Board Logo
« hollow earth may be real »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Aug 19th, 2017, 10:56pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18  ...  29 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: hollow earth may be real  (Read 22995 times)
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #225 on: May 2nd, 2009, 10:03am »

Edit: I thought I may have been mistaken but after your comment I’ve watched it another couple of times and it still seems to me that his mannerisms are too pronounced to be simply explained by nerves.

on May 2nd, 2009, 09:29am, Lawwalk wrote:
Maybe it would be best for me not to post anything and let you do all the posting...what you think Doc??

Lawwalk

Hi Law,

Not at all, I’ll just not offer my opinion or make a joke about anything you post, no probs. smiley
« Last Edit: May 2nd, 2009, 10:21am by DrDil » User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
africa
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 499
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #226 on: May 5th, 2009, 4:59pm »

Hi Doc,
you are too cautious to offer your opinion on this tricky subject of holes on the poles.
Why than you don't offer your opinion on many pure facts I posted here.
I have still more facts to be posted but do you know why I stopped posting?
Because many of intelligent members of this website do not dare to put their reputation on stake if they would discuss hollow earth maters.
I am just asking to discuss facts.If they don't understand those facts let's discuss and I shell explain them more thoroughly.
User IP Logged

Urban Shaman
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 54
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #227 on: May 5th, 2009, 6:01pm »

If there's a hole in the North Pole, how does it work around the water from the Arctic Ocean?
User IP Logged

"Faith manages." - Delenn
africa
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 499
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #228 on: May 5th, 2009, 9:20pm »

on May 5th, 2009, 6:01pm, Urban Shaman wrote:
If there's a hole in the North Pole, how does it work around the water from the Arctic Ocean?


Hi Urban Shaman.
don't expect the hole in Arctic to be as a pit hole and that the water will flaw inside the earth.The hole is starting progressively from 85 deg. N and center span is about 95 NM wide and than opening again in inner world with their oceans and lands.The gravity is in the center of the core and always perpendicular to the surface of the water.

The hole would not be visible if you sail or fly there in northernmost latitudes as from that perspective horizon looks as anywhere else on the globe.
From the space would be visible but they do not show as the images.
This is how the hole looks from the space and only the experienced eye would see hole on the image bellow

http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u204/capada/?action=view¤t=jesus-1-1-1-1-1-1.jpg

For more info go back in the thread
User IP Logged

Urban Shaman
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 54
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #229 on: May 5th, 2009, 9:37pm »

Ah, I see.
That's clever.

Thanks smiley
User IP Logged

"Faith manages." - Delenn
ava
Guest
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #230 on: May 7th, 2009, 3:22pm »

If the North Pole is over sea, not land as is the South Pole, and there is supposed to be an entrance to a hollow Earth there. Why doesn't it fill the hollow Earth with water ?

Just curious.

ava
User IP Logged

Urban Shaman
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 54
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #231 on: May 7th, 2009, 4:04pm »

That was what I asked, ava. I think the answer was that with the center of gravity being in the middle of the earth shell, the water stays where it is.

Of course, now I'm wondering about heat dissipation from the sun in the core. Oh, and how solar radiation is kept at bay without both an ozone layer and an internal electromagnetic shield.
« Last Edit: May 7th, 2009, 4:05pm by Urban Shaman » User IP Logged

"Faith manages." - Delenn
eedisonikk
Guest
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #232 on: May 9th, 2009, 8:06pm »

Hollow Earth is real, it's nice and warm down there for Beings that are ectothermic.
User IP Logged

DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #233 on: May 10th, 2009, 04:09am »

on May 5th, 2009, 4:59pm, africa wrote:
Hi Doc,
you are too cautious to offer your opinion on this tricky subject of holes on the poles.
Why than you don't offer your opinion on many pure facts I posted here.
I have still more facts to be posted but do you know why I stopped posting?
Because many of intelligent members of this website do not dare to put their reputation on stake if they would discuss hollow earth maters.
I am just asking to discuss facts.If they don't understand those facts let's discuss and I shell explain them more thoroughly.

Hi Africa, I just noticed your reply…..

“Too cautious”? I was simply commenting on the fact that the person in the video showed what are generally accepted as body language ‘tells’ that they were being less than truthful. I wasn’t commenting on the hollow earth aspect at all but as you called me on it and as I have no 'reputation' to stake I've looked at 'facts' relating to this before and struggle to see any 'proof' of anything other than pseudoscience.

When you say, “Hollow earth” what exactly do you mean?

Do you mean that the earth is like a tennis ball, i.e. completely hollow or are you suggesting that there is a cylindrical shaped hole which runs the length of the earth, i.e. from pole to pole? Or do you mean that it’s merely cavernous below the surface? etc. etc.

Cheers. smiley
« Last Edit: May 10th, 2009, 04:47am by DrDil » User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
africa
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 499
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #234 on: May 10th, 2009, 05:44am »

Hi Doc,
I was not referring to that video on pilot,s which reported seeing the hole.That's really funny from altitude of 10 000 mt or 30 000 feet about it is impossible to see the hole.From that altitude the horizon would look same as on the ground.
It is hard to notice the hole from the space as you may see from that last image I posted .

On the type of the hole, I laughed loud on your remark of the cylindrical hole running from one pole to the other.

The holes have been there since Earth's formation like in all other celestial bodies except in the fragments of the destruction of bigger bodies.
Primordial mater gases and heavy elements exposed to universal forces start to rotate around the group of heavy elements.Center of rotation formed a core of very heavy elements .Centripetal forces pushed lighter elements off the center and they would be dissipated in space if there would not be another force influencing them.That's centrifugal force of heavy center core or it's force of gravity.
Being exposed to two opposite forces the elements remained at certain distance from the center and formed a shell.
On two extremities of the axis of rotation, where centripetal force was minimum and gravity of the center too, the holes were formed and they look like this in lateral view:

http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u204/capada/?action=view¤t=hollowearth125-1-1.jpg

and like this from from an angle in space:

http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u204/capada/?action=view¤t=hollowearth122-1.jpg

The hole is always covered with clouds due to difference of temperature of inner earth and outer poles.

User IP Logged

DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #235 on: May 10th, 2009, 07:40am »

on May 10th, 2009, 05:44am, africa wrote:
Hi Doc,
I was not referring to that video on pilot,s which reported seeing the hole.That's really funny from altitude of 10 000 mt or 30 000 feet about it is impossible to see the hole.From that altitude the horizon would look same as on the ground.

It is hard to notice the hole from the space as you may see from that last image I posted .

On the type of the hole, I laughed loud on your remark of the cylindrical hole running from one pole to the other.


Hi again Africa, smiley

Heh, heh, I know what you mean as I feel that way about the entire topic!! grin

But just to clarify that the following was the cause of your mirth, firstly a cylinder being one of the most basic curvilinear geometric shapes, the surface formed by the points at a fixed distance from a given straight line (the axis of the cylinder) and the solid enclosed by this surface and by two planes perpendicular to the axis is also called a cylinder, such as:

User Image


And the following is what you propose?

User Image


Although I admit that I’m inclined to agree it is pretty funny!! laugh

Whoops, sorry, back to the “Facts”……

on May 10th, 2009, 05:44am, africa wrote:
The holes have been there since Earth's formation like in all other celestial bodies except in the fragments of the destruction of bigger bodies.


A fact remains a fact until it’s proved otherwise, I assume you completely reject all known theories regarding cosmogony as well as the widely accepted ‘nebula theory’ for the creation of the solar system?

Anyway, like what other celestial bodies?

Do you mean terrestrial (rocky) planets, do you mean the gas giants, ice giants, stars, satellites etc.

As aren’t all of these celestial bodies created differently?

(Back to the hollow earth)….

on May 10th, 2009, 05:44am, africa wrote:
Primordial mater gases and heavy elements exposed to universal forces start to rotate around the group of heavy elements.Center of rotation formed a core of very heavy elements .Centripetal forces pushed lighter elements off the center and they would be dissipated in space if there would not be another force influencing them.That's centrifugal force of heavy center core or it's force of gravity.

Firstly, I think you may have your facts relating to the forces mixed up:

Centripetal means: “Acting, moving, or pulling toward a center or axis”.
Centrifugal means: “Acting, moving, or pulling away from a center or axis”.

on May 10th, 2009, 05:44am, africa wrote:
Being exposed to two opposite forces the elements remained at certain distance from the center and formed a shell.

We are talking about the creation of the earth here aren’t we? (I.e. nebula/protoplanetary disc/sun and planets forming by accretion?)

on May 10th, 2009, 05:44am, africa wrote:
On two extremities of the axis of rotation, where centripetal force was minimum and gravity of the center too, the holes were formed and they look like this in lateral view:


Fact? Do you have any proof of this happening?

Are you aware that heat generated by impacts and contraction meant that the earth was totally molten before differentiation? Then eventually an inner core formed from the heaviest elements and a mantle and proto-crust of the lighter elements.

Or is this some maverick science you reference that I haven’t heard of?

Surely if -as widely accepted- the Earth was molten, and a separation of the primitive mantle and a (metallic) core (in which the liquid metals sank thus creating the core) which is in turn credited with produced the layered structure of Earth and also set up the formation of Earth's magnetic field.

Surely if the above is accepted as ‘fact’ (which it already is, well, best proposed theory anyway) then this method of planet forming you reference is nullified in its entirety?

on May 10th, 2009, 05:44am, africa wrote:
The hole is always covered with clouds due to difference of temperature of inner earth and outer poles.

So not only does hollow earth in fact exist but temperature recordings have been taken?

Or is that the ‘fact’ thing again?

Cheers. smiley
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
ava
Guest
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #236 on: May 10th, 2009, 11:06am »

Africa,

So, at 85 degrees the edge of this hole is about 5 degrees north of Greenland. Don't you think that they would have noticed it ?
re,
...The hole would not be visible if you sail or fly there in northernmost latitudes as from that perspective horizon looks as anywhere else on the globe...

What if you fly over it, as many do ? Bearing in mind that as I fly along at 35,000 ft I can clearly see the cars etc on the roads below me.

How come the under the pole submariners haven't reported it ?

And how does the Earth's liquid iron core fit into all this ?

Just a few to be going on with.

ava
User IP Logged

africa
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 499
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #237 on: May 10th, 2009, 3:12pm »

Hi Doc,
I knew this is the only way to pull you into discussion by inventing theory of mine,with the lapse of exchanging centripetal for centrifugal force.
But who knows maybe one day this may become valid theory.

Present science has theories widely accepted today but tomorrow who knows.

The image down bellow which you invented in order to laugh on hollow earth theory and to protect your integrity,
has nothing to do with my representation of the hole.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q213/DrDil/ufo_cb/hollow_earth-1.gif

Regarding the clouds on the poles(holes) which are permanently there must be from difference of temperature
and evaporation.

However IT IS THE FACTS that I care to discuss and many I posted in over two years.
Don't tell me now which facts but you choose one and try to scientifically deny it.
User IP Logged

africa
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 499
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #238 on: May 10th, 2009, 3:55pm »

Hi Ava,
the hole really starts 1.5 deg off the northernmost tip of Greenland.
Nobody is flying directly over the poles and commercial airplanes are instructed to fly south of 85 deg.N.

Submarines are government owned and government knows about the holes.

Liquid core is scientific theory which they can not prove .

For demonstration how far your eye could see from an altitude of 30 000 feet go to Google Earth ,fill the screen with the globe and just under 1 hundredth of the inch is your eye height on that globe.Would you see a huge hole from that perspective ? Definitely not.
User IP Logged

DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #239 on: May 13th, 2009, 5:51pm »

on May 10th, 2009, 3:12pm, africa wrote:
Hi Doc,
I knew this is the only way to pull you into discussion by inventing theory of mine,with the lapse of exchanging centripetal for centrifugal force.
But who knows maybe one day this may become valid theory.

Present science has theories widely accepted today but tomorrow who knows.

The image down bellow which you invented in order to laugh on hollow earth theory and to protect your integrity, has nothing to do with my representation of the hole.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q213/DrDil/ufo_cb/hollow_earth-1.gif

Regarding the clouds on the poles(holes) which are permanently there must be from difference of temperature and evaporation.

However IT IS THE FACTS that I care to discuss and many I posted in over two years.
Don't tell me now which facts but you choose one and try to scientifically deny it.

Hi Africa,

"Pull me in"?

It constituted 3 lines of text in total of my entire reply to you and was merely an observation. I'm disappointed you thought that is what was necessary to pull me in and rather hoped that you may know me a little better by now and it was simply a case of not having anything ‘constructive’ to add to to the thread as I believe it's an exercise in futility. Obviously you disagree and that is your right to do so.

Also, I originally only posted to this thread in order to comment on the body-language of the person in the video that Lawwalk posted (and I even got wrong for that!! grin)

You then addressed me by name and I replied, that is why we are having this discussion. You may have ‘pulled me in’ as you say but it wasn’t as a result of the error regarding centripetal & centrifugal forces and the only reason I included it was because I was trying to correct what I perceived as a factual discrepancy in your reply to me.

Honestly, if your reply wasn’t addressed to me I wouldn’t have replied and the only reason I did was because you greeted me and asked me a question.

I guess you may have to re-evaluate your psychological profile you evidently have of me as I fear I could never live up to it….. wink

The ability to admit you were wrong is grossly overestimated (or so I'm told!! grin)

on May 10th, 2009, 3:12pm, africa wrote:
However IT IS THE FACTS that I care to discuss and many I posted in over two years.
Don't tell me now which facts but you choose one and try to scientifically deny it.


I thought that’s what I’d just done?

Rather than trail through the thread I used your last comment which was directed at me stating how planetary bodies were formed:

on May 10th, 2009, 05:44am, africa wrote:
The holes have been there since Earth's formation like in all other celestial bodies except in the fragments of the destruction of bigger bodies.
Primordial mater gases and heavy elements exposed to universal forces start to rotate around the group of heavy elements.Center of rotation formed a core of very heavy elements .Centripetal forces pushed lighter elements off the center and they would be dissipated in space if there would not be another force influencing them.That's centrifugal force of heavy center core or it's force of gravity.

on May 10th, 2009, 07:40am, DrDil wrote:
A fact remains a fact until it’s proved otherwise, I assume you completely reject all known theories regarding cosmogony as well as the widely accepted ‘nebula theory’ for the creation of the solar system?

Anyway, like what other celestial bodies?

Do you mean terrestrial (rocky) planets, do you mean the gas giants, ice giants, stars, satellites etc.

As aren’t all of these celestial bodies created differently?

(Back to the hollow earth)….

Firstly, I think you may have your facts relating to the forces mixed up:

Centripetal means: “Acting, moving, or pulling toward a center or axis”.
Centrifugal means: “Acting, moving, or pulling away from a center or axis”.

We are talking about the creation of the earth here aren’t we? (I.e. nebula/protoplanetary disc/sun and planets forming by accretion?)

Fact? Do you have any proof of this happening?

Are you aware that heat generated by impacts and contraction meant that the earth was totally molten before differentiation? Then eventually an inner core formed from the heaviest elements and a mantle and proto-crust of the lighter elements.

Or is this some maverick science you reference that I haven’t heard of?

Surely if -as widely accepted- the Earth was molten, and a separation of the primitive mantle and a (metallic) core (in which the liquid metals sank thus creating the core) which is in turn credited with produced the layered structure of Earth and also set up the formation of Earth's magnetic field.

Surely if the above is accepted as ‘fact’ (which it already is, well, best proposed theory anyway) then this method of planet forming you reference is nullified in its entirety?

Also, regarding the image I posted it wasn’t meant as a joke, is that not what you meant? When I clicked through to the image and seen the wireframe you posted I thought that’s what you meant, evidently not. You were the one who first mentioned ‘laughing out loud’ when you read my 'cylindrical' question, which I still believe was/is a perfectly plausible question, so while you may have found it a cause for mirth the fact that you took the time to type out your actions (laughing) made your comment a little ‘loaded’ and I replied in kind.

Anyway, you still haven’t explained what it is that you believe, do you believe the ‘holes at the poles’ are connected?

How deep do you believe they go?

If you were standing in hollow earth and looking through hole do you think you would see the sky/cloud that we see?

Would you see water running down the sides?

I can't dispute the facts if I don't know what they are and I also believe I addressed the scientific/factual content of the ONLY post you have directed at me sufficiently enough to warrant a reply regarding planetary formation.

Just in case you missed it, here’s the questions regarding your facts that I referenced:

on May 10th, 2009, 07:40am, DrDil wrote:
A fact remains a fact until it’s proved otherwise, I assume you completely reject all known theories regarding cosmogony as well as the widely accepted ‘nebula theory’ for the creation of the solar system?

Anyway, like what other celestial bodies?

Do you mean terrestrial (rocky) planets, do you mean the gas giants, ice giants, stars, satellites etc.

As aren’t all of these celestial bodies created differently?
Are you aware that heat generated by impacts and contraction meant that the earth was totally molten before differentiation? Then eventually an inner core formed from the heaviest elements and a mantle and proto-crust of the lighter elements..

Or is this some maverick science you reference that I haven’t heard of?

Surely if -as widely accepted- the Earth was molten, and a separation of the primitive mantle and a (metallic) core (in which the liquid metals sank thus creating the core) which is in turn credited with produced the layered structure of Earth and also set up the formation of Earth's magnetic field.

Surely if the above is accepted as ‘fact’ (which it already is, well, best proposed theory anyway) then this method of planet forming you reference is nullified in its entirety?


Cheers. smiley
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18  ...  29 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls