New hollow Earth Expedition

Considering the fact that all education has been administered by secret society members (freemasons), you must begin to re asses what we have been taught, from the begining!

I want just one person who has been to this molten center come forward, and give testimony. So basically put, if you havent been there, you dont know. Learn how to deal with your closed mind

LOL... ok... we'll take that into consideration.

This is simple math... given enough time, you could figure this all out on your own... the equipment you'd need to do it wouldn't be expensive at all.

What you need to know:

Mass of Earth: find out with an equation for gravity and work it backwards.
Volume of Earth: either look it up, or figure it out on your own... but it'd slightly more complicated math.
Density of Earth: can be found easily with the mass and volume and will tell you what most of the earth is made of.
How much grav a body with that much mass would produce...

There... if you've figured all that you, you should know that the earth is either SOLID and made of mostly iron... or is hollow and is mostly platinum. You see how this works? It's not hard... and it's all math.

and ASE, if you're trying to tell me that FreeMasons made up math, and that it's all wrong... then I'll just dismiss everything you ever say again. I've done math... I know it works wether they made it up or not.

Thus speaks a closed mind I bet they said that to galilao as well

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Your paper and pencil, prove nothing!

yes this is quite silly. not all scientists are controled by the US gov't. what's to stop other scientists around the world from figuring it out on there own and showing the data to everyone else? the earth would have been proven to be hollow a long time ago if it was.

Sure, math is our most dependable constant. But, unless we're absolutely positive about the accuracy of the variables used to solve these equations, none of the calculations can be guaranteed correct. We can solve for mass, volume, and even weight, right? But there's absolutely no way we can solve for density without knowing 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, what's really inside the planet. We can still only base density upon our speculation of the planet's contents. We do know the density is not consistent, and that's all we really know.(We think) The entire center could be empty, as long as another layer of crust accounts for the weight difference, right? Truth be known, we're still just guessing. We have no choice. Quite frankly, we still can't be positive that anything in the universe is as constant as our math, since it's all from a very limited perspective. We still don't even know if our math will be constant in any other solar system. And if our math doesn't jive with other parts of the universe, either does our time. We can still only speculate. Keep an open mind. Otherwise, you only limit yourself to conventional thinking.

[Edited on 26-8-2003 by Satyr]

Originally posted by dragonrider
Where in the hell does this crap keep coming from?????

What I find more disturbing than anything else is that this concept is considered, even jokingly, as a remote possibility?

Has anyone here even had an intro geology course?

Everyone knows that geology courses are taught by MIB and are full of government disinformaion!!!


(don't hit me! I'm little and wimpy!!!!!)

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Your paper and pencil, prove nothing!

Ah, but I see your entire arguement is built on "Im right simply because I say I am!"

Could you provide some actual, tangible, documented, cross referenced evidence to support your hypothesis???

You say that the geologists are not to be believed because no one has yet been down to personally witness the molten core, and therefore you do not believe it.

Actually, we have... maybe not in person, but in physical science.

In general, the speed of seismic waves (waves of energy that shake the ground during earthquakes) depends upon the density and strength of the rock through which the waves are traveling. There are two ways to account for why some waves might move faster than others through the same patch of mantle. One explanation is that the patch is made up of layers of materials with different chemical compositions. The other possible mechanism involves the alignment of mineral grains in the material through which the seismic waves are passing. Both of these mechanisms can cause a certain type of seismic wave (the shear wave) to split into two components, one faster than the other.

The researchers used experiments and mathematical modeling to sort out which mechanism is operating in the hot, plastic lower mantle---the region that extends from 670 to 2,900 kilometers below Earth's surface. High pressure in this region causes the formation of minerals unlike those in the upper mantle, the area between Earth's crust and the lower mantle. McNamara and colleagues found that mineral grain alignment, not chemical heterogeneity, causes the unusual seismic wave behavior in the lower mantle.

www.spaceref.com...

In comparison, electrical conductivity (EC) is sensitive to such properties and can be measured by studying the frequency-dependent electromagnetic (EM) response in the Earth [Roberts, 1986]. The lateral temperature contrast across a mantle convection cell is estimated to be in the range 102 to 103 K. For a dry crystalline mantle this contrast can map into approximately an order-of-magnitude lateral variation in EC, and thus it presents a good prospect for 3-D image modeling. This order of magnitude of conductivity variation can be contrasted with the equivalent P- and S-wave velocity variation, which is in the range of approximately several percent. The somewhat poorer resolving power of EM imaging techniques (diffusion equation) relative to seismic techniques (wave equation) is counterbalanced by the intense material property contrasts [Schultz et al., 1993].

www.seismo.berkeley.edu...

Seismic Imaging Unearths Detailed Picture Of Earth's Core
BERKELEY, CA - Using seismic wave data gathered from tens of thousands of earthquakes, researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have produced the first three-dimensional image of the Earth's entire structure, from the crust to the inner core. In creating their model, Don Vasco and Lane Johnson of the Lab's Center for Computational Seismology, found evidence that the outer core is not homogeneous, as has been long hypothesized. This information could help understand the Earth's magnetic field, according to the researchers. Their findings have been published in the February 1998 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The researchers used seismic data collected during the 1960s, '70s and '80s and measured the time the waves took to travel from the epicenter of each earthquake to seismographic stations located around the world. By using computers to analyze travel times from some 40,000 earthquakes, Vasco and Johnson were able to characterize the seismic velocity of materials which make up our planet.

www.eurekalert.org...

Sure, math is our most dependable constant. But, unless we're absolutely positive about the accuracy of the variables used to solve these equations, none of the calculations can be guaranteed correct. We can solve for mass, volume, and even weight, right? But there's absolutely no way we can solve for density without knowing 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, what's really inside the planet. We can still only base density upon our speculation of the planet's contents. We do know the density is not consistent, and that's all we really know.(We think) The entire center could be empty, as long as another layer of crust accounts for the weight difference, right? Truth be known, we're still just guessing. We have no choice. Quite frankly, we still can't be positive that anything in the universe is as constant as our math, since it's all from a very limited perspective. We still don't even know if our math will be constant in any other solar system. And if our math doesn't jive with other parts of the universe, either does our time. We can still only speculate. Keep an open mind. Otherwise, you only limit yourself to conventional thinking.

You are correct in saying that you can not get the measurements EXACT... but you can get close enough to prove that the theories put forth in those sites are false.

Density is REALLY easy to find if you know the volume and mass (weight is a bad term to use here because it is only valid ON the surface of the earth and is basically the force exerted by a certain mass under a certin grav force... while mass is a measurement of the ammount of matter present in the object). To get the density, all you have to do is divide the mass by the volume. It'd be the easiest thing to figure out once you've got the mass + volume.

If another layer of the crust was used to account for the missing MASS (not weight) then that layer would have to be solid platinum or some other REALLY heavy substance... maybe lead if there was enough of it.

diameter of earth is ~8000 (7926 average) miles... they say the crust is 800mi thick... that leaves 6400 miles... they say the core is only 600mi in diameter... that leaves 5800miles... divide that in half and they're saying there's a gap of 2900 miles between the inside edge of the crust and the outer edge of the core...

This is how that would look in a cross section:

||||||||--------------------------((()))--------------------------||||||||

|=crust
- = gap
()=core

Vol of a sphere = 4/3(pi)r^3

Vol of the earth I found to be about

1,080,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000cm^3

*(Vol of the gap would be... 570,989,940,153 cubic km... which means you're telling me that the earth is 52.9% EMPTY... I don't think so.)

The mass can be found by taking the equation:

g= (GM)/D^2 where G is the gravitational constant 6.67x10^-11

We know g, G, and D (radius of the earth)... so we solve for M. (have to do this in metric or it won't work because G is in Newton Meters).

I found that the Mass of the earth is about
5,970,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000g


Mass/volume is density so:
density of the earth is ~5.52 g/cm^3 (Which is D*MN close to the accepted average density of earth... and I only used esimates.. and coincidentally... almost the same as the density of iron... 5.2)

And if the earth is 52.9% empty... that'd mean the density would have to be almost 12g/cm^3... which falls right between lead and mercury. Yeah right...

We don't even understand gravity, really. But that's an entirely different argument. Have you read this yet? You'll understand what I'm talking about....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Density (the hardness of an object) cannot be figured by your equation unless we know the density to be consistent. We do know, however, that it's not consistent, therefore, there's no possible way you can calculate density. If the center is liquid molten lava, or if any other layer is less or more dense than any other part, your density formula is shot to hell. It's useless.

For instance, if I fill a ball with a substance unknown to you, are you telling me you can figure the density of what's inside without me telling you what I filled it with? Impossible! For all you know, it's filled half way with sand, and half with water. The density of water is obviously different than sand. It's a no brainer.

[Edited on 27-8-2003 by Satyr]

DENSITY IS NOT THE 'HARDNESS OF AN OBJECT' IT'S THE MEASURE OF THE AMMOUNT OF MATTER IN AN OBJECT IN RELATION TO IT'S VOLUME! Maleability is a property of a metal that would refer more to it's 'harndess'.
whatis.techtarget.com...

Mercury is a heck of a lot more dense than iron (about twice as dense). Try to tell me iron is 'softer' than mercury.

You've just proven you don't know word one about this topic, so stop arguing with me.

**sigh**
I calculated average density. With an average density like that and the huge friggin gap you're talking about there, then something in there has to be made of a LOT of extremely heavy metals... do you understand this? With that gap, you have to make up for the mass SOMEWHERE to account for all this gravity!

You still don't get it!!! The density changes through different areas!!! There's no fu*king way you can calculate it! From your link...

the amount of mass contained per unit volume

No matter what you know about the outside of a fu*king object, you still can't know what's on the inside, unless you know it to be solid and consistent throughout. Forget it man. You're ignorant. Can anyone else back me up on this? It's a no brainer.
I'm through arguing with you. Go learn something about physics. I got an A+ in physics.(in college, not high school) What did you get?

Density - the ratio of the mass of a body to its volume, usually expressed as its specific gravity.

And what is specific gravity?

specific gravity - the ratio of the density of a body to the density of water, the latter being taken as unity.

What's not to understand? What you're saying is the equivalent to saying you could calculate specific gravity without knowing that fresh water at 4�C (39� F) has been assigned a value of one (1).

[Edited on 27-8-2003 by Satyr]

I don't know why i'm bothering but look at the last part of DR(a real geologist)'s last post.

Seismic Imaging Unearths Detailed Picture Of Earth's Core
BERKELEY, CA - Using seismic wave data gathered from tens of thousands of earthquakes, researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have produced the first three-dimensional image of the Earth's entire structure, from the crust to the inner core. In creating their model, Don Vasco and Lane Johnson of the Lab's Center for Computational Seismology, found evidence that the outer core is not homogeneous, as has been long hypothesized. This information could help understand the Earth's magnetic field, according to the researchers. Their findings have been published in the February 1998 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The researchers used seismic data collected during the 1960s, '70s and '80s and measured the time the waves took to travel from the epicenter of each earthquake to seismographic stations located around the world. By using computers to analyze travel times from some 40,000 earthquakes, Vasco and Johnson were able to characterize the seismic velocity of materials which make up our planet.

www.eurekalert.org...

This alone rules out this silly "hollow earth" garbage.
If the earth were hollow ALL seismic waves would have to go around the entire circumference of the planet. THEY DON'T.
I realize this site has some stuff on the edges of science and conspiracies and all but come on people. If you found a website that told you that up was down and down was up would you just say "Yeah, that's it! Forget what I can see with my own two eyes."?

That's the best and most accurate info I've seen yet. Good post.

Well thats why I posted it. The other 2 links I provided also have similar information on modeling the deep mantel and core by seismic reflectivity, but they are admittedly a bit more technical and hard to understand.

As far as convincing the nay sayers, oh well.... Some people just want to believe something that doesnt exist.

To them, I say: "Bring me back some hard documented data on a huge void at the core, with livable conditions, and I'll look at it.... and if it is credible, verifiable, and reproducable, I will certainly sing those praises to the heavens."

Anyone familiar with remote sensing from aircraft and/or satelites? Remote sensing detects changes in different variables (heat, light relfection, etc.) and allows you to see and map the topography from high above the earth. It can be used to determine what type of plants are most prevalent and most surely would be able to detect a huge hole in the Earth that is much warmer, has lush vegetation etc in the middle of a frozen tundra or ice and snow. If this expedition were really about finding this "hole", I would expect them to use this technology to first locate it.

Sounds like a travel agency that needs some business!

I personally lean towards "unlikely", but I am willing to listen to what other people think and am open to the possibility.

Remote sensing link:
www.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca...

Peace,

~Jammer

Sweet crap Satyr... do you know what AVERAGE means? I specified that I was talking about AVERAGE density. Do you not understand that this is still a good measure of what the earth is made of and a very useful tool in proving the earth isn't hollow?

No matter what you know about the outside of a fu*king object, you still can't know what's on the inside, unless you know it to be solid and consistent throughout. Forget it man. You're ignorant.

Can anyone else back me up on this? It's a no brainer.

I'm through arguing with you. Go learn something about physics. I got an A+ in physics.(in college, not high school) What did you get?

A+ but apparently I rememberd more than you did.

HOLY CRAP! I KEEP SAYING THAT IF (IF IF IF IF IF) the earth is hollow, then you have to make up for the grav with a more dense material. I'm not saying that the average density of the earth PROVES it's not hollow, I'm saying that USING the average density you CAN PROVE that the earth is EITHER solid and made mostly of iron... OR is hollow and is made mostly of something a lot more dense like mercury or lead. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? You keep attacking a point I never made!

I don't care what math or science you use, there's no other way around that. That core, by it's mass and supposed dimensions can NOT be made of iron and still account for the gravity here on the surface.

Density - the ratio of the mass of a body to its volume, usually expressed as its specific gravity.

And what is specific gravity?

I want you to tell me how to use that to prove anything about what the earth is made of (I know how... but I want you to prove you didn't just look that up online to look smart)

What's not to understand? What you're saying is the equivalent to saying you could calculate specific gravity without knowing that fresh water at 4�C (39� F) has been assigned a value of one (1).

No you can't, because Specific gravity is COMPLETELY comparative by definition and has no units other than (H2O @ reference temp) Not only that but there are two accapted reference temps, 60deg F is the other)
www.edwardvalves.com...

ALSO, you can't really use Spec Gravity if you don't know the temp of the material inside and the you don't know it's density, or even what it is... so your example is even more useless than mine.

Let's pause for a minute? Do you believe the earth is hollow? If so, give me a reason, please... I think it's been sufficiently proven that the earth is NOT hollow, I want to see a good reason to believe it is. Don't just post me a link... YOU tell me.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Considering the fact that all education has been administered by secret society members (freemasons), you must begin to re asses what we have been taught, from the begining!

I want just one person who has been to this molten center come forward, and give testimony. So basically put, if you havent been there, you dont know. Learn how to deal with your closed mind

I've been there, dude it was hot as hell!

Originally posted by Greyhaven
Let's pause for a minute? Do you believe the earth is hollow? If so, give me a reason, please... I think it's been sufficiently proven that the earth is NOT hollow, I want to see a good reason to believe it is. Don't just post me a link... YOU tell me.

No. I don't believe the earth is hollow. But I still can't see any possible way you could know (just from calculations) what it contains. That's all I'm saying. Depending on what is inside (and we really don't know), any formula could be completely wrong. You'd still be guessing! Sorry to get into a physics debate, but exactly what is the average density of, oh...let's say an egg? That would take awhile to figure out the average density because you have several different densities throughout the egg. Now put the egg inside of a tennis ball and fill it with liquid stryrofoam and water. Then pretend I handed it to you, and you had no idea what was inside. No formula you could possibly look up is going to give you a very accurate (even average) density, just going by the outside of the ball. And that's nothing compared to the complexity of earth's layers. No equation is going to tell you what kind of shoes are in an unmarked box! See what I'm saying? If that still isn't crystal clear, let's just drop it. I'm getting tired of this.

And yes, of course I looked it up. I don't store definitions or formulas in my head for things I rarely use anyway. That doesn't mean I don't fully understand them.

[Edited on 28-8-2003 by Satyr]

Well no... to get the acerage density of the egg... you'd just find the density of the egg as a whole, not the parts. Find the volume by displacing water and then find the mass by weighing (massing) it. Divide the mass by the volume and you've got your density.

I DO see what you're saying, I think we were on two seperate pages there... You're right in saying that you can't tell what's in it, there could be a lot of different materials (which there are) with a lot of different densities...

My point was that the likelyhood of the core of the earth being made of mercury (or any number of substances equally as dense) is VERY low... simply because heavy metals are not produced in the universe in large enough ammounts that we'd get that much in the earth without being an extreme oddity. I was trying to prove the unlikelyhood of the theory... not flat out prove it wrong.

hmmmm, wonder what happened to the so called expadition. It's preatty funny how one hears about these things, and never hears about them ever again.

Originally posted by Netchicken
It's crap.Do people who believe this also send money to Nigerian spammers?

Man I spilled my beer on that one!