Board Logo
« hollow earth may be real »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 22nd, 2017, 10:31pm


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 ... 26 27 28 29  Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: hollow earth may be real  (Read 20889 times)
hyundisonata
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 48
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #405 on: Aug 19th, 2011, 05:19am »

I just love how the sceptic dismisses everything using the word science then ignores the true facts lol and yes supplied by science not nutcases like me. Ok I do not buy into the hollow earth theory but I do believe past civilisations have tried to survive deep underground. As I have stated countless times this old mother earth has been around a lot longer than our ego allows us to accept, it has been around our galaxy at least six times following the suns orbit, in those long wonderful journeys many civilisations of different species have come and gone and old mother earth has been ripped apart and reborn many times. Now it is our home until it’s our turn to become extinct or escape like no doubt others have into deep space looking for a new home. Maybe in a million years or so some new civilisation will find remnants that we existed and will probably draw the same conclusions we have. Put aside religion and fantasy put aside your ego that you are the be all and end all and ponder the true facts based on solid reality and you might just see and understand part of the big picture they do not want you to see.
User IP Logged

Smersh
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar



ICQ
Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1854
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #406 on: Aug 19th, 2011, 4:44pm »

on Aug 18th, 2011, 11:51pm, KathyT wrote:
Reputable? Calling something reputable makes it "proof"? Reputable sources have made great mistakes all through history


Nothing is perfect, but mainstream science is reputable because it's tried and tested, structured, disciplined and peer reviewed.

on Aug 18th, 2011, 11:51pm, KathyT wrote:
The drawing is just an artist's drawing and one theory, certainly not proof


It's the only theory which is accepted by the worldwide scientific community, because it has been peer reviewed by many, many other scientists.

Here's an article in Wikipedia, entitled "Structure of the Earth." It has the following diagram, which is very similar to the one I posted earlier from USGS:

User Image

The article also has the following scientific references at the bottom, which are the sources from which the authors have taken the information in the article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC411539/
http://www.psc.edu/science/Cohen_Stix/cohen_stix.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/267/5206/1972.abstract
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7326/full/nature09643.html

And just for good measure, here's a few more links:

http://www.whyzz.com/what-is-inside-the-earth
http://library.thinkquest.org/17457/platetectonics/1.php
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/inside-the-earth/
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Interior_Structure/interior.html
http://www.learner.org/interactives/dynamicearth/structure.html
http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/waves_and_interior.html
http://www.rocksandminerals4u.com/earths_interior.html
http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/earths_structure.htm
http://whatonearth.olehnielsen.dk/interior.asp
http://www.enotes.com/earth-science/earth-interior-structure
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm

And there are many, many more.

on Aug 18th, 2011, 11:51pm, KathyT wrote:
It can't be based on how far down we have drilled into earth.... I recall it's only like 15 miles. I'm very interested in links which show "proof" of what is deeper, much deeper. Not just theories.


Some of the links I gave above explain that. Here's what this one says:

Quote:
It is 3,950 miles (6,370 km) from the earth's surface to its center. The rock units and layers near the surface are understood from direct observation, core samples, and drilling projects. However, the depth of drill holes, and therefore, the direct observation of Earth materials at depth, is severely limited. Even the deepest drill holes (7.5 mi, 12 km) penetrate less than 0.2% of the distance to the earth's center. Thus, far more is known about the layers near the earth's surface, and scientists can only investigate the conditions within the earth's interior (density, temperature, composition, solid versus liquid phase, etc.) through more indirect means.

Geologists collect information about Earth's remote interior from several different sources. Some rocks found at the earth's surface, known as kimberlite and ophiolite, originate deep in the crust and mantle. Some meteorites are also believed to be representative of the rocks of the earth's mantle and core. These rocks provide geologists with some idea of the composition of the interior.

Another source of information, while more indirect, is perhaps more important. That source is earthquake, or seismic waves. When an earthquake occurs anywhere on Earth, seismic waves travel outward from the earthquake's center. The speed, motion, and direction of seismic waves changes dramatically at different levels within Earth, known as seismic transition zones. Therefore, scientists can make various assumptions about the earth's character above and below these transition zones through careful analysis of seismic data. This information reveals that Earth is composed of three basic sections, the crust (the thin outer layer), the mantle, and the core ...


The Wikipedia article I linked above also says the following:

Quote:
... Scientific understanding of Earth's internal structure is based on observations of topography and bathymetry, observations of rock in outcrop, samples brought to the surface from greater depths by volcanic activity, analysis of the seismic waves that pass through the Earth, measurements of the gravity field of the Earth, and experiments with crystalline solids at pressures and temperatures characteristic of the Earth's deep interior ...


That Wikipedia link also refers to the following related Wiki articles: Bathymetry and Topography, each of which is backed up by further sources and references at the bottom. Or you can Google Bathmetry and Topography to find plenty of sources for yourself other than just Wikipedia, from mainstream science sites.

on Aug 18th, 2011, 11:51pm, KathyT wrote:
And an opinion from Wiki is "proof"? An opinion is only an opinion.


It's an opinion which I'm quite sure will be agreed upon in its entirety by the vast majority of scientists. If they didn't agree, somebody would have deleted that comment in Wikipedia and replaced it with one of their own. In fact Kathy, if you disagree with it you can edit it yourself if you wish, as long as you have reliable sources to back up whatever your replacement comment is.

So Kathy, if you or others here who believe in a hollow earth or think its a viable theory, and think the the mainstream scientists are all wrong or unreliable, can you or anyone else please explain why they are wrong, what that theory is and provide sources that have been peer reviewed, using a structured and disciplined method to back it up please?

Thanks.
« Last Edit: Aug 19th, 2011, 5:14pm by Smersh » User IP Logged

http://www.cosmophobia.org/

Pobody's nerfect.
HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #407 on: Aug 20th, 2011, 05:34am »

Hyundisonata,

..As I have stated countless times this old mother earth has been around a lot longer than our ego allows us to accept, it has been around our galaxy at least six times following the suns orbit, in those long wonderful journeys many civilisations of different species have come and gone and old mother earth has been ripped apart and reborn many times...

Your source of this infomation is eagerly awaited..

HAL
User IP Logged

HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #408 on: Aug 20th, 2011, 06:02am »

KathyT,

Interesting that you have to ask about that.

You first joined in with this topic on 04/01/09 on page 15 with reply 214. And you added comments many times from then on. So I can only assume that youve already read it, or your being very disengiunous.

But the info is on page page 20 reply 254.

Here is on of your replies from page 298 on page 20..



Ava, I am a private pilot, although I haven’t flown for some years because it is expensive. Even in the best of conditions, when you fly, if you are a “fair weather pilot”, you need to check ground references against navigation maps. I don’t think I’d be flying, or walking across ice (which changes with the weather) based on navigations maps which don’t exist. Or, you can use your airplanes instruments to direct you based on ground radar transmitters. Where are the ground radar transmitting stations in the artic circle, and who maintains them?

Oh, I guess there are none… so it must be satellites providing radio signals to determine location. And who controls those?

There is a lot of nothing but ice covering a region as large as America in the artic circle. And you want me to believe that the “folks that have traversed this area” are confident they knew precisely where they were at? I suppose the North Pole street signs told them exactly where they were at, and once they knew that, they then went to McDonalds to get a hamburger.


Re the bit highlighted in yellow. Yes, I do expect that. If they didn't know exactly where they were, how would they be able to find their way about ?

HAL.

By the way, the answer is celestial navigation. You, being a pilot, really aught to know that.

VFR only pilots do not fly across polar regions.
« Last Edit: Aug 20th, 2011, 06:10am by HAL9000 » User IP Logged

hyundisonata
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 48
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #409 on: Aug 20th, 2011, 06:29am »

That’s a poor sceptic cop out Hal. We orbit the sun, the sun orbits the galaxy, the scientific estimate is between six and seven orbits around the galaxy. This information is widely available along with how long it takes to orbit the galaxy so do the maths; NASA would be a good start lol. Now depending on the area of the galaxy dictates the scenario, some parts the gravitational pull is massive some it is calm. At one point you might have the existence of such as the kyper and in others parts it is blown to smithereens. Now as all the building blocks although maybe different at times to sustain life will have existed then as it does now then why not different forms of life as well, think about it. Nasty place we live in. as for people moving underground or any other species again this alone is well documented and several underground facilities still exist that go down several levels and even have a form of air conditioning that relates to our species . Alas this prehistoric dial up makes life hard for me so I am afraid to say you will just have to get of your bum and research the subjects your self lol. You do not need fantasy or fiction as the real deal is quite mind blowing when you shove aside the basics they want you to think about, very little of the worlds populace know that we orbit the galaxy let alone give it a second or even first thought, dumbed down and fully conditioned to serve their masters lol . so people if you want to know the truth just stop and think about reality, look at the sky on a clear night and think about how you are travelling through all those millions of stars at a speed of two hundred miles per second, yip bound to hit some of them sometime or are we just lucky and never had a collision in all those long years this planet has traversed around this minefield lol. Alas as stated reality is a scary thought. But hey don’t take my word on it go look it up and see what the so called scientific community don’t want you to think about.
User IP Logged

HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #410 on: Aug 20th, 2011, 1:36pm »

Hyundisonata,

No cop out.

in those long wonderful journeys many civilisations of different species have come and gone and old mother earth has been ripped apart and reborn many times...

Anyone who has any interest at all in astronomy must know that the Sun and its planets are rotating along with the rest of the galaxy around a black hole.

It is the assumption of destruction and re-birth of the planet with life on many occasions that I doubt.

If life was so easy to start up then surely we would find more of it in the galaxy.

HAL

By the way, are you seeing any aroura(sic) displays due to the recent sun spot activity ?
« Last Edit: Aug 20th, 2011, 1:36pm by HAL9000 » User IP Logged

KathyT
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Female
Posts: 30
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #411 on: Aug 20th, 2011, 4:24pm »

on Aug 20th, 2011, 06:02am, HAL9000 wrote:
KathyT,

But the info is on page 20 reply 254.

(from one of your linkssmiley Another source of information, while more indirect, is perhaps more important. That source is earthquake, or seismic waves. When an earthquake occurs anywhere on Earth, seismic waves travel outward from the earthquake's center. The speed, motion, and direction of seismic waves changes dramatically at different levels within Earth, known as seismic transition zones. Therefore, scientists can make various assumptions about the earth's character above and below these transition zones through careful analysis of seismic data. This information reveals that Earth is composed of three basic sections, the crust (the thin outer layer), the mantle, and the core ...



I finally found reply #254, on page 16, not 20, but it wasn’t you, it was Ava. Regretfully, I’ve been away from this forum for quite a while, and haven’t re-read every page, and I appreciate you trying to point me to where I could re-read something without reading the whole thread again.

Hal, I am about as scientific as other scientists. I’ve been a college instructor. Science has not always been right, you know that as well as I do.

Regarding seismic waves. Supposedly they are the only way ‘they’ can guess at what lies below our crust. Yet seismic waves don’t go through the center of earth. Scientists have come up with their answer of seismic shadow zones. More theory.
User IP Logged

Smersh
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar



ICQ
Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1854
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #412 on: Aug 21st, 2011, 08:10am »

on Aug 20th, 2011, 4:24pm, KathyT wrote:
... Regarding seismic waves. Supposedly they are the only way ‘they’ can guess at what lies below our crust. Yet seismic waves don’t go through the center of earth.


P waves do.

And here's another article about seismic waves.

on Aug 20th, 2011, 4:24pm, KathyT wrote:
Scientists have come up with their answer of seismic shadow zones. More theory.


Again, a theory that's been peer reviewed and agreed on by the vast majority of scientists around the world. How many have agreed on the theory that the Earth is hollow and that there's a hole at the North Pole?

And if there's a hole at the North Pole, how come no polar explorer has yet found it? And how come Prince Harry and his team of injured servicemen didn't find it during their expedition this year to the North Pole to raise money for charity?
User IP Logged

http://www.cosmophobia.org/

Pobody's nerfect.
KathyT
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Female
Posts: 30
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #413 on: Aug 21st, 2011, 2:34pm »

on Aug 21st, 2011, 08:10am, Smersh wrote:
P waves do.

And here's another article about seismic waves.

Again, a theory that's been peer reviewed and agreed on by the vast majority of scientists around the world. How many have agreed on the theory that the Earth is hollow and that there's a hole at the North Pole?

And if there's a hole at the North Pole, how come no polar explorer has yet found it? And how come Prince Harry and his team of injured servicemen didn't find it during their expedition this year to the North Pole to raise money for charity?


You’re trying to push this “peer review”, well, show me a link to a peer review on the earth’s inner core theory. Peer reviews are documented.

“The Earth’s Heat
Many people (mistakenly) think that the lava which pours out of volcanoes comes from a large reservoir of molten material which makes up the greater part of the Earth. Scientists have discovered that lava comes from within the Earth’s crust. The lava comes from approximately 20 miles down. The existence of lava does not affect the passage of earthquake (seismic) waves. This indicates to scientists that the crust is largely SOLID. So where does the heat come from which melts the rock locally? Scientists have advanced two theories. Some say that the melting is due to a high concentrations of radioactive elements in a particular area. Much lava is slightly radioactive and that lends support to this theory. Other geologists have argued that shearing and the faulting are adequate heat generating mechanisms. The evidence supports both theories.
“In the 19th century Lord Kelvin estimated that a molten Earth would take only a mere 98 million years to cool down to its present temperature. Yet the Earth is supposed to be 4600 million years old. The Earth must therefore be generating its own heat. The Earth’s temperature is relatively constant. Where does this heat come from? The earth does not seem to be cooling down any further and this should alert us to the fact that the Earth is simply not a ball of molten material which is slowly cooling down and solidifying – as many people believe.
“Drilling truths:
A quote from noted seismologist K. E. Bullen: ‘Since the famous experiment of Cavendish in 1799, it has been known that the mean density of the Earth is of the order 5.5 gm/cm. This figure implies the existence in the Earth’s deep interior of material considerably denser than the typical surface rocks.’ If there is a single crux on which the solid Earth rests, then it is that experiment which Cavendish performed 200 years ago. That experiment in turn is the direct product of Newtonian gravity. Everything in seismology is interpreted based on the evidence of that single experiment. The BEHAVIOR of seismic waves through the Earth is interpreted (mathematically). They key word here is “ interpretation.
“The only ‘reliable’ method we have of knowing what goes on in the Earth beneath our feet comes from the science of Seismology. The Earth generates seismic waves during earthquakes. These waves travel along the surface of the Earth and also very deep into the Earth.
“We do not know exactly where these waves go. All we have are stations along the surface of the Earth. These stations measure the wave strength and direction. Mathematics and seismic waves alone cannot give us all the answers.
“The Reader should realize that the science of seismology contains two very broad assumptions which no one has ever been able to verify:
1. The speed of seismic waves beneath the Earth is ultimately inferred from our understanding of the structure of the Earth bases on Newtonian Gravity. We have no way of being certain that these waves really are reaching these depths or travelling at these speeds.
2. We cannot be sure that speed changes are due to the changing constitution of the Earth
"
These quotes are taken from the Feasibility Study Jan Lamprecht did, from his book “Hollow Planets”. He has significantly more there on seismology, all with references of his sources on each chapter.

Hal and Smersh, have you read his book?

What do you know about some earlier polar expeditions, more specifically, that of Federick A Cook? http://www.cookpolar.org/

I find it interesting that “science” has come up with this term “seismic shadow zones”. "Shadow" zones? They should have just been honest and said "Seismic unexplainable zones". It's their politically correct attempt to describe something unexplainable in where those waves are going. Nothing they can prove.
« Last Edit: Aug 21st, 2011, 2:40pm by KathyT » User IP Logged

Smersh
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar



ICQ
Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1854
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #414 on: Aug 21st, 2011, 5:21pm »

on Aug 21st, 2011, 2:34pm, KathyT wrote:
You’re trying to push this “peer review” ...


Yes and I will keep pushing it for as long as is neccessary, because it is such a very important part of any scientific process. Here's an article which explains why. It's not about the Earth's core, it's about climate change so I'll "cherry-pick" the extracts I'm referring to, but if you wish you can read the entire article here.

Quote:
Who’s your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric

... Peer review is the basis of modern scientific endeavour. It underpins research and validates findings, theories and data. Submitting scientists' claims to peer review is a straightforward way to assess their credibility ...

... This is a critical process that sorts opinion and rhetoric from scientific knowledge and consensus ...


on Aug 21st, 2011, 2:34pm, KathyT wrote:
well, show me a link to a peer review on the earth’s inner core theory. Peer reviews are documented ...


Sure. Here are several amongst many more:

http://www.esf.org/activities/eurocores/news/ext-news-singleview.html?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=299&cHash=d4951eef94ccd58d57aa8f96803613fa
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2708/earths-late-veneer
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/62959
http://typodun24.u-strasbg.fr/recherche/institut-de-physique-du-globe-de-strasbourg/equipes/dynamique-globale-et-deformation-active/severine-rosat/publications/
http://compres.us/files/dubrov-lin/Dubrovinsky-Lin,Core,Eos,2009.pdf
http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/personal_pages/coerte/CVVCV_0408.pdf
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/20/7/pdf/i1052-5173-20-7-52.pdf
http://www.ipgp.fr/~hagay/cv.pdf
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dumberry/cv_march2011.pdf
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/images/david-price-cv.pdf
http://www.phys.ens.fr/~dormy/Publications/

And this author has quite a number of publications to do with the Earth's core, all of which have been peer reviewed and listed here: http://geophysics.geo.sunysb.edu/wen/Papers/Papers.html

on Aug 21st, 2011, 2:34pm, KathyT wrote:
... These quotes are taken from the Feasibility Study Jan Lamprecht did, from his book “Hollow Planets”. He has significantly more there on seismology, all with references of his sources on each chapter.

Hal and Smersh, have you read his book? ...


I've not read it myself, no. But if you've read it Kathy, can you tell us why it strongly supports the theory of a hollow Earth please?

on Aug 21st, 2011, 2:34pm, KathyT wrote:
... What do you know about some earlier polar expeditions, more specifically, that of Federick A Cook? http://www.cookpolar.org/ ...


I don't know a great deal I have to admit, but if you can explain why that expedition or any other expedition supports a hollow Earth theory that would be great. But I'd also like you or anyone else here who knows the answer to please explain why no polar explorer has discovered a hole at the North Pole yet, including this year's expedition I mentioned in my previous post by Prince Harry and the injured service people.

on Aug 21st, 2011, 2:34pm, KathyT wrote:
... I find it interesting that “science” has come up with this term “seismic shadow zones”. "Shadow" zones? They should have just been honest and said "Seismic unexplainable zones". It's their politically correct attempt to describe something unexplainable in where those waves are going. Nothing they can prove.


Here's the Wikipedia article about seismic shadow zones. The very first line says:

Quote:
A seismic shadow zone is an area of the Earth's surface where seismographs cannot detect an earthquake after its seismic waves have passed through the Earth ...


I'm not sure why it should present a problem with the solid Earth theory. Can you explain why please?
User IP Logged

http://www.cosmophobia.org/

Pobody's nerfect.
HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #415 on: Aug 23rd, 2011, 08:38am »

KathyT,

No, haven't read the book. But I have just finished reading some pages of the Frederic A Cook Society's web pages.

Here is a typical example of what is to be found.

...JOHN EULLER, Author and writer on Polar topics

"Cook's description of no land, a continuation of the polar ice pack, essentially a frozen ocean but in a state of continuous motion and upheaval was original, and all subsequent accounts agree with [his] original description." (Centennial editorial in Arctic, the Journal of the Arctic Institute of North America, 1964)


Note, 'Cook's description of no land...'

Now, how does all this fit into the theory that there is a hole in the north polar Icecap ?

HAL
User IP Logged

HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #416 on: Aug 23rd, 2011, 08:47am »

.I finally found reply #254, on page 16, not 20..

Actually wer'e both wrong, it's on page 17.

HAL
User IP Logged

HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #417 on: Aug 25th, 2011, 1:40pm »

.KathyT,

Re....I finally found reply #254, on page 16, not 20, but it wasn’t you, it was Ava....

Back on page 26, post 383, I included the following line.

..But it's HAL you're talking to now; the re-incarnated ava. And it's the facts Ma'am, just the facts, from here on out...

Guess you missed it. wink

HAL (ex ava)
« Last Edit: Aug 25th, 2011, 1:42pm by HAL9000 » User IP Logged

HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #418 on: Aug 31st, 2011, 09:11am »

Tonight (Wednesday 31 August) at 9 PM on BBC Two there is an Horizon program entitled 'The Core'.

It looks as if it will be quite interesting if the blurb is anything to go by.

HAL

Note this is not the film of the same name.
« Last Edit: Aug 31st, 2011, 09:15am by HAL9000 » User IP Logged

jibba
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 3
xx Re: hollow earth may be real
« Reply #419 on: Jan 29th, 2013, 8:19pm »

how does expanding earth fit into all of this?
User IP Logged

http://tiredhightheories.blogspot.com/
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29  Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 18,000 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