I've had enough of these 'Solid Earth Theory' threads. How many do we need?

There can be deep caves/caverns..but there can never be a hollow earth.
want proof here it is...

Actually if you ask a geologist and they say "we think" earth is hollow they should request their money back for their degree. They will say "we think such and such is at the core", but not that the earth is hollow, baring they are crazy.

Actually were are going to do two things. First we are going to calculate the weight of the earth with good ol newton.

So I am going to assume you are familiar with Newton's equation for the force exerted by two objects upon each other.

equation 1: F*=G(m1m2)/R2

So G is the universal constant for gravitation.( 6.67 x 10-11 m3/kg s2), So from now on when I use G, I am going to be referring to that number.

Knowing that,
equation 2: F=m2a we will plug that into equation 1 for F*

equation 3: m2a=G(m1m2)/R2

Now for this, m1 is the mass of the Earth, m2 is the mass of an object on the surface of the Earth, a is the acceleration of that object near earths surface which we know to be 9.8 m/s2.


I am going to assume that you have basic algebra skills and can solve for m1 in equation 2.
And we end up with this.

m1=aR2/G

So now our only problem is finding the R, which is radius of the earth. Now to save time, and my fingers, I am going to give the radius of the earth, 6.38x106 meters. If you are interested in calculating the R of the earth using shadows on your own click HERE

Anywho, back to the problem at hand, now that we have all the varriables lets plug and chug.

m1=[(9.8 m/s2)(6.38x106 m)2]/ 6.67 x 10-11 m3/kg s2, solving we get the mass of the earth me= 5.98x1024 kg.

Now that is heavy! Far to heavy to be hallow, but lets not stop here.

We have our trust old density equation D=M/V.

Now since we have calculated the mass and we did (well faked) our shadow experiment to find the radius, R we can solve for the density of earth.

We need to remember how to find volume of a sphere, (heres a good point to clarify notation, for Pi we will use p), (4/3)pR3

So plugging it all in we get

D=(5.98x1024 kg)/((4/3)p(6.38x106 m)3 and we get?

5497.3 Kg/m3 which we can quickly convert to the standard density unit g/cm3, and have 5.497 g/cm3

Great but what does this tell us?

Well for one we know that the most rocks on the surface of the earth have the density 2.7 g/cm3, water is approximately 1 g/cm3 and Earths upper mantel (peridotite) is about 3.4 g/cm3.

This tells us that the center cannot be hollow and actually has to be something much more dense.

Now we can test this experimentally as well and will be doing so shortly many mechanisms using Neutrinos have been proposed and while they may not match our radial based density calculation I am sure they are not going to support the "Hollow earth" theory.

Anyway here is one example.
Probing the absolute density of the Earth’s core using a vertical neutrino beam

Why the Earth Cannot be Hollow

[edit on 11/6/09 by coredrill]

reply to post by coredrill

I tend to stay away from "Proof" that contains the words "Calculate" and "Assume". If you cant go into court and "Testify" to what you yourself know to be the truth, then all you have is hearsay and conjecture. No proof.

cal·cu·late (klky-lt)
v. cal·cu·lat·ed, cal·cu·lat·ing, cal·cu·lates
v.tr.
1. To ascertain by computation; reckon: calculating the area of a circle; calculated their probable time of arrival.
2. To make an estimate of; evaluate: calculating the team's chances of winning.
3. To make for a deliberate purpose; design: a sturdy car that is calculated to last for years; a choice that was calculated to please.
4. also cal'late (klt, -lt) Chiefly New England
a. To suppose: "I cal'late she's a right smart cook" Dialect Notes.
b. To plan, intend, or count on.
v.intr.
1. To perform a mathematical process; figure: We must measure and calculate to determine how much paint will be needed.
2. To predict consequences.
3. Regional
a. To suppose; guess.
b. To count, depend, or rely on someone or something: We're calculating on your help.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

assume
Verb
[-suming, -sumed]
1. to take to be true without proof
2. to undertake or take on: every general staff officer was able to assume control of the army
3. to make a pretence of: the man had assumed a debonair attitude
4. to take on: her eyes assumed a scared haunted look [Latin ad- to + sumere to take up]

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Trying to weigh the earth as proof is absolutely illogical and impossible because you don't know what elements and in what amounts your trying to weigh. To even begin to "Calculate" the weight of the earth you would have to KNOW whats inside, and the last time I checked, no one has been there to take inventory. The only thing that does exist is a collage full of assumptions.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by All Seeing Eye]

reply to post by coredrill


Thanks for posting that, I've seen it before. I agree that caverns may be a possibility, that's what interests me most.

Those calculations you posted may or may not be right. I think the general intention is to provide enough complicated numbers to intimidate the average onlooker. The tone is immensely patronising and that gets my back up.

Jan Lamprecht, in my OP, has also done his own calculations...

reply to post by HiAliens


forget about the tone or whatever.

iam not trying to intimidate anyone. i just presented some calculations.

care to disprove the calculations?? thats the question!

[edit on 11/6/09 by coredrill]

Originally posted by coredrill
reply to post by HiAliens

 

forget about the tone or whatever.

iam not trying to intimidate anyone. i just presented some calculations.

care to disprove the calculations?? thats the question!

[edit on 11/6/09 by coredrill]

Your calculations are already disproved because they are based on rumors and hearsay, and I might add, a fanciful amount of fantasy and fiction.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


huh? did i read that correct?

Not just you, all the posts after my post with the calculations is quite clear that these posters dont have and basic science or technical background.


No further comments.

[edit on 11/6/09 by coredrill]

reply to post by HiAliens


Good post. I don't think the Earth is hollow but I don't pretend to know what could be down below the surface waiting to be discovered. We as human beings like to fit our beliefs into a paradigm, and the mainstream paradigm says the Earth is more or less solid so people fit their beliefs into that paradigm without researching it for themselves... Its the same phenomenon as just picking a political party and buying into the platform without forming your own opinions...

My theory, the Earth is cream-filled

The solid iron core of the Earth helps protect it from the sun's solar winds. The magnetic force is why we have a breathable atmosphere. Mars is not active, and that planet has a very thin atmosphere. The Martian oceans dried up because there was no atmosphere to protect them. The solid core cooled which created the magnetic fields needed to protect Mars from the solar winds.

Ergo Earth is not hollow or there would not be oceans or any life.

So, since I tend to read this forum a bit, I have to say I've seen many more hollow earth threads than solid earth, except for in the fragile Earth forum, since there are several earthquake threads.

I'm a horribly amateur geologist, but I can get some of the principles.

Most of the extrapolations are actually pretty simple, at their base value.
In practice, they are complicated, of course.
The basis is that by taking the energy of an earthquake, you can find the consistency of the mantle.
By monitoring the earthquake in several different locations, such as a set up in Chicago, and another in Europe, and another in say Japan, you can get an idea of it's rate of travel, how much it's slowed down since it's initial activity, and a a good idea of how deep it originated.

Based on this information, and combining it with other information from the other facilities, and previous research, you can find out the composition of the materials it's passing through.

It's how the "ocean" was located under China recently.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
The solid iron core of the Earth helps protect it from the sun's solar winds. The magnetic force is why we have a breathable atmosphere. Mars is not active, and that planet has a very thin atmosphere. The Martian oceans dried up because there was no atmosphere to protect them. The solid core cooled which created the magnetic fields needed to protect Mars from the solar winds.

Ergo Earth is not hollow or there would not be oceans or any life.

Thanks for copying this paragraph from your high-school textbook.

There are many intermediate theories .David WIlcock's plasma theory and Van Flanderns work are interesting.

i dont think hollow earth theory says the earth is completely empty and void guys..just that theres some empty space and caves for countless miles. and for all we know, giant multicoloured mushroom creatures. WE'VE never been there.

These people are stupid, if the want some goddamn science to prove the layers, ill give them it.
Okay, The earth is a large mass of constantly revolving spherical rock, the closer to the center you get, the more gravity, therefore, morefriction, friction produces heat, and heat melts rock, but the further in the denser, therefor we have a solid inner core, liquid outer core and so on.
How do we know that there are layers? ok, what you do is you drill a km deep hole into the ground, send down a phonograph and some explosives, blow up said explosives, and measure the returning resonations frequency and timing through simple maths to see the density of certain objects.
Then if the eart is solid in the center, where does hot steamy magma come from? I know how you feel man, it pisses me off too.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by unclekrabz]

It's true that we've never "seen" the interior of the planet, but what we know about the behavior of the planet indicates that the current model (crust, mantel, outer core, inner core) is correct. The only way one can believe in the hollow Earth theory is to ignore all of the scientific observations that have been made.

Is the evidence for a solid earth only circumstantial? Sure, since we haven't "seen" the inside of the Earth, all evidence is circumstantial -- but the evidence is also overwhelming.

Is there any scientific evidence -- even circumstantial scientific evidence -- that indicates the Earth is hollow? No, there isn't. It's certainly a "fun" hypothesis to consider, but once someone starts looking at what IS known, the Hollow Earth theory falls apart. The direct observations made about the known workings of geology do no work with the Hollow Earth theory.

Is the current "solid" model perfect? Most definitely not. Does that mean it's 100% wrong? Not at all. There are many things yet to be learned. Scientists would be the first to admit they will probably not know EVERYTHING about the composition of the planet. However, the current model works with the known observations, and the "hollow" model does not.

Here's what I think the inner earth is like.
Imagine a circle 12 inches in diameter, then inside of that circle imagine another one 11.5 inches in diameter, in between those two circles is a layer of rock at the top, and under that is lava, and under that is more rock, then the rest is reptilian turf.

I said this clearly in the OP, last line:

I'm not proposing that the Earth is Hollow, merely that there's a lot of stuff still to be discovered

How many people even bothered to read that?

How many people clicked reply and started running their mouths before they'd even finished reading the OP?

Stupid.

I opened this thread to discuss the GREY AREA between Solid Earth and Hollow Earth theories, but so far all anyone has done is trash Hollow Earth theory. People are too arrogant to even read an OP.

[edit on 17f20093pmWed, 01 Jul 2009 21:33:14 -050014 by HiAliens]

Edit for tetchiness:

Please excuse my moodiness this morning but its hard to get a decent nuanced conversation going on these boards sometimes.

There have been some great points brought up by a lot of people, but fully 50 per cent of the posts have been knocking down HET, a strawman that I didnt set up.

Oh well.

reply to post by HiAliens

My knock on the HET was not aimed at the OP, but to the others who have said [paraphrasing] "The Solid Earth Theory has some inconsistencies, therefore the Hollow Earth Theory could be valid."

All I'm saying is that science isn't perfect and nearly every theory has some holes and inconsistencies. That doesn't mean that those theories are wrong and should be tossed aside. The overwhelming evidence suggests the Earth is basically solid/liquid (i.e. NOT hollow). There is not overwhelming evidence to suggest that it is hollow.

Are there inconsistencies with the current scientific model of the earth's basic composition? Sure there is, but that doesn't make it all wrong.

I dont know,but if it is hollow I would love to go there.I actually think theres more to support it being hollow than solid.Maybe one day will know for sure.Just think once upon a time it was even considered flat.What will we find out next?

reply to post by trey85


Exactly.

This thread fell a bit flat on its face cos I couldn't get a decent discussion going.

I'm not so bothered if its hollow or not, just that there's A LOT going on under the surface. Im sure the survivors of Atlantis are still down there.

The more I read the more obvious it seems.

If you want to know more check out Jan Lamprecht.

See you in Telos one day... I'll buy you a Lemurian Cider.

reply to post by HiAliens


You mentioned Jan Lamprecdht, I happen to have his book 'Hollow Planets' A Feasibility Study of Possible Hollow Worlds, heavy duty reading and have followed his work through the years.
The key word here is "Feasibility" interesting concepts, who knows he may be right.