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.

 

Theory about size of life on the surface.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


Really? You need evidence? OK. Here goes nothing!.

As I said earlier, the seismic pressure waves that travel through the earth's core every single time some seismic activity happens (or a nuclear bomb, or the twin towers being hit, etc.). These waves give a very accurate picture of what's happening in the core of the earth, and have been demonstrated as being very accurate indeed. Now if the earth was hollow, as some people claim, these waves wouldn't work at all, and all the massively-accurate readings they have produced wouldn't have happened.

So, either seismology is wrong, or you are right. I wonder which side I'll be putting money on...




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


So, does your link have pictures? Video? Eye witness accounts? I believe the data is misrepresented. You wont look at my evidence, Ill return the favor.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


what evidene?

youtube video's made by people who should know better and use known false material?

and illogical assumptions



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Let people decide for themselves and stop trying to make their minds up for them, brother..........


Google Video Link


Jan Lamprecht, THE HOLLOW EARTH

Google Video Link


[edit on 6-11-2008 by All Seeing Eye]

[edit on 6-11-2008 by All Seeing Eye]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
if i see somthing thats been proven false should i not point out its wrong?

if i see someone saying balck people are inferior should i not point out the lie?

if i see someone teaching the world is flat should i not say its wrong?


you have freedom of speech you have the right to say it, i then have the right to refute it

thats how freedom of speech works, and science works on weight of evidence

so ar its all faith in bible tales



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


Then at least try to come up with some actual evidence. YouTube videos are not evidence, especially the ones you trot about. They are funny, but not informative.

If you are too blind to look at the actual evidence (even if it doesn't mesh with your presumptions about the world), there's no hope for you. The same methodology that demonstrates the world is not hollow, and that giants didn't roam the earth, also made all the medicine you use, and the computer you are currently looking at. Hypocrite.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


Really? You need evidence? OK. Here goes nothing!.

As I said earlier, the seismic pressure waves that travel through the earth's core every single time some seismic activity happens (or a nuclear bomb, or the twin towers being hit, etc.). These waves give a very accurate picture of what's happening in the core of the earth, and have been demonstrated as being very accurate indeed. Now if the earth was hollow, as some people claim, these waves wouldn't work at all, and all the massively-accurate readings they have produced wouldn't have happened.

So, either seismology is wrong, or you are right. I wonder which side I'll be putting money on...


Sorry guys.....feeling bad for All seeing eye but just one thing I want pick from the most reliable wikipedia source where it says...
" It is believed to consist of an iron-nickel alloy, and it may be hotter than the Sun's surface".....

A little bit vague and not 100% accurate.....please dont beat me too much....



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by booda
 


Yes, it's believed to be iron-nickel alloy, but it's definitely metal. Definitely. The pressure waves seismologists use to measure seismic events show there is definitely a dense, metal core in the centre of the earth. Definitely. 100%. No dinosaurs or nordic aliens or nazis or atlantis or bigfoot or anything. Just molten metal.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 
I would like to present "Evidence" that the world you present has a large "Crack" in your metal core theory,and your creation theory.


Mystery Deepens Over Unseen Antarctic "Alps"
Rebecca Carroll for National Geographic News November 6, 2008
The existence of a massive Antarctic mountain range buried under miles of ice has become an even deeper mystery, a new study says. The little-researched Gamburtsev Mountains seem to challenge geologic patterns seen in other mountain ranges on Earth. For one, the range is situated in the middle of the continent instead of on the edge—at the plate-tectonic boundaries—like most other mountains. (See a high-resolution map of Antarctica.) The range's high peaks reach an elevation of about 10,000 feet (more than 3,000 meters)—heights typical of relatively young mountain ranges, such as the spiky Rockies and the European Alps. New findings based on river sediments, which suggest the range is more than 500 million years old, are intriguing, experts say. Older mountains, such as the Appalachian range in the eastern U.S., are thought to be shorter and less rugged after hundreds of millions of years of erosion. Because the Gamburtsev range is tall, some scientists have argued it must have formed relatively recently—within the last 60 million years or so. And because it's not near a tectonic boundary, some have suggested the range rose up as the result of magma buildup around a theoretical volcanic hot spot. (Related: "Under-Ice Volcano Eruption Spewed Ash Over Antarctica" [January 21, 2008].) "The hypothesis that the mountains are derived from young volcanic activity is hard to reconcile with our data," said study lead author Tina van de Flierdt of the Imperial College London.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

This is taken from the thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your 100 % sure? The very fact that this mountain range exists outside of your theory, proves your theory is not 100%, Brother....



[edit on 7-11-2008 by All Seeing Eye]

[edit on 7-11-2008 by All Seeing Eye]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


That has nothing to do with the core. Do you even know what the core is? Apparently you don't. The theory (it's not mine - it's the collective works of thousands of scientists, all better educated and equipped than you or I) is still 100%. We KNOW the Earth has a metal core, as it has a magentic field. Because of that, we KNOW the earth has at least some iron in the core. We KNOW because of seismic pressure waves that the earth is separated in different layers going down towards the centre.

No YouTube videos of "giant's" bones or misunderstood copy-n-pasted articles from newspapers is going to change that, no matter if that's all you have left to defend you laughable hypothesis with.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 

We KNOW
Would you mind showing me the samples of this core? When was the last time you visited this core? All you have, is theory, and a incomplete theory at that. Explain gravity to me. Explain how the planets rotate around the sun. Scientists have all the answers, correct?

So, you being a self appointed representative of said "Scientists", please explain gravity, and also throw in how the Van Allen radiation belt fits into it.

You are correct, I have no knowledge of your view of the core, nor do I think I want to. I'm tired of fiction and fantasy of the Brotherhood.

Explain to me how this planet was formed, in the first place, before we go to the core.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


You know how compasses work, right? You know they *do* work, right?

There's how we know. Please at least try to understand that which you claim is impossible. All the evidence is out there, and I've even posted you a direct link to a great summary of it.

Read the link about the earth, and it will answer all your questions. Of course you are not being rational, so you will ignore any evidence that doesn't hint at some subterranean wonderland full of giants and dinosaurs, so it won't help you in the slightest.

Please try to deny ignorance. It's pathetic.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 
Brother Dave, you sound a bit, ummm, irritated. Unless I'm mistake, a compass will tell you which direction the global current is flowing, it does not in itself explain why the current is there in the first place.


Read the link about the earth, and it will answer all your questions. Of course you are not being rational, so you will ignore any evidence that doesn't hint at some subterranean wonderland full of giants and dinosaurs, so it won't help you in the slightest.

Please try to deny ignorance. It's pathetic.
What make you think I want any answers? Ignoring evidence? You haven't shown me any, show me the core. Sorry, not interested in denying ignorance, again, I defy it.

The only thing pathetic, is your closed mind


Brother Dave, I pose a question to you. Can you magnetize a solid ball bearing? Which end would be north, and which will be south? Ask the ball bearing to show you by use of a "Compass". Will it answer you?

How does the ball bearing tell which end is which?

In theory the earth must be a magnet to conduct magnetic waves. Can a solid ball do this? In your mind, if your capable of this, imagine a very large rectangular magnet floating in space. It has a north, it has a south. Now take this magnet and stretch it around in a circle, pulling it up and down at the upper and lower portions, pulling it into a ball, but leave the top and bottom open. Can you magnetize a hollow ball with holes at the top and bottom?


Work with it Brother Dave, work with it.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
looks like the mark of a creationist to me

especially a Behe comment from the court trial when presented with 19 peer reviewed papers and several text books proving his point false he replies "its not enough proof for me"

the fact there is an anomolous moutian range on earth does nothing to prove the earth isnt as stated, it means a different theory not concerning the earths core may need to be reviewed. so it will be dropped to a hypothesis until an explanation for the anonomous moutnain range can be found and if it works it gets to be a theory again

its not 100% perfect .. wow really? if it was 100% we wouldnt need scientists working in that field would we

the fact its 98% correct means we have room for improvment but theres nothing even close to being this accurate

so if hollow earth is 1% accurate and the standard core model is 98% accurate which would you place your money on?

but lets play silly games back if the earths hollow how does a compass work?

if the earths hollow where does magma come from?

if the earths hollow how does the seismic waves travel through the earth and register in exactly the same way as if it was a semi solid mass not open space?

[edit on 7/11/08 by noobfun]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 



if the earths hollow where does magma come from?

if the earths hollow how does the seismic waves travel through the earth and register in exactly the same way as if it was a semi solid mass not open space?

Both of your questions are answered in this video documentary. It is from the NEXUS conference in 2003. 1 Hour.


Jan Lamprecht, author of "Hollow Planets" and the African Crisis website, discusses a feasibility study conducted on the possibility of a hollow Earth, based on seismic data.

video.google.com...



There may also be another "Trigger" for volcanic activity that is not discussed in the presentation, and is hinted at in a fictional work by John Uri Lloyd, 32nd Freemason.

CHAPTER XXV. THE MOTHER OF A VOLCANO.-- " YOU CAN NOT DISPROVE, AND YOU DARE NOT ADMIT."

www.lycaeum.org...


As I said earlier, I will harvest information from what ever source offers it, whether it be factual, or fictional. If it is realist, it must be considered, even if it comes from a Mason






[edit on 7-11-2008 by All Seeing Eye]

[edit on 7-11-2008 by All Seeing Eye]



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


This is ridiculous. You clearly don't want to learn anything, just to parrot your bizarre, unfounded assertions.

You are the one with the closed mind, not I. I'm open to any evidence. You are only open to evidence that you agree with.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


This is ridiculous. You clearly don't want to learn anything, just to parrot your bizarre, unfounded assertions.

You are the one with the closed mind, not I. I'm open to any evidence. You are only open to evidence that you agree with.
Brother Dave, I agreed with your theory most all of my life. Its just time to look at something a little different.

Do you realize that if the center of the planet was a mass of molten rock or metal, every time the moon made a revolution, it would cause massive shifting of the crust, as the magnetic pull of the moon not only pulled the tides, it would also pull your liquid center? You would have earth quakes, and tidal waves, and volcanoes, every single month.

Besides, think about it, if it were that hot at the center, wouldn't the heat eventually reach the surface, cooking every thing? R1 in insulating efficiency means 1 foot of rock. After 5000 years, the surface should be as hot as the center. Or, are you telling me someone stuffed a whole bunch of R 30 3M pink stuff in there somewhere.

Dave, its time to move on from the flat earth, and entertain some other ideas, and that is all I'm trying to do. Use your imagination, its okay now. The mean old Nuns that used to smack your knuckles for thinking out side of the box are all retired.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


No, the moon wouldn't. The gravity at the core is just too strong to be affected in the way you are describing. You are arguing from ignorance of how the earth's core behaves.

Here's a rule of thumb: if you find yourself saying "think about it" in order to debunk a demonstrated, evidentially-backed-up scientific theory, chances are you are wrong. And in this case, very wrong indeed. The earth doesn't get hotter and hotter, as the molten metal is constantly circulating from the centre to the outside of the core, where it heats up and cools respectively. The heat is not passed on to the outside because there is no new heat being generated - there are no nuclear reactions happening in the centre of the earth as there are in the sun. It's possible some heat is being made, but not enough for your hypothesis.

Using one's imagination to "shed light" on something incredibly well known is a folly of the most ignorant. I am the first to think outside the box when there is a reason to, but seeing the masses of evidence present for our current understanding of the earth's core, it's a complete waste of time.

Or are you saying you know better than all those geologists out there, who have been studying the earth's composition for decades, using all kinds of high-tech equipment? Because that's what it sounds like.

Just read the evidence. If you want to think outside the box, you first must know where the box is. It seems you haven't even grasped that part yet.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


"Using one's imagination to "shed light" on something incredibly well known is a folly of the most ignorant. I am the first to think outside the box when there is a reason to, but seeing the masses of evidence present for our current understanding of the earth's core, it's a complete waste of time."

is this not what scientists do? They make new discoveries by challenging existing belief. at CERN they say that the experiments may well show them that everything they now know about physics is wrong. This hollow earth theory may or may not be rubbish but it is arrogant to state that it is rubbish when you have no understanding of the subject. Remember that being able to use the internet search engine does not make you a scientist.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 

when there is a reason to



The oxygen crisis Could the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere undermine our health and threaten human survival?


The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis.


Around 10,000 years ago, the planet's forest cover was at least twice what it is today, which means that forests are now emitting only half the amount of oxygen. Desertification and deforestation are rapidly accelerating this long-term loss of oxygen sources.
I think this is reason enough, would you agree?
www.guardian.co.uk...


The largest flying creature alive today is the Andean condor Vultur gryphus. At maximum size it weighs about 22 pounds and has a wingspread of about 10 feet. But 65 million years ago in the late cretaceous period, the last age of dinosaurs, there was another larger flying animal, the giant pterosaur Quetzalcotalus. It had a wingspread of over 40 feet, the size of a small airplane. Other pterosaurs were also quite large. The pteranodons of the late jurassic period, the classic flying dinosaurs of magazine illustrations, had a maximum wingspan of about 33 feet. This presents a puzzle: how is it that the largest flying animals of the cretaceous were able to attain so much greater size than modern birds? There are severe physical limits associated with flight. It is difficult for large birds to generate enough lift to take off. Consider the well-known square-cube law: if you double the size of a bird by simple scaling, its wing area and associated lift go up by 22, or a factor of 4, while the body weight that must be lifted goes up by a factor of 23, or a factor of 8. When an evolving flying animal species increases in size the basic design must be altered to accommodate the reduced lift-to-payload ratio. But if anything, the pterosaurs were less well designed than modern birds. They lacked the birds' efficient keelbone muscle structure and the aerodynamic advantages of feathers. How, then, could pterosaurs have grown so large?


At a meeting of the Geological Society of America held last Fall in Phoenix, Robert Brenner of Yale University and Gary Landis of the U. S. Geological Survey reported the results of a QMS analysis of ancient air bubbles trapped in amber. They obtained a remarkable result. The atmosphere of the Earth 80 million years ago was discovered to have 50% more oxygen than modern air. Brenner and Landis found that for all gas samples taken from amber 80 million years old the oxygen content ranged between 25% to 35% and averaged about 30% oxygen. Cretaceous air was supercharged with oxygen.
www.npl.washington.edu...

We, could be living better lives, with more oxygen in our atmosphere. Thats the best reason I can think of.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join