Can we get rid of the notion of Hollow Earth?

Originally posted by srsen
You’re correct about the different times, obviously the waves would take different times to get the other side of the globe, but I don’t understand how this is a problem. This occurs regardless of any earth model, hollow or not. This isn’t quantum seismology so there will always be a time lag in waves reaching the other side. Perhaps I missed your point??

Yes, my point was that if we were to approximate the time the wave would take to cross the exact diameter of the earth, and of the alternative route, and then time an actual result, we would find the result and hence which model is correct. The alternative route would probably be weaker ,as it would have more to go through and so it's energy would dissipate.

Continental drift - don’t get me started, we’ll need another thread. I find the whole concept of continental drift a bit tricky. It exists sure, but not on the scale they claim.

What other scale than a few centimeters a year can it exist on?

from the source you posted:

Lava doesn’t come from inside the ‘molten core’. Most lava is slightly radioactive and scientists believe that most of it comes from decaying radium or through the stresses

Trace elements of radium such as those that exist naturally, for example the main isotope:

Isotope amount 1/2 life Decay energy
226Ra trace 1602 y alpha 4.871 222Rn

well, such a long half life definitely isn't going to produce enough energy to melt rock in such a quantity as there is in magma.

The whole of the mantle isn't wholly melted anyway, it's just hotter than the crust, with some molten material. Most of the deep earthquakes are near subduction zones, where oceanic crust is descending from them, and so as it does so it melts and probably breaks up, causing earthquakes.

We should also mention on this subject that if the Earth really was hollow, there's no way a geomagnetic pole shift could occur. Nor could there be any wandering of the magnetic poles (as we see) since this is a function that only appears when you have a solid and rotating ball of hot metal.

if the Earth really was hollow, there's no way a geomagnetic pole shift could occur. Nor could there be any wandering of the magnetic poles (as we see) since this is a function that only appears when you have a solid and rotating ball of hot metal.

Geomagnetic pole shifts and the polar wonderings may be explained by looking Sir Edmund Halley’s studies of magnetism. Halley said we have two fixed magnetic poles (north and south) in the crust of the hollow earth, and two more magnetic poles INSIDE which were in constant movement.

So picture two hollow spheres, with one hollow sphere inside the other hollow sphere, which rotate at different speeds. One of these inner spheres would contain the OTHER set of magnetic poles and if that shell rotated slightly slower than the outer shell or sphere then it could explain the motion of two of the magnetic poles on the outer sphere while the other two stood still.

And what is the main reason, in my opinion, scientists say the earths interior must be super dense and filled with magma, etc? The Cavendish balance right? They have to fill almost 6 billion trillion tones of mass and therefore postulate that only the solid earth model satisfies this Earth mass. But who says Cavendish balance is the bible for earth mass anyway?


Ok, the magma issue, I wont lie, I don’t know what those numbers you provided mean.
But how else can you explain the radioactivity of lava? I really believe the reason fro lava is one of two concepts - the high concentrations of (decaying) radioactive elements in a particular area, and the shearing and faulting of plates.

How would lava be rising from the centre of the Earth when it would cool down and become solid on its way to the surface? Lava is a surface thing only i believe.

Its proven that temperatures seem to rise steadily the deeper you go, so scientists assume/estimate the temperatures of the Earth deep below the surface. A mine 6 miles deep doesn’t reflect the centre of the Earth almost 4,000 miles deeper, nor would 600 miles represent the 4,000 miles depth.

No-one’s really discovered a way of determining the temperature deep down. We don’t really know what temperatures 100 or 1000 miles down will be do we? It’s all guesswork with a lot based indirectly on Newtonian gravity.

my point was that if we were to approximate the time the wave would take to cross the exact diameter of the earth, and of the alternative route, and then time an actual result, we would find the result and hence which model is correct. The alternative route would probably be weaker, as it would have more to go through and so it's energy would dissipate.

Look at various depths, such as at the 5,000 Km level, the speed of waves changes dramatically – it either sped up or slowed down. Scientists will say these sharp changes in speed are due to sharp changes in density. They say this to proves that the Mantle is made-up of a different type of material to the Outer core.

The speed of seismic waves beneath the Earth is basically inferred from the understanding of the structure of the Earth based on Newtonian Gravity. But if the Earth is hollow, then the paths of waves differ in reality from what scientific theory suggests. So changes in speed may not happen at all – it all depends on what PATH the waves take… Scientists look for evidence of changes in density. but if the exact paths of the rays/waves were known then the speed of seismic waves may not actually vary that much. So it is possible that the Earth is homogenous and it’s the actual wave path that we need to be looking at.

I mean our view of the inner Earth might be totally wrong and yet we still base everything off it.

When we mine for gold, oil, etc we find in these holes/mines that a lot of the predicted structure changes never turned out to be as expected. If there are such errors at depths of just a few kilometres, how can we trust our current solid earth theories when dealing with rock which is hundreds and thousands of miles beneath the surface?

The radioactivity of Lava can be explained from the idea that the core of the earth has a sustained Fission reaction (i saw that somewhere ages ago), allowing a constant production of heat and also radioactive by products, such as Radium. If it were not being produced then a massive amount of radium would have had to be present in the earth in order for there to be the amount there is now.

With two hollow spheres, why would the outer sphere not collapse onto the other one? Also how would such a system form in the early days of the solar system? It would be very difficult to have such a thing form in such a way as being hollow at the end of it.

Initially-microscopic 'seeds' of solid material gradually increase in size and become planetesimals (pieces of planets). Initially such dust is spread throughout the disk, but it is expected to rain out into the disk midplane. Dust grains of different sizes fall down at different speeds, gathering more dust along the way. Larger grains may grow faster by clumping together randomly to produce fractal structures; such arrangements have more surface area for other grains to bump against and stick to. Once planetesimals become sufficiently massive, their gravity helps bring more grains into contact.

Planetesimals have a harder time growing above a few hundred kilometers in size, however. With significant mass, planetesimals now have gravitational interactions with each other, modifying their orbits from circular to more eccentric ones, particularly so for the lower mass planetesimals. With crossing orbits, planetesimals now sometimes collide violently, often shattering into smaller pieces again. Asteroids are understood to be left-over planetesimals, now gradually grinding each other down into smaller and smaller bits. Meteorites are therefore samples of planetesimals and give us a great deal of information about the formation of our solar system. Primitive-type meteorites are chunks of shattered low-mass planetesimals, where no gravitational differentiation took place, while processed-type meteorites are chunks from shattered massive planetesimals. Only the largest of planetesimals survive these high-energy collisions with lower mass planetesimals, and can continue to grow.

Source: wiki

And the diagram with speed of seismic waves, I don't know why it would slow down, but are those just proposed models for seismic waves? And they should all speed up as the medium gets denser anyway, as that is how they travel.

it seems to me that anyone who believes in such things has no scientific knowledge whatsoever. for one if the Earth were hollow there would be no, or far less, gravity, the planet would in fact implode. there would be no continental drift, no earthquakes, no volcanic eruptions or any geological activity at all, apart from implosion
personally i think such people are on the same level as holocaust deniers.

oooh yeah, thats right, im a holocaust denier now – how did you know? you're so smart......

Anyway, fission reaction in the core is all dependent on there actually being one as it is currently described…. If it is not that way then obviously this does not make sense. I will admit that I just don’t know bout the whole magma issue. I feel that my descriptions make sense and are entirely possible and that the counter arguments offered haven’t really nullified the hollow earth perspective but I just don’t know enough to really argue fission reactions…I would still hold onto my opinion for the time being on this one… time will tell I’m sure

Now questions of gravity. The concept would be basically be a combination of gravity and centrifugal force. Newtonian gravity states that for each mass of M inside the earth, it exerts a fixed attractive force of F. It is ASSUMED that each mass of M exerts the same force of F regardless of where it may be placed in the universe, or indeed whether it is on the earths surface of deep inside the earth. BUT Van Flandern has speculated that particles near the surface might exert a greater force than those deep down…

Gravity is based on mass don’t forget that, so if mass is wrong then so is our take on gravity.

How do you explain Saturns gravity defying rings? They would make much more sense using a combination of gravity and centrifugal force.

One theory concerning this is that the earth formed around a dead dwarf star. The theory goes that that dwarf star inside the earth indeed exerts gravity on the entire planet, but that isn’t what keeps everything together and makes a hollow inside the earth possible. The gravity from the core/dwarf is weak and therefore centrifugal force is exerted on the earth shell the keep everything in place. The placement of the shell is determined by the point when gravity is weak enough for the centrifugal force to take over. So everything is in a kind of balance. So the ‘gravity’ that we feel isn’t really gravity from the centre of the earth at all, it is centrifugal force and is centred midway between the outer surface and the inner surface. Anyway that’s just one theory

Originally posted by srsen

if the Earth really was hollow, there's no way a geomagnetic pole shift could occur. Nor could there be any wandering of the magnetic poles (as we see) since this is a function that only appears when you have a solid and rotating ball of hot metal.

Geomagnetic pole shifts and the polar wonderings may be explained by looking Sir Edmund Halley’s studies of magnetism. Halley said we have two fixed magnetic poles (north and south) in the crust of the hollow earth, and two more magnetic poles INSIDE which were in constant movement.

Halley wrote this in 1692. That's 415 years ago.

Science did not fall into the dark ages after 1690. We've learned things about geology and physics that Halley never knew and didn't have the instruments to explore.

If you're going to try and argue something, your strongest position is to argue from current data and current studies and current equipment.

I'm afraid the rest of your statements really do suffer from very outdated science. If you explore some of the links given to you, you can see how far we've come in understanding and in our ability to measure in 400 years.

Well, Newtonian gravity can be used over Relativity (I forget which type) in this case.

Van Flandern has speculated that particles near the surface might exert a greater force than those deep down…

And why on earth ()would it do that? That would almost assume (no it would assume) that the particles know where they are on the planet. And of course because it would have to be a universal law of gravitation, not just an exception because Earth is special, then it would work for everything else, and so technically the outside of the sun would attract itself to the core of the sun, perhaps collapsing on itself to form a black hole. Don't take on the rest of Physics just to prove hollow earth, Gravity as we know it is proven.

Saturn's rings don't defy gravity, they are in orbit around Saturn and so they stay up.

So the ‘gravity’ that we feel isn’t really gravity from the centre of the earth at all, it is centrifugal force and is centred midway between the outer surface and the inner surface. Anyway that’s just one theory.

Well centrifugal force doesn't actually exist. And even if it did, you need some solid object to "push" you back inwards. Unless Newton got that "every force has an equal and opposite force" wrong, along with the idea that every particle exerts similar gravity.

I didn't find anything giving a proper point as to why the earth isn't hollow.

Let's take a look at this from a slightly different viewpoint -- one you might call "constructivist."
First, let's consider whether or not a uniform hollow sphere is a stable structure in free space. Theoretically, it is. The only forces that exist on the sphere are those that are induced by the materials of the sphere itself. Assuming it is comprised of materials that are of uniform density, and assuming that electromagnetic and gravitational fields are equally distributed across its material, then it will remain stable indefinitely.
Next, what happens to a hollow sphere when it is put into orbit around a larger body, or it has another body of significant mass in orbit around it? The gravitational force on the hollow sphere becomes stronger on the side facing the other mass, inducing uneven stresses on the sphere. If that sphere is not very strong structurally, or it is prone to flex or flow, then it will be likely to buckle and collapse. If the sphere is struck by some form of impactor, then forces will be unevenly distributed across the sphere, and again it will be more likely to collapse.
Considering the facts that the Earth is spinning in orbit around the Sun, the Moon is orbiting the Earth, and the Earth has been struck by countless sizable impactors over its lifetime, the points considered above argue against a hollow Earth.
But wait... there's more.
Consider a large sphere, in free space, comprised of a fine slurry of fluid and solid materials of varying density.
What is the weight of the matter at the center of the sphere? Answer: Zero.
Why? Because all the mass around the center exerts gravitational force upon that point from all directions equally. You might call the center of such a sphere a Lagrangian Point (L zero, perhaps?), because it's where multiple gravitational forces all cancel out.
As we consider a point more towards the surface and away from the center, though, a very slight imbalance begins to appear. I've not done the math, but I'm guessing that the net force of gravity exerted on a point increases roughly linearly as we progress from center to its maximum at the surface. (That's because the imbalance of distribution of mass increases as a function of volume, a third-order function, while the net force of gravity decreases as a second-order function of distance from mass.) And as we move toward the surface, the gravitational force is still always toward the center of the sphere. In short, a fluid or semi-fluid hollow sphere, whether it is the Earth or a loosely-condensed comet, is normally not stable in that state (even when rotating) and will easily collapse into a non-hollow form, especially in the presence of imbalanced or changing forces.
Considering the enormous pressures and vast expanses of the Earth's interiors, I cannot imagine any kind of structure that could withstand those forces to support a hollow interior. Perhaps you can. If so, I recommend you run out and patent that idea, 'cause it'll be a sure winner in the architecture and construction fields.
Lastly, I have a point I'll raise but, at this moment, cannot elaborate on before doing a little homework. Is it possible that the center of the Earth could contain some sort of fusion reactor? Stars produce heavy materials through a mixture of high pressure, heat, and intense electromagnetic fields. The fusion transitions don't proceed directly from hydrogen to iron, but often fuse nuclei of more complex atoms. Such reactions yield enormous heat, radiation, and more pressure. I suggest that at the very core, where net gravity is low, there might well exist conditions conducive to a sustained dense plasma of very high power.

For the record, I am an Electrical Engineer and college-educated amateur astronomer. Physics and Spelunking are my avocations as well.

Yup, the Antarctic story was a cover to which way did the UFOs go.

They went to New Mexico.

When NM sighting occurred the Roswell cover was created.

See Lyne's topical writings on the topic, he is not sworn to tell lies any more.

His twenty years is up.

Take off your tin hats.

Originally posted by srsen
The expedition to the Hollow Earth which leaves in June of this year is a scientific non-government based expedition. It is NOT free, as some here speculated. You CAN apply to go along but you must have some kind of skill set which the expedition needs. It is not a site seeing holiday cruise. Plus it’ll cost about $25,000 for each person to go along. ALL results will be reported in real time on the website www.phoenixsciencefoundation.org...

www.phoenixsciencefoundation.org...

The North Pole Inner Earth Expedition (NPIEE) is for entertainment purposes only. We reserve the right to direct investments and donations to any legitimate purpose pursuant to the exploration of the mysteries of the universe and of the Earth.

Ok, who in there right mind is going to contribute 25 thousand dollars to them with a disclaimer like this on their website? Doesn't sound too scientific to me.

[edit on 7/22/07 by AcesInTheHole]

The earth is hollow? Now where have I heard that before ...

Oh, yes, HG Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs, I'm sure there were other early sci-fi writers making this stuff up.

Perhaps someone accidentally picked up a copy of Journey to the Center of the Earth from their nightstand instead of Claws, Jaws and Dinosaurs.

Who funded hollow earth and other UFO hiding places.

CIA National Security funding from war profits.

Nonsense fed to empty minds to keep them occupied.

I have plenty of my own fantasies since being of that opinion.

My new great fantasy is that Hitler has been giving controlling orders to
the US Government since shortly after the end of WWII.

Hitler ordered the U2 to make Eisenhower a fool and keep the American war
profits and manufacturing going. The MIC.

Hitler being spotted at the Texas Worlds Fair strikes a pose to me that
Hitler ordered JFK's death through CIA-Dulles-LBJ-Bush channels to
keep Nam from closing down like JFK did to Cuba.

Imagine Cuba with Russian missiles would have meant Atomic war with
Russia if not for JFK. Well Cuba might now be an atomic waste land at least.

Due to so many odd statements on the last web page giving Hitler around
in the 90s, I would have to stop at the Texas sighting.

Remember no Hitlers, UFOs, Hollow Earth or conspiracies have been sighted
by myself and all my statement are conspiracy theory driven.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I have never necessarily bought into the "Hollow earth" idea. I do believe that it is very cavernous though.

Same here, I dont think the earth is hollow, however in places like Afganistan, Iraq there are so many caves that dig very very deep into the earth and stretch for miles upon miles of huge caves that lead extreamly deep into our planet. This is one of the main reasons why no one can conqure these zones. Those folks have been dug in there for a very long time! And only they know how far they go down.
As for science, no one has been to the center of the earth personally. So to say all hollow earth stuff needs to stop is being at the center of being closed minded. If someone wants to fancy the idea, you have no right to say get rid of the notion.. I mean are you an expert with earth? Do you have more information than the next guy on this subject?

He want to get rid of the idea but say its cavernous.

That will stop all thoughts for sure.

The whole idea was invented or mainstreamed as a UFO hiding place
to a FOIA issuer that was fed phony photos and stories.

But there is a lake by a mountain in SWITZERLAND the hides a Football
Field Sized UFO or Aether Craft.


So I guess we can't get rid of the ideas, oh Dash Darsh.

Originally posted by apex
I don't think people who make these theories have much knowledge of science at all, to have a central star would be impossible, not even Jupiter is large enough to make self sustained fusion, so how a small enough sphere of hydrogen to fit in the earth would, I have no idea.

Yeah, it's absolutely absurd. A star, in the center of the earth, yet it doesn't incinerate the outer earth? Complete hogwash. People are supposed to deny ignorance, not enforce it.

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
This just posted today, in Other Current Events.

Related to this topic, so I thought I would post the link here.


Huge 'Ocean' Discovered inside Earth???
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, then try looking at this page from the same website.

Earth's core rotates faster than the surface

There is NO hollow earth.

This person has come up with some pretty good possibilities for it. Very interesting at the least. I guess we won't know until we actually go there.

www.hollowplanets.com...

Originally posted by srsen
If there are earth quakes deep below, then how can there be lava and areas where all rock will flow? This proves that the earth is cool and brittle deep down inside and not molten as claimed. Therefore there would be no need to contend with lava inside the earth because it isn’t actually there….

Well if the theory were to be true (which I highly doubt), the reason for flowing lava could be due to tidal forces stretching the earth. The stretching could cause heating and friction on the outer parts but leave the inner parts cooler. This however, completely negates the idea that there is a sun in the middle of the earth, which is complete babble anyway.