It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Alive again
"...If the Earth was a solid sphere, with two poles at the end of its axis, being a magnet, its magnetic poles would coincide with its geographical poles. The fact that they do not is inexplicable on the basis of the theory that it is a solid sphere. The explanation becomes clear when we assume the existence of polar openings, with magnetic poles along the circular rim of these openings, rather than at a fixed point..."
Any arguments against this?
[edit on 21-3-2007 by Alive again]
Originally posted by anxietydisorder
I think your gonna need to do a lot better than that to convince me.
I'd accept any research from a credible scientist, but a single image of the Martian pole, and a polar whorl in the clouds of Saturn mean nothing.
Originally posted by Alive again
A question:
"Reed claims that the Poles cannot be discovered because the Earth is hollow at its Pole points, which exist in midair, due to the existence there of polar openings leading to its interior. When explorers thought they reached the Pole, they were misled by the eccentric behavior of the compass in high latitudes, north and south. Reed claims that this happened in the case of Peary and Cook, neither of whom really reached the North Pole, as we shall see in later pages..."
"...If the Earth was a solid sphere, with two poles at the end of its axis, being a magnet, its magnetic poles would coincide with its geographical poles. The fact that they do not is inexplicable on the basis of the theory that it is a solid sphere. The explanation becomes clear when we assume the existence of polar openings, with magnetic poles along the circular rim of these openings, rather than at a fixed point..."
Originally posted by pieman
The earth isn't a solid sphere!!! the earth consists of a thin crust covering a molten core, the magnetic field is produced by the molten(ie liquid) iron core, the reason the magnetic poles move about is because of the normal centrifugal forces in a spining liquid.
Originally posted by Smack
If people are ignorant enough to believe this preposterous theory, Humanity is in big trouble.
Why not just write a fiction novel, instead of pushing this ludicrous story as fact.
Originally posted by Alive again
But is it really proved that there is no Holes on the Poles?
Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Originally posted by Alive again
But is it really proved that there is no Holes on the Poles?
Well, it's fairly well documented that at least three US Navy submarines crossed under the ice at or near the North pole. Then again, all three crews could be in on the massive cover-up.
There's the fact that a hole at (or even near) the North pole would be at the bottom of a very large ocean. I'd expect to see at least *some* disturbance in the surface if all that water was busy flowing down into the 'hollow interior'.
There's no discontinuity in the Earth's shape at the poles, either. If there's a hole leading to the hollow interior, particularly a hole several miles, or several hundred miles across, there should be a visible flattning of the generally spherical surface.
On the other hand, it's not really possible to prove a negative...so why not trot out some evidence for the positive? Where is the proof that there *are* 'holes at the poles'?
Originally posted by Alive again
But the Earth IS in fact flattened at the Poles!
[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]
[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]