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.

 

Can we get rid of the notion of Hollow Earth?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Cavernous, how much so, out of interest, and how far down?


I would suspect if my theory is indeed correct, there are prbably caverns laying deep under the earth's surface. How much so? Well, that is all relative. What may seem like being fairly cavernous to me may not seem like much to you, or vice versa.




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Hollow Earth was mentioned about Antarctica and the Operation High Jump with
Admiral Byrd in command.
He might have seen the gigantic cave.


He could have seen something, but how would he have got into it exactly? If one were to fly over the hypothetical hole, one would just fly over it like any other feature. Unless the gravitational field were to somehow change, in that you are always pulled perpendicular to the ground, and so you would go in, but how would you get in otherwise? It would take a big dive in a plane to do it, and then a lot of climb to get out again.


I found that story on the net. Google or YouTube have an official Navy
made film of the operation. I never did watch it.

Why would Byrd fly off alone. OK, so he is met in the air and shown a landing place and brought to a cave. There is nothing official only a recant of
what some British expedition that entered a cave.

Here is map of area of interest.

Its a screen capture of an inset map that kept on getting bigger and bigger,
so I had to capture it. Its real big and can't make it a picture link or it
will expand the page.

Some question if the area is off to the left more.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
god forbid we ever get rid of "the notion"


I would welcome everyone to go read edgar rice burrows, "at the earths core:", it is a fascinating book, and a look back into science fictions very beginnings



we may find new worms or bugs that live way down there, but the idea its anywhere near hollow or inhabited by higher life forms is, of course, pure folly.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
we may find new worms or bugs that live way down there, but the idea its anywhere near hollow or inhabited by higher life forms is, of course, pure folly.


And, according to another thread that just started, sea life.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
the other thread says no such thing about sea life
and the article its taken from says nothing about hollow
its talking about water saturated rock

what kind of lifeform are we talking about here suddenly that can live in solid rock which is saturated with water
maybe someone could ask Arthur C Clarke for an answer on that one



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I have to agree that the "Hollow Earth" theory is hollow. However, I do believe that the Earth's crust may be full of countless catacombs, possibly home to a variety life. Though I do believe in the magma levels, and the hot earth'c core, it is still a theory. Though a pretty damn plausible one. But, you need to realize that no humans (or machines) have been to the center of the Earth, or even deep into the magma. So who really knows, not just believes, what is "deep" in the Earth? What if the tectonic plates floated on a "sea" of magma, which then "floated" on a sphere of electromagnetic energy?



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I’m so disappointed such ignorance would be found on such a great site as this.

I have only one question for everyone here - WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE THEORY OF AN EARTH WITH A SOLID CORE?

We have only ever drilled about 800Kms into the earths crust - in May 2006 we had not even breached the mantle! so what makes all you guys here just dogmatically believe that we KNOW what is inside the earth?? Where is the proof???

I feel it is VERY safe to assume that no-one here has read Jan Lempracht's Hollow Planets? Go have a read.

If you want 'proof' (or at least more proof than currently exists for Solid Earth THEORY, thats right, THEORY) visit www.hollowplanets.com... and click on the Free downloads link. then go crazy, have a really good read, play with the Seismic simulators. They clearly show why the current solid earth theory is flawed - the math simply doesn’t add up unless it is tampered with - however, remove all tampering and put in context of Hollow Earth Theory and suddenly all the math works 100 per cent perfectly.
The expedition to the Hollow Earth which leaves in June of this year is a scientific non-government based expedition. It is NOT free, as some here speculated. You CAN apply to go along but you must have some kind of skill set which the expedition needs. It is not a site seeing holiday cruise. Plus it’ll cost about $25,000 for each person to go along. ALL results will be reported in real time on the website www.phoenixsciencefoundation.org...

The original expedition was cancelled because expedition leader – Steve Curry, passed away. Brooks Agnew is now leader so therefore the voyage was rescheduled and will now go ahead.

Everyone who comes to this website knows not to trust official stories and knows to read between the lines and go behind the veils. Think a bit guys, stop being so condescending and have a real think about this.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by srsen
I’m so disappointed such ignorance would be found on such a great site as this.

I have only one question for everyone here - WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE THEORY OF AN EARTH WITH A SOLID CORE?


Oh, gravity (and the fact that gravitometers work), volcanos, supervolcanos, the fact that it gets hotter the farther you go down, shock wave patterns, etc, etc.


I feel it is VERY safe to assume that no-one here has read Jan Lempracht's Hollow Planets? Go have a read.

I have. It's pretty bad.


...They clearly show why the current solid earth theory is flawed - the math simply doesn’t add up unless it is tampered with - however, remove all tampering and put in context of Hollow Earth Theory and suddenly all the math works 100 per cent perfectly.


It shows they're working with really old data and that they don't know a thing about earth science and geology.


Plus it’ll cost about $25,000 for each person to go along. ALL results will be reported in real time on the website www.phoenixsciencefoundation.org...

An expensive vacation



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   


I’m so disappointed such ignorance would be found on such a great site as this.

you know I feel that way as well
and your arrival isn't helping



Everyone who comes to this website knows not to trust official stories and knows to read between the lines and go behind the veils. Think a bit guys, stop being so condescending and have a real think about this.

this is not the consipracy section
this is the ancient history section
so could you tell me what a future expedition to the pole has to do with ancient history and how your belief that it does affects the ignorance level of this board ?
any time you're ready



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Indellkoffer, you said you believed in solid core because its gets hotter as you go deeper, volcanoes, super volcanoes, shock wave patterns and gravity right?

Well simply because an apple falls from a tree that isn’t proof of a solid earth to me.

And if its gets hotter the deeper we go that must mean that it continues that way right? We have never drilled deep enough to know.

Volcanoes are still entirely plausible with Hollow Earth. If tectonic plates ‘rub’ together they create extreme friction and heat which results in magma. 1000 miles of crust is MORE THAN ENOUGH room to have substantial deposits of lava.

So the book is “pretty bad”, but compared to what, the dogmatic belief that certain theories MUST be true because some scientists says so?? I’m sure Galileo’s ‘book’ on the Sun really being the centre of the universe would have seemed ‘pretty bad’ to most upon its release huh?

And once again, WHO is the God of Earth Science who dictates that whatever isn’t in your text book cannot be true?

The voyage isn’t a vacation

Marduk, you make a good point, this ISNT the conspiracy section. I just feel that this whole topic kind of falls into the ‘conspiracy’ type basket at the moment seeing as there is so much conjecture surrounding it.

In regards to the relevance to ancient history of a Polar expedition to find out the truth. Well I don’t really need to say it do I?
If you wake up tomorrow and see on the news that the Earth is hollow, the inner Earth supports life, so many myths, legends and biblical verses regarding tribes and races who dwelt in the earth are indeed factual accounts, and that everything we ever thought about Earth Science was wrong – would that not be the most historical find in human history??
Saying that this expedition of discovery has nothing to do with ancient history is akin to saying archaeology is just as irrelevant.

And my comment concerning ignorance was simply me expressing that not there was not ONE VOICE on here which challenged the current views and questioned if Hollow Earth was even possible.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   


If you wake up tomorrow and see on the news that the Earth is hollow, the inner Earth supports life, so many myths, legends and biblical verses regarding tribes and races who dwelt in the earth are indeed factual accounts, and that everything we ever thought about Earth Science was wrong – would that not be the most historical find in human history??

no
it wouldn't be
it would be the most amazing medical breakthrough how someone could dose me with L.S.D. while I was asleep
the problem with the Hollow earth theory that I can see is the fact that everyone who has ever claimed to have met these tribes and races who "dwelt" inside never had a shred of evidence
andin most cases were nuttier than a fruitcake
if you're trying to say we don't have enough evidence to prove that the earth does not have a solid core youre wrong
this is about the third post on this subject and both times before it was ended by someone posting overwhelming evidence that the inner earth is exactly the way that geologists say it is
so I suggest you use the search function
before I do



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsen
And if its gets hotter the deeper we go that must mean that it continues that way right? We have never drilled deep enough to know.

Volcanoes are still entirely plausible with Hollow Earth. If tectonic plates ‘rub’ together they create extreme friction and heat which results in magma. 1000 miles of crust is MORE THAN ENOUGH room to have substantial deposits of lava.

You might be able to hold the magma, but it still needs to move upward in order to erupt. With your hypothesis the heat generation would only be at the edges of the plates, and so all volcanoes would be around there. However this is not the only case, for example, Hawaii, Yellowstone are not on the edges of plates, and with your idea there is no heat source for the hotspots that cause these. And how do you expect subducted crust to entirely melt in the confines of a shallow layer of magma, where the only heat source is friction? Heat takes a lot of energy, for example dropping a steel block off a skyscraper would only increase it's heat by about 1.2 degrees C, assuming no air resistance and all energy becomes heat.


So the book is “pretty bad”, but compared to what, the dogmatic belief that certain theories MUST be true because some scientists says so??

I posted this in my first post, if you can explain it with hollow earth, well done. BTW there would also be a seismic wave travelling straight to the other side.




If you wake up tomorrow and see on the news that the Earth is hollow, the inner Earth supports life, so many myths, legends and biblical verses regarding tribes and races who dwelt in the earth are indeed factual accounts, and that everything we ever thought about Earth Science was wrong – would that not be the most historical find in human history??


I'd find it easier to believe that I could make cold fusion with washing up liquid.



by Marduk
someone posting overwhelming evidence that the inner earth is exactly the way that geologists say it is

Wouldn't that be my first one? Or am i assuming people understand how waves travel? If you don't know, go and play around with waves in a bowl, and see how they diffract around objects. Better yet, notice how you can hear something which isn't in direct line of sight.


[edit on 15-3-2007 by apex]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
so your diagram shows the P-waves reaching the other side of the planet and i assume that you suggest that that fact alone confirms that the earth is indeed solid, because P-waves cannot travel through a vacuum and wouldnt be able to reach the other side of the planet if it were hollow.

Obviousy the S Waves dont travel through the earth because they are blocked by the so called liquid 'outer core' (which they cannot travel through because it is not rigid). HOwever whats to say the outer core isnt actualy hollow as opposed to liquid filled? DO we have proof of it being liquid?



Check the diagram. the inner circle denotes a decrease in density inside the earth. If you decrease the density from a certain point as opposed to increasing it as scientists stipulate, then it would all work perfectly. and who REALLY knows that this isnt the truth? If the waves behave as they should when in a decreased density (that is curving opposite to the standard U-shaped formation), then this decrease in density will allow the P waves to still travel to the other side of the earth and the S waves remain blocked becuase of the Hollow interior. The Shadows Zones will also work as you can see. It all fits perfectly with no question marks at all.

this is the cruxt of the problem though, no-one knows how dense or with of what materials the inside of the planet is made of. in reality we have NO WAY of proving it either way right now.

THis is why this upcoming expedition is so important, if they find the open polar sea then it is likely that they will find the hole and confirm the earths inner cavity.

WIth this explanation i would love to know exactly everyone so far on this thread is so fast to shoot down this concept.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   
oh and Apex, in reagrds to the volcanos... no-one has really proven this 100 per cent either so i suppose i cant really give you the real answer.

But my assumption would be that perhaps the magma travels along chanels inside the crust which could feed from the mantle or from some other magma source such as the two plates rubbing together as i said earlier. it IS true that ALOT of the planets volcanos ARE at location where two plates join, so it is not entirely impossible.

The crust is 'honey-combed' to a degree afterall and tunnels deep within the earth which lava has flowed through have been found in the past, so this theory could well and truely work.

and YellowStone isnt really a volcano, its a caldera, so who knows whats going on with that thing - let sjust hope it stays sleeping for a while longer!



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Is it just me, or does your image show some of the P waves reaching the P shadow area?

And the other problem with the diagram you provided is that while it demonstrates a theory of how a hollow earth can mostly give the results expected, it ignores time. As the waves travel at a definite speed, the proposed waves and the waves which travel straight through the earth would take different times to arrive, as one only needs to travel the diameter of the earth, while the other needs to go substantially further in order to get to the same place.

Again, even with an explanation of how the magma gets around, for one thing even a magma chamber isn't entirely melted, creating problems for how it gets there, and your system allows no method for it to get back up, except perfect fluid flow with no frictional pressure losses. Which is definitely not the case for a viscous fluid such as magma. 'Centrifugal' effects wouldn't do it either, as even near the equator it reduces gravity effects by a tiny amount.



YellowStone isnt really a volcano, its a caldera,


Last I looked, it was a volcano, and a caldera is a type of volcano. I don't think the YVO is called the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory for nothing.

And how hot spot movement under plates would work with no core is interesting as well, notice the line of volcanoes leading to Yellowstone, all created by the same hotspot.


One more thing, continental drift, and the convection currents that cause it, can you explain it in regards to hollow earth?




BTW, welcome to ATS. Interesting thing to put your first posts in.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Hey Apex, yeah it does show P waves reaching P shadow area. According to my info this is entirely as expected. The below diagram is straight out of a Seismology textbook and it shows P waves infringing on the shadow zone, except that they seemed to have no way to explain, hence the dotted line.



And this diagram also shows P waves hitting the shadow zone.



I’m fairly confident it is normal for a REDUCED number of P waves to infringe of the shadow zone.

You’re correct about the different times, obviously the waves would take different times to get the other side of the globe, but I don’t understand how this is a problem. This occurs regardless of any earth model, hollow or not. This isn’t quantum seismology so there will always be a time lag in waves reaching the other side. Perhaps I missed your point??

Look, I’ll be honest, as I said, I obviously don’t have all the answers with all this, especially with the volcano issues. If I did I’m sure I would be trying to plug my latest book or whatever. The movement of magma is a bit tricky but I’m not the guys who are working all this stuff out – im sure they could answer you though

Continental drift - don’t get me started, we’ll need another thread. I find the whole concept of continental drift a bit tricky. It exists sure, but not on the scale they claim.

Will get back here on that issue. At work right now – boss giving me greif



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   


I find the whole concept of continental drift a bit tricky. It exists sure, but not on the scale they claim.

theyre claiming centimetres a year you know
is that too large for your theory ?



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
i just dont happen to think that the continents are 'drifting' and spinning like bumper cars at the amusement park.

It ties in with the rubbing and shifting of the plates. Rifts or cracks in the ocean floor (cuased by shifting/rubbing plates) create magma, which rises up through volcanoes or thorugh said cracks in the ocean floor. This spreads the oceanic plate apart, pushing the two sides of the split oceanic crust smoothly and regularly away from eachother. The land masses/continents which are 'glued' or welded within the oceanic plates also move apart with the shifting and spreading ocean bottom.

This ties in with the concept of magma being created by and filling the gaps which shifting/rubbing continents cause. This is entirely plausible in hollow earth. Hollow Earth theory doesnt change this at all in my opinion.

Convection currents? well i would assume they may not run as deep but once again, in my opinion, still applicable with Hollow Earth



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Here is an outtake from a speech i found given by Jam Lamprecht…. This is his take on how lava fits into Hollow Earth theory…..


“Lava doesn’t come from inside the ‘molten core’. Most lava is slightly radioactive and scientists believe that most of it comes from decaying radium or through the stresses.” (as I said in my previous posts).

“Lava is created by heat generated in the crust of the earth, which is thought to be no more than 20 miles thick, although no-one has ever penetrated it to be able to say eitherway.

“Scientists say that lava is a crustal phenomena and all lava comes from no deeper than 20 miles. If the earth were an ocean of molten lava, it would be prone to tidal pressures and the continents would be broken to pieces as the earth rotated.

“Scientists also say that the earth is composed from solid rock in the most part, as you go deeper the pressure is supposed to be so great that the rock actually flows from extreme pressure. But nowhere in modern geology or seismology will you see them saying the earth is a ball of molten lava.”


thought it would ad to this debate



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
sorry to chian post here, but i found something else, this time regarding the apparent molten interior of the Earth….

Scientists state than beneath a depth of 150km, the pressure is so great that all substances will flow. Earthquakes however occur in regions much deeper than 150km. The graph below demonstrates clearly that earthquakes occur at MUCH greater depths than 150km, finally stopping dead at 700km.



If there are earth quakes deep below, then how can there be lava and areas where all rock will flow? This proves that the earth is cool and brittle deep down inside and not molten as claimed. Therefore there would be no need to contend with lava inside the earth because it isn’t actually there….



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join