ideas are there to my own- but it is all from the view of more standard terminology. If I could contact him I might ask, since I seem to have recently looked for this possibility (although much, but not the art bell stuff) were areas I worked at gleefully independently decades ago. Clifford was sort of a shock to me coming so close with his sort of finite approach. Of course as Smith says such a things as if a theory of everything would be universal enough to find similar ideas based on this reality. But I see a certain sense of being stuck in the translatable but standard terms and concepts even if those who would not understand the general theory could act in the odd convention of peer review. I would ask his take on this:

"The Monster is naturally represented on a space of 196,884 dimensions,
which can be broken down into 196,560 + 300 + 24.
Since
300 = 25x24/2 is the symmetric square of 24,"

300, well that is the same concept and number anyway... I liked his near treatment of the quasic concept of the 4n grids and wonder if he would understand.

I do not think it would be a very hard task to make an article in the standard terms once we have the heart of the concepts down.

Who knows if the heart of our theories are empty or turned upside down and inside out- if we are dreaming they would have any profound physical influence or would be of any more danger than our apparent politics of communication? Or perhaps to this subtle internal symmetry that for those more enlightened we can make definite pronouncements even individually, with certainty, that some ideas are wrong- that these are our true peers- we few angels on some pin head who grasp the creation as if from the nothingness in a reality that dances to the highest symmetries together- we who have come so close and filled the apparent emptiness with our few breaths of wisdom?

The old physics will fall not like a ripe grape destined for distilled fine wines- but like the hint of what is accepted as real and declared so by those who will fall with it as if but artificial grape flavoring.

In this time of stupidity when there is no foresight but a weighing of risks as if the achievement of knowing and testing of some physical discovery implies we understand it enough not to treat each other as expediently disposable- we may just find that the future of science is one of optimism- and the next great age of a theory of everything (long after the nano-savors promised have been forgotten and the symbolic myths of the mentally ill who strive to concern themselves with otherworldly ends to this world forgotten also) will we find that a little further than that the new physics will be something indeed- and to such a heaven on earth no shadows real in our past can do more than admire.

* * *