Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Black Hole Central

Louise Riofrio has posted a new paper on the lunar orbit anomaly and the $GM = tc^3$ cosmology. For years now, Louise has been investigating the black hole at the centre of the Earth. The Earth's total mass is $5.974 \times 10^{24}$ kg, so the Schwarzschild formula says that the entire Earth fits neatly inside a ball of radius $8.84$ mm.

That is, we can easily adjust the radius of the Earth, while maintaining its total mass, by adding or removing mass from the central black hole. Recall that a number of geologists favour an expanding Earth theory, beginning with the observation that crustal sections fit together into a smaller sphere. Perhaps the best evidence against Earth expansion is paleomagnetic data, although some have used paleomagnetic records as evidence in favour of expansion, claiming that past magnetic pole positions are more antipodal under the expansion hypothesis.

The central black hole theory suggests instead a variable radius scenario, starting with a tiny black hole, which is both radiating and collecting matter. As enough matter accrues in the outer layers, relative to the size of the black hole, one might find a balance between the black hole accretion rate and its radiation pressure (even if the classical theory suggests otherwise). Eventually, however, if the black hole does not evaporate, one expects accretion to win, initiating a phase of gradual planetary shrinking. A variable radius hypothesis can explain the problem of crustal fitting without necessarily contradicting evidence for long periods of radial stability.


  1. "Perhaps the best evidence against Earth expansion is paleomagnetic data"

    How about the fact that in some places you can see one plate slipping under another, while in other places you can see two plates pulling apart from a single point - exactly as if they were a brittle layer on top of large convection cells, as the standard Earth model says.

  2. With any reasonable size for the black hole, my instinct is that there would be no appreciable change to the earth's radius.

    Along the line of just what is at the center of the earth, I heard this guy say it's a nuclear reactor: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Herndon%27s%20Nuclear%20Georeactor.html on the radio last night and unlike most such guests, he actually made sense. Haven't read his stuff, but he has some interesting fights with the authorities.

    The reason the earth's crust appears to have shrunk is that it's constantly getting folded as well as faulted and otherwise compressed. In other words, it bangs into itself. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_%28geology%29 for photos.

  3. The reactor idea is well known, and it is one of the theories tested at the neutrino experiments.

  4. Thanx for the linx! News from Saturn's moon Enceladus will provie even more support.

  5. Yes, I'm guessing you have an enormous pile of evidence now. All I can do to help is keep thinking about He3 production ...


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.