It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Earth is Possibly Cavernous not Hollow

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Why won't people believe anything unless its staring them in the face. I cannot believe people are arguing against the earth being solid, just because they dont understand the evidence. I hope you will read this and perhaps things will become clearer: www.visionlearning.com...
Ive read through it, and everything seems to there.

For the lazy among you, the simplest way of explaining it is that we can measure sound and pressure waves across the earth following an earthquake. The waves travel through different paths in the earth depending on the earths composition (lithologies, density, pressure, heat etc.). From interpreting the recieved waves at many different points around the globe, we can see the path the waves took and create a picture of the interior of the earth.

I conceed that we will never "see" the interior of the earth, and the deepest rock samples on the earth surface have come from around 150km deep. But the evidence doesnt get much clearer than that. If you can find any other theory with the same level of evidence i will gladly hear you out.

But simply telling my that your magic powers told you doesnt wash im afraid. Neither will bogus theories about the hollow earth based on centrifugal force that were dismissed over 300 years ago.

Please feel free to ask, if anything is unclear.




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by scepticsteve
Why won't people believe anything unless its staring them in the face. I cannot believe people are arguing against the earth being solid, just because they dont understand the evidence.


Ach, it's quite simple Steve: if 100 experts in any given subject say one thing, and 1 person who has never studied the subject in his life, says another, then clearly the latter is correct and the experts are all part of a global conspiracy to hide the truth



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Ach, it's quite simple Steve: if 100 experts in any given subject say one thing, and 1 person who has never studied the subject in his life, says another, then clearly the latter is correct and the experts are all part of a global conspiracy to hide the truth


I didnt consider it a conspiracy, all I had was a hunch.


Originally posted by scepticsteve
I hope you will read this and perhaps things will become clearer: www.visionlearning.com...

Thankyou for enlightening me, I read the module and stand corrected. And as for my magic powers, its not magic. The government hires remote viewers, its no secret.

Ive come to the conclusion that the caves I was talking about are in Earth's crust, if anything.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GlassRunnerThe government hires remote viewers, its no secret.

Actually, they don't. They DID have them back in the 1960's but tests and training all proved that "remote viewing" was not nearly as accurate as even a bad spyplane photo or as accurate as bugs and other high tech devices. Having someone draw you a scribbly picture and telling you "there seems to be something over here" (when they are able to manage the vision) is a real waste of time compared to infared imaging and other techniques that work 100% of the time.


Ive come to the conclusion that the caves I was talking about are in Earth's crust, if anything.

All caves are in the Earth's crust.

But the earth's crust isn't full of caves. They only form in certain kinds of rocks and under certain kinds of conditions. Any earthquake would cause them to shatter and everything to fall to the bottom of the cave (so we'd know about them.) If the Earth was honeycombed with caves, there'd be a lot of places where you couldn't put up structures like highways or radio/cell towers or office buildings, etc, etc because a hollow space under them would be dangerous and unstable.

If the earth's surface was honeycombed with caves, we would never have been able to drill for oil. Drillers do occasionally hit caves (very rarely) -- and the sudden vacant space causes their drill bits to drop off the end of the drilling rig (very expensive) and can cause them to lose pipe. They would have a HUGE difficulty getting a pipe into the top end of the cave and matching it up with a hole in the bottom end of the cave.

One large cave (Inner Space Caverns) was discovered here in Texas at the site where they were going to put a highway. They lost a drill bit down the hole, went down to investigate, and found the cave. The highway was rerouted after they mapped the extent of the cave because it would have been dangerous to have a high traffic area extending over a hollow space.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
All right then. Now the people who don’t believe in the hollow earth have had their turn. Now it’s my turn.

1st theory

According to this site

www.sciencedaily.com...

“But geophysicists also assumed that at some great depth, the pressure would be so high that even at temperatures of thousands of degrees the iron would freeze solid. In the 1930s, seismologists did find a "discontinuity" in the velocity of waves propagated through the center of the Earth, suggesting some sort of stratification of the core.”

The core would freeze, if it is indeed iron. So according that site, maybe our earth’s center isn’t liquid and moving but a giant frozen ball. That would automatically disprove everything scientists have thought of the center.

2nd theory

If the center is indeed a molten core of iron why doesn’t it just melt all the way through the mantel and crust? The core is supposedly 4000 degrees Celsius, which is 7232 degrees Fahrenheit, which by the way steel melts at 2800 degrees F. So if the core is so hot then why doesn’t it just burn up all of the earth that surrounds it? And eventually just burn up all of the earth itself. And if you say it does burn up certain portions of the inner earth then where is the new earth coming from, that replaces the burned portions? And what would make the center that hot, it cant be pressure because that much pressure on a liquid ball would cause it to implode? And how did a giant ball of 4000 deg. C. get to the center of our earth? And how come Asteroids don’t have these molten cores? And does Jupiter have one? It seems to me that it would make more sense that the Earth would be hollow not solid.

3rd theory

according to wiki

en.wikipedia.org...

“In 1818, John Cleves Symmes, Jr. suggested that the Earth consisted of a hollow shell about 800 miles (1,300 km) thick, with openings about 1400 miles (2,300 km) across at both poles with 4 inner shells each open at the poles. Symmes became the most famous of the early Hollow Earth proponents. He actually proposed making an expedition to the North Pole hole, thanks to efforts of one of his followers, James McBride, but the new President of the United States, Andrew Jackson (in office 1829 - 1837), halted the attempt. Symmes died in 1829.”

If the earth isn’t hollow, why would the president of the united states stop a scientist from going to the north pole, in an attempt to find out?



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
All right then. Now the people who don’t believe in the hollow earth have had their turn. Now it’s my turn.

1st theory

According to this site

www.sciencedaily.com...

“But geophysicists also assumed that at some great depth, the pressure would be so high that even at temperatures of thousands of degrees the iron would freeze solid. In the 1930s, seismologists did find a "discontinuity" in the velocity of waves propagated through the center of the Earth, suggesting some sort of stratification of the core.”

The core would freeze, if it is indeed iron. So according that site, maybe our earth’s center isn’t liquid and moving but a giant frozen ball. That would automatically disprove everything scientists have thought of the center.


"Earth has a solid inner core made of iron and nickel that is about 2,400km in diameter and a fluid outer core about 7,000km in diameter.

The inner core plays an important role in the dynamo that generates Earth's magnetic field. An electromagnetic torque from this dynamo is thought to drive the inner core to rotate relative to the mantle and crust. "

Not my words.....the words from this Link BBC Science and Nature




Originally posted by spaceman16
2nd theory

If the center is indeed a molten core of iron why doesn’t it just melt all the way through the mantel and crust? The core is supposedly 4000 degrees Celsius, which is 7232 degrees Fahrenheit, which by the way steel melts at 2800 degrees F. So if the core is so hot then why doesn’t it just burn up all of the earth that surrounds it? And eventually just burn up all of the earth itself. And if you say it does burn up certain portions of the inner earth then where is the new earth coming from, that replaces the burned portions? And what would make the center that hot, it cant be pressure because that much pressure on a liquid ball would cause it to implode? And how did a giant ball of 4000 deg. C. get to the center of our earth? And how come Asteroids don’t have these molten cores? And does Jupiter have one? It seems to me that it would make more sense that the Earth would be hollow not solid.


Why doesn't Yellowstone simply fall away from the Earth's surface to the huge underground Magma Chamber?
Your questiosn are sound ones, in that we should all try to learn, but you obviously don't know the answers or much about Geology so really you shouldn't be posing a Theory.
Learn as much as you can then you should be able to come back with a properly formulated answer.


Originally posted by spaceman16
3rd theory

according to wiki

en.wikipedia.org...

“In 1818, John Cleves Symmes, Jr. suggested that the Earth consisted of a hollow shell about 800 miles (1,300 km) thick, with openings about 1400 miles (2,300 km) across at both poles with 4 inner shells each open at the poles. Symmes became the most famous of the early Hollow Earth proponents. He actually proposed making an expedition to the North Pole hole, thanks to efforts of one of his followers, James McBride, but the new President of the United States, Andrew Jackson (in office 1829 - 1837), halted the attempt. Symmes died in 1829.”

If the earth isn’t hollow, why would the president of the united states stop a scientist from going to the north pole, in an attempt to find out?


For a start, Wikipedia is fast becoming a place filled with opinion, so beware what you take as fact from that site.
I'm not suggesting what you have posted is a lie, just don't take everything it says as gospel.

So, there is now a conspiracy regarding President Jackson eh.
Maybe he stopped the scientific expedition because Aliens from the Planet Omicron Persei 8 contected him to inform him that Aliens inhabited this 'hollow Earth' and that exposure would lead to the mass extinction of Bunny 'wabbits'.

Anyway, this is some information i gathered regarding your man Symmes.

"In the early 19th century, an eccentric veteran of the war of 1812 John Symmes (d. 1829) promoted the idea of interior concentric spheres so widely that the alleged opening to the inner world was named "Symmes Hole."* In Hamilton, Ohio, his son erected a monument with a stone model of the hollow earth to commemorate his dad's incessant lobbying for an expedition to the North Pole to find the entrance to the world below. Martin Gardner writes that "It took Byrd's flight over the North Pole to deal a death blow to 'Symmes' hole' "(Gardner1957, 41). However, later advocates hail Admiral Byrd as having actually gone into the hollow earth at both poles! This strange belief seems to be based on nothing more than the fact that Byrd referred to Antarctica as "The Land of Everlasting Mystery" and once wrote: "I'd like to see that land beyond the (North) Pole. That area beyond the Pole is the Center of the Great Unknown." Such evidence apparently suffices for the alternative scientist."

skepdic.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
According to this site

www.straightdope.com...

“However, digging holes doesn't get you much beyond the crust. The deepest man-made hole I'm aware of is in the Kola peninsula in Russia. It's about 12 km deep, nowhere near reaching mantle. Some holes are being dug in the ocean [3], where the crust is thin, and sometimes they find chunks of mantle in those holes. Volcanoes sometimes spew up chunks of mantle as well, so we do have samples of (upper) mantle to study in the laboratory.”

So you mean to tell me that the only thing we have solid proof of is the upper mantle and the crust? The rest is as the site says, “laboratory experiments”

“We can also do lab experiments to see what happens to the earth's materials under enormous heat and pressure”

So your proof that the earth is solid is nothing but a laboratory experiment?

Later on in the site the person says, “Earthquakes also give evidence that the outer core is liquid. S-waves are never detected in certain regions of the earth--a shadow zone. Since S-waves don't propagate through liquid, a liquid layer must be forming this shadow. The size of the liquid layer can be determined by the size of the shadow.”

That is an assumption, not fact. It would have been a little more believable if he didn’t use the words “must be” And just as an analysis of his words, he also says that, “S-waves are never detected in certain regions of the earth --a shadow zone.” Uh, so the liquid part is only in certain parts of the world, what about the other areas? Are they maybe…. (gasp) hollow!?


[edit on 21-9-2006 by spaceman16]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
And just as an analysis of his words, he also says that, “S-waves are never detected in certain regions of the earth --a shadow zone.” Uh, so the liquid part is only in certain parts of the world, what about the other areas? Are they maybe…. (gasp) hollow!?

I don't' know what the person(s) on that site wanted to say, but what I know is that for every earthquake strong enough to be detected by the seismographs around the world, there is always a shadow zone in the form of a ring almost on the other side of the world.

I will try to find a picture to illustrate this.

I found it, see this site.

[edit on 21/9/2006 by ArMaP]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
After looking at a few sites, I just realized that the “scientist” on the site I posted skewed the results of the s-wave findings. Don’t believe me? Then check out this site.

mceer.buffalo.edu...#

According to this site not only can s-waves not exist or penetrate liquids, it can’t exist or penetrate air either. “S waves cannot travel through the outer core because these waves cannot exist in fluids, such as air, water, or molten rock.” Hmm. I think the scientist should have included that part, because as soon as you say a liquid you immediately think of water and stuff that’s been melted.

Even answers.com says that s waves can’t go through gases.

www.answers.com...

“S waves can travel only through solids, as fluids (liquids and gases) do not support shear stresses.”

So the inside could just be all gas and at the same time be hollow. So why don’t they teach me this in school? Why don’t they tell me that the s waves can’t go through gases either? You see the thing about the center of the earth being solid, is that that’s only a theory, not a proven fact. It’s a theory based purely on assumptions. So why don’t they teach that it could possibly be hollow in the center? It’s a theory too, shouldn’t we have the opportunity to learn both theorys?


[edit on 22-9-2006 by spaceman16]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
After looking at a few sites, I just realized that the “scientist” on the site I posted skewed the results of the s-wave findings. Don’t believe me? Then check out this site.

mceer.buffalo.edu...#

According to this site not only can s-waves not exist or penetrate liquids, it can’t exist or penetrate air either. “S waves cannot travel through the outer core because these waves cannot exist in fluids, such as air, water, or molten rock.” Hmm. I think the scientist should have included that part, because as soon as you say a liquid you immediately think of water and stuff that’s been melted.

Even answers.com says that s waves can’t go through gases.

www.answers.com...

“S waves can travel only through solids, as fluids (liquids and gases) do not support shear stresses.”

So the inside could just be all gas and at the same time be hollow. So why don’t they teach me this in school? Why don’t they tell me that the s waves can’t go through gases either? You see the thing about the center of the earth being solid, is that that’s only a theory, not a proven fact. It’s a theory based purely on assumptions. So why don’t they teach that it could possibly be hollow in the center? It’s a theory too, shouldn’t we have the opportunity to learn both theorys?


[edit on 22-9-2006 by spaceman16]


Most impressive. You've done some good work there. Now it's time to look up look up "P wave".

[edit on 23-9-2006 by City_sea]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
The p wave is basically the same as an s wave but it can penetrate through fluids (which remember include air) dictionary.reference.com...

This site talks a little about them

www.geo.mtu.edu...

“The first kind of body wave is the P wave or primary wave. This is the fastest kind of seismic wave. The P wave can move through solid rock and fluids, like water or the liquid layers of the earth.”

It says that the p wave can move through solid rock and fluids. And once again we come to the part where the writer doesn’t tell us the full definition of a fluid, and leaving out the part about gases. Making the assumption that the fluid in question is liquid, because he/she doesn’t want to acknowledge the possibility of a hollow earth.

In case I still haven’t convinced you about p waves being able to travel through air and s waves not being able, take a look at this site.

en.wikipedia.org...

“These waves generally travel slightly less than twice as fast as S waves and can travel through any type of material. In air, these pressure waves take the form of sound waves, hence they travel at the speed of sound.”

So they can go through air, yes they change into sound waves, but they still can go through the air. I have been searching and searching to find why scientist automatically assume that the outer core is liqiud when it can be hollow with gas in it. And to be honest I can’t understand why the scientist think there is a giant ball of iron in the center either. If anyone can help me out on that one then I would greatly appreciate it.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I think that the "missing link" in this case is the velocity of the waves.

As the Wikipedia article says:


Typical speeds are 330 m/s in air, 1450 m/s in water and about 5000 m/s in granite.


Then, if the speed of the p wave is 4 times higher in water than in air and almost 4 times faster than that in granite, then they can know the density of the material through which the wave travelled by knowing the time it took to reach the other side.

I think this is also the way they use to search for underground water or oil when they use explosions to cause a reverberation of the ground.


After a little search I found this site, maybe it has enough information to clear all the doubts, or maybe it will even makes matters worse.

[edit on 25/9/2006 by ArMaP]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Can you use this newfound knowledge in an example? Like how it would work. It doesn’t make sense to me that you can measure what’s in the earth by using p waves. It seems that you would only get one large sum and then you would know how long it took the wave to get from point a to point b. How would that tell you what and where the elements are? And say there is a way to measure what is in the earth at a given point. How would you know that the element (if say is a liquid) is molten magma or iron?

[edit on 26-9-2006 by spaceman16]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I can't remember exactly (it's a while ago I did it) but it's connected to refraction & reflection times and patterns. Different materials have different reflection and refraction properties. You just go from there.

Yes, it's just a theory as to what is under the earth. But it is a theory in exactly the same way that electricity is a theory, and the atom is a theory, for example.

This wiki image might give you a visual accompniment to how s-waves and p-waves travel, and how we can calculate materials from travel times, and arrival locations.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 26-9-2006 by City_sea]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
Can you use this newfound knowledge in an example? Like how it would work. It doesn’t make sense to me that you can measure what’s in the earth by using p waves. It seems that you would only get one large sum and then you would know how long it took the wave to get from point a to point b. How would that tell you what and where the elements are?

I found a PDF where they explain (page 45) how they use seismic waves to look for oil.

I don't know if they can make waves strong enough to reach the Earth's centre, but with a strong enough earthquake, if it is in a region with enough seismographs, I suppose they can make a good map of the different layers that make up the Earth using that method.


And say there is a way to measure what is in the earth at a given point. How would you know that the element (if say is a liquid) is molten magma or iron?

I suppose that there is not any means to tell a material from other with the same seismic properties, that would be like trying to tell what a certain material is based only on its density. When we have only a property it is very difficult, if not completely impossible, to really identify a material.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlassRunner

Originally posted by ArMaP
If most people do not read the posts in thread where they post, why should they read other threads?



Maybe the earth has an empty spot in the center but isnt largely hollow. Im not highly knowledgeably on the laws of gravity so correct me if im wrong. What would happen to matter at the very center of the earth? Does earths gravity come from one spot, smaller than an atom at the very center of the earth? How else would there be matter in the very center of the Earth? But since all matter has a gravitatinal force, this doesnt make sense to me. To me it seems that matter that is smack dab in the center of the earth would be gravitationally pulled from every direction. If matter moves closer to one side of the earth than the other, it should recieve an increasingly stronger gravitational pull from that side. The closer masses are to each other, the more gravitational attraction they have. So maybe the matter would end up sticking to one side?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by GlassRunner]
No. Gravity comes from everywhere. Newtons law of gravitation- every particle in the universe attracts every other particle. Therefore gravity as it relates to the earth is a function of all the particles under you (the earth) attracting you towards them. In the same way, the earth is also attracted to you. There is no speck in the middle of the earth everything is attracted to. It's probably possible to prove that the earth is a solid mass, by considoring the gravitational pull it exerts, then calculating the mass that would be needed to do this. I'm not sure ont hat point though, I'm a geologist not a physcicist





I dont know there just ideas. Oh and for there to be proof of the center of the earth, we or some machine will have to go there. Otherwise we have only evidence.
No. I'm quite happy with the research that's been done. I'm perfectly convinced that the earth is solid. There is plenty of evidence proving the earth is solid. It's a bit like saying that the only way to prove that the sun exists, is to go there. We haven't been there, this we can't prove it actually exists. By your logic then, I can happily call the sun a giant lightbulb.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by City_sea

Yes, it's just a theory as to what is under the earth. But it is a theory in exactly the same way that electricity is a theory, and the atom is a theory, for example.

[edit on 26-9-2006 by City_sea]


Sorry but I couldn’t help but to post something about this. Is electricity really a theory? Can’t you kinda see electricity in light bulbs and lightning bolts? I always thought that it was a fact. And I’ve never really thought about this but have scientist ever seen an atom like an actual one?



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
VERY good! Excellent!



Absolutely perfect for ATS' focus on Ancient and Lost Civilizations.

IMO - astral projection and psychic apprehensions of the hollow earth constitute far, FAR more legitimate evidence of an ancient and lost civilization than for example, the fact that the I Ching is based on a binary numerical system, and contains a calendar similar to the Mayan calendar.

Keep up the good work.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join