Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.

reply to post by tpaine1809


Clearly you dont understand the rodin coil...

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by tpaine1809
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

You're missing the point. I am saying that everything we are told about magnetism is wrong. It's why even today you rarely find an expert on magnets.

There are even some serious questions concerning GRAVITY.
Some scientist think gravity might be an external "pushing" force rather than a pulling one.

Contrary to what teachers have told you...Gravity is not a FORCE but rather Space/Time Geometry. Split Infinity

Originally posted by charlyv
It is so interesting, however it would mean that seismology, a science we know very well, and has proven to locate earthquakes by understanding the speed of sound in different density materials and propagation paths. does not work... but it does. So how does one explain away seismology, which would have to be done to adopt a hollow earth scenario?

Source: Seismology on Wikpedia:

Because seismic waves commonly propagate efficiently and interact with internal structure, they provide high-resolution noninvasive methods for studying Earth's interior. One of the earliest important discoveries (suggested by Richard Dixon Oldham in 1906 and definitively shown by Harold Jeffreys in 1926) was that the outer core of the Earth is liquid. Since S-waves do not pass through liquids, the liquid core causes a "shadow" on the side of the planet opposite of the earthquake where no direct S-waves are observed. In addition, P-waves travel much slower through the outer core than the mantle. Processing readings from many seismometers using seismic tomography , seismologists have mapped the mantle of the Earth to a resolution of several hundred kilometers. This has enabled scientists to identify convection cells and other large-scale features such as Ultra Low Velocity Zones near the core–mantle boundary.[3]

edit on 11-2-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)

I have always said use extreme caution when saying (as it does here) because of technology used on xxx date we have confirmed theory xxx case closed.

This quote reminds me of the early use of sonar (similar idea) in the oceans to detect submarines. After alot of bugs were worked out of the first system they claimed a set detection rate and claimed a way to defend against subs.
Well guess what. As new materials and designs of subs changed those "asumptions" were thrown out the door. Add to it such things as tempt, salt content, and biological sounds and life. Those claims went out the window.

We face the same thing here in using sound patterns as "proof" hollow earth does not exist. There are materials known (metals, stone, dirt), temperature variations, biological life, and cavaties that can affect sound waves. These items intermingling do not have a set parameters that fall into neat packages. How may sink holes and new caverns have been discovered over the years that "experts" claimed were not there or they did not know about?

Add to this new discoveries like the caverns of giant crystals (saw a show on NATGO about this) that defy scientist explanation. We know crystals have strange properties/uses from powerful lasers , communication over vast distances, cutting materials, armor protection, and radiation shielding to name a few. This also does not take into account unknown variables that science is still learning. So knowing we don't know where or how many of these crystals exist in the earth, or their total properties, it is just plain stupid to assume we know the makeup of the innear earth and that these crystals alone may not be affecting the very sound waves we are using as "proof" to debunk hollow earth theory.

Why is it so hard for scientists to admit they may be wrong when their "facts" are challenged?

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by tpaine1809

 

You're kidding right? That last post just sounded like you were trying to sound rediculous. I've read this entire thing through from the beginning and wanted to post earlier, but I hate when I come late and the person I reply to generally doesn't stick around long enough to see what I have said.

It's been known for a hundred years that the Earth is solid. Experiments were done, quite elegantly I might add, to determine the relationship between mass and gravity and from these effects it was determined what the mass of the Earth must be and the interesting thing that arose from these experiments was the fact that the Earth becomes more dense closer to the core. We don't know for sure what the core is made of, but we are certain it is not hollow.

Your last part "We don't know for sure what the core is made of, but we are certain it is not hollow" is an oxymoron and the reason you cannot say case closed.

What it is made up of can and does affect the end result of your studies.

Lets take the ocean and sonar as an an example. If you use sonar in the ocean it can measure depth, content, and objects contained therein. But something as simple as temperature can throw your assumptions and results out the window. For known example. The temperature from warm to cold forms a thermocline layer. This is a layer that due to the temperature change blocks sonar from going though. If we follow your logic the fact the sonar is bouncing off this layer and blocking the russian oscar (a HUGE MISSLE SUB) that is under the boat using sonar that the submarine does not exist and the depth is what the sonar says.

Now we know that the ocean is deeper than the layer suggests and the sub does exist.

Now I by this simple demonstration of known physical parameters of sonar shows that YES the material DOES MATTER on your results of using said studies to say "case closed"

I have not even touched on (due to space requrements) such unknown elements as massive crystals in the earth, yet to be discovered elements, known gaps/caverns that scientists still find that were unknown or detected.

Lets also not exclude that as we explore outer space our understanding of gravity, mass, and even matter (example anti-matter/anti-protons/dark matter) is being challenged every day with the laws of science as we know them being re-written by the very people claiming they know what they are.

Also who says the earth is totally hollow? Why do those trying to debunk the theory say it has to be all or nothing?

I do not know if the earth is hollow, solid, partially hollow, magna core, or made up of stale peeps.

But to say we KNOW what it is and all doubters are "tin foil hat scientific conspiracy nuts" based on THEORIES without something as basic as a shaft to the core (hard evidence) is the hight of arrogance.

Had we followed this logic the earth would be considered flat, we would not know about virus or germs, and something as simple as powered flight would be considered impossible.

Nice thought isn't it.

I've been seeing a lot on the hollow earth subject and I really do think that it's plausible. The kicker for me though is how do you explain volcanos and magma and all of that. We clearly know that they exist and it comes from the ground.

The hollow Earth theory is very plausible. I learned in my Astronomy class that the only information we know about the interior of the Earth is based on S waves and the time it takes for these waves to come back to the source from which they were sent. In other words, we may be clueless in what really is inside our Earth's interior. We assume from wave lengths of the elemental composition of our planet.

There may be a race of intelligent beings living there for all we know!

reply to post by tpaine1809


He's on the right path but is missing somethings, such as what is gravity? How does a star die? how is a star born? what are the main forces of the universe? what makes up the universe? Just a bunch of things he has to know before he comes forward and talks about hollow Earth.

For starters, he has to read Joseph H. Cater's work, The ultimate reality. Tell a lot of truth, and shows all the lies being told.

Great find, and thanks for reading this.

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by tpaine1809

 

Did you read all of my first post? Obviously not. I don't need to reinvent the wheel. All the experiments needed to confirm these results have been carried out. And I've done countless experiments myself in the course of my education that confirm the same results.

I am not trying to pick on you so please don't take it as such.

But have you ever seen a bumblebee?

I taught aerospace science for CAP and have an interesting story to challenge your quoted statement "All the experiments needed to confirm these results have been carried out" since alot of scientist use this (or similar) when challenged.

Up untill about 15 years or so ago if you checked on what scientist said was fact and claimed backed up by experiments on such things as weight, wing span, wing type, aerodynamics, muscle mass, ect. that a device built to the "exact" specifications of a bumblebee cannot fly.

Well someone forgot to tell the bumblebee this and millions of them have been flying around in defiance of "known science and experiments".

It took decades to come up with a reason (IMO face saving at its finest) that there is a design of their wings (some thin slat though it if memory serves) that gave it ability to fly..

I find it face saving because how do you miss a wing design that has been studies at nausium for decades?

Here is one small insect that seemed to defy claimed hard and fast rules.

Now back to this topic.

If there is one thing that scientist should have learned is that the universe is full of contridictions and no fact or law is set in stone.

If the bumblebee has taught me anything is that there is no hard and fast scientific laws. But new facts to be discovered.

As I have stated before I don't know if the earth is hollow, solid, made up of metal, stone or stale marshmellows. But to say we know for sure what it is made up for and mapped it without the basic drilling of a shaft to the center (and taking samples) is arrogance on a massive scale.

Pride goith before a fall.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by tpaine1809
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

You're missing the point. I am saying that everything we are told about magnetism is wrong. It's why even today you rarely find an expert on magnets.

There are even some serious questions concerning GRAVITY.
Some scientist think gravity might be an external "pushing" force rather than a pulling one.

Contrary to what teachers have told you...Gravity is not a FORCE but rather Space/Time Geometry. Split Infinity

Back in the early 90's I worked with a group on Compuserve on hollow earth theory, many of these guys were scientists and engineers, the result was a book that was published by Jan Lamprecht called Hollow Planet Theory. There were many things that came to light in our research that were never published in the book because they would sound too far out or beyond belief, however Jan did leave two very important puzzles near the end that will certainly leave one to thinking.

Now with regards to gravity one of our discoveries was the following experiment...
"At the Tamarack mines, two such plumb lines were suspended, using No. 24 steel piano wire 4,250 feet long supporting sixty pound steel bobs. The bobs were immersed in vessels of motor oil to damp out vibrations. Just as in the French experiments, these were found to be farther apart at the bottom than at the top. The Daily Mining Gazette described these experiments at length in its Oct. 8, 1901 issue. The Milwaukee Sentinel and other newspapers also picked up the story."
Source
Now this was 20 years ago but as I remember one of the guys calculated with the angle of the pendulums if they were extended they would meet 4000 miles above the Earth.

Originally posted by Boomer1941

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by tpaine1809
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

You're missing the point. I am saying that everything we are told about magnetism is wrong. It's why even today you rarely find an expert on magnets.

There are even some serious questions concerning GRAVITY.
Some scientist think gravity might be an external "pushing" force rather than a pulling one.

Contrary to what teachers have told you...Gravity is not a FORCE but rather Space/Time Geometry. Split Infinity

Back in the early 90's I worked with a group on Compuserve on hollow earth theory, many of these guys were scientists and engineers, the result was a book that was published by Jan Lamprecht called Hollow Planet Theory. There were many things that came to light in our research that were never published in the book because they would sound too far out or beyond belief, however Jan did leave two very important puzzles near the end that will certainly leave one to thinking.

Now with regards to gravity one of our discoveries was the following experiment...
"At the Tamarack mines, two such plumb lines were suspended, using No. 24 steel piano wire 4,250 feet long supporting sixty pound steel bobs. The bobs were immersed in vessels of motor oil to damp out vibrations. Just as in the French experiments, these were found to be farther apart at the bottom than at the top. The Daily Mining Gazette described these experiments at length in its Oct. 8, 1901 issue. The Milwaukee Sentinel and other newspapers also picked up the story."
Source
Now this was 20 years ago but as I remember one of the guys calculated with the angle of the pendulums if they were extended they would meet 4000 miles above the Earth.

which implies this www.theflatearthsociety.org...

In 1981 Mostafa Abdelkader an Egyptian mathematician from Alexandria, revived and expanded upon Karl E Neupert's Geocosmos version of Cyrus' Ideas, from the year 1900. Unlike Cyrus' model which considers the heavenly bodies entirely as optical illusions, Neupert's model inverts the entire known cosmos into the concave model, stating that space shrinks / implodes via non-euclidean geometry, so as to fit an entire Copernican cosmos (C) into the comparatively finite boundary-envelope of the Geocosmos' (G) concave surface. In his paper that he submitted to the Australian science journal; Speculations in Science and Technology, in 1981 (which then gave a serious peer review of his full hypothesis in its 6th volume edition published in 1983), Abdelkader says:

“The enormous galaxies and other remote objects are mapped inside as microscopic objects, and our moon as by far the largest of the celestial objects, all of which revolve daily around the earth's axis. Straight rays of light are mapped as arcs of circles, so that all celestial phenomena appear to inside observers in G just as they do to outside observers in C. We next consider the hypothesis that, conversely, our actual universe is this finite G." (This idea entails the inversion of all known geo/astro physics.)

The main addition to Neupert's concept which Abdelkader addressed, is that light is eventually pulled toward the centre of the cosmos which shrinks inward. The arcs of light which travel toward the surface of the earth are absorbed, and those that are not continue travelling toward the centre of the cosmos as well as around it to the opposite side of the heavens than the sun. However they never illuminate the other side of the earth or its night sky because the wavelengths of light flow in accordance with the volume of space beyond the earth's surface, and are also subject to the black-hole like inertia of the cosmoses infinitesimal centre. Thus as they converge toward the opposite position of the heavens to where the sun is, they are simultaneously pulled in toward the centre.

Therefore the light which circles round to the opposite side of the heavens, never meets the sight of those who have the centre of the cosmos between them and the sun. Therefore an observer on the surface will experience night without a luminous sky, even though rays of light are actually traversing the space they look out into, this being because the rays are only in space and thus are never received directly into the eye.

reply to post by Spiratio


How do you explain a Luna eclipse?

reply to post by tpaine1809
Tapine, incredible site you put a link to. Makes this site obsolete. I'll be there for days, incredible find Hollow Earth, I don't know where this falls into this link, but who cares...... SCORE.
video.google.com...

Originally posted by wlord
Doesn't make sense how there would be people living in the inside if he says the rings collapse to form the crust on which we live on. If supposedly the inside is just a star, so i think he contradicts himself

edit on 10-2-2012 by wlord because: (no reason given)

It would form as a torus or a hollow sphere around the star. That is where the star core and the mass orbiting it have their center of gravity.

Holy #. I have new info to add. The Earth is stationary and there are two suns. We are on the inside of the circle. I theorize if we were to destroy all of the pyramids that mimic orions belt that we would never see that formation in the sky again. The stars are a reflection of earth!!! Thats why they can point to birth locations!

Dude just what are you smoking?

This thread just sank to an all time low. I mean your first ideas were crazy enough but this is just utterly insane.

Because we are so young as a species and know very little, I never completely brush off stuff like hollow earth theory. Though I personally believe the earth is not hollow, I don't disregard it being hollow because we haven't really put much time into finding proof of a hollow earth. Basically, take any theory into consideration as it may or may not be true.

But really, there's only one way to find out. Gentlemen, grab your shovels. We're making science!

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Holy #. I have new info to add. The Earth is stationary and there are two suns. We are on the inside of the circle. I theorize if we were to destroy all of the pyramids that mimic orions belt that we would never see that formation in the sky again. The stars are a reflection of earth!!! Thats why they can point to birth locations!

Dude just what are you smoking?

This thread just sank to an all time low. I mean your first ideas were crazy enough but this is just utterly insane.

edit on 12-2-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

I am starting to wonder if most people on ATS are high on one thing or another, reaching that "altered Meth state".

Originally posted by tpaine1809
Did Bill Gates go to college?

Yes, he went to Harvard.

good video.

plausible theory , though i don't usually take my scientific theory from some dude in a wife beater and a fluffy hat.

he does sound somewhat intelligent though.

Originally posted by CapSolo
I've been seeing a lot on the hollow earth subject and I really do think that it's plausible. The kicker for me though is how do you explain volcanos and magma and all of that. We clearly know that they exist and it comes from the ground.

I found hollow earth fascinating, only because I believe the alternative theory that there are deep underground pockets, that could be inhabited however the earth being hollow, no.

We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them… (Qur'an, 21:31)

www.miraclesofthequran.com...

Originally posted by old_god

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Holy #. I have new info to add. The Earth is stationary and there are two suns. We are on the inside of the circle. I theorize if we were to destroy all of the pyramids that mimic orions belt that we would never see that formation in the sky again. The stars are a reflection of earth!!! Thats why they can point to birth locations!

Dude just what are you smoking?

This thread just sank to an all time low. I mean your first ideas were crazy enough but this is just utterly insane.

edit on 12-2-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

I am starting to wonder if most people on ATS are high on one thing or another, reaching that "altered Meth state".

No doubt a valid point, I'v noticed that too. Maybe not this specific person/username, but in the population here at ATS