I've had enough of these 'Solid Earth Theory' threads. How many do we need?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times


reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 05:42 AM by coredrill
There can be deep caves/caverns..but there can never be a hollow earth.
want proof here it is...



Actually if you ask a geologist and they say "we think" earth is hollow they should request their money back for their degree. They will say "we think such and such is at the core", but not that the earth is hollow, baring they are crazy.

Actually were are going to do two things. First we are going to calculate the weight of the earth with good ol newton.

So I am going to assume you are familiar with Newton's equation for the force exerted by two objects upon each other.

equation 1: F*=G(m1m2)/R2

So G is the universal constant for gravitation.( 6.67 x 10-11 m3/kg s2), So from now on when I use G, I am going to be referring to that number.

Knowing that,
equation 2: F=m2a we will plug that into equation 1 for F*

equation 3: m2a=G(m1m2)/R2

Now for this, m1 is the mass of the Earth, m2 is the mass of an object on the surface of the Earth, a is the acceleration of that object near earths surface which we know to be 9.8 m/s2.


I am going to assume that you have basic algebra skills and can solve for m1 in equation 2.
And we end up with this.

m1=aR2/G

So now our only problem is finding the R, which is radius of the earth. Now to save time, and my fingers, I am going to give the radius of the earth, 6.38x106 meters. If you are interested in calculating the R of the earth using shadows on your own click
HERE

Anywho, back to the problem at hand, now that we have all the varriables lets plug and chug.

m1={(9.8 m/s2)(6.38x106 m)2}/ 6.67 x 10-11 m3/kg s2, solving we get the mass of the earth me= 5.98x1024 kg.

Now that is heavy! Far to heavy to be hallow, but lets not stop here.

We have our trust old density equation D=M/V.

Now since we have calculated the mass and we did (well faked) our shadow experiment to find the radius, R we can solve for the density of earth.

We need to remember how to find volume of a sphere, (heres a good point to clarify notation, for Pi we will use p), (4/3)pR3

So plugging it all in we get

D=(5.98x1024 kg)/((4/3)p(6.38x106 m)3 and we get?

5497.3 Kg/m3 which we can quickly convert to the standard density unit g/cm3, and have 5.497 g/cm3

Great but what does this tell us?

Well for one we know that the most rocks on the surface of the earth have the density 2.7 g/cm3, water is approximately 1 g/cm3 and Earths upper mantel (peridotite) is about 3.4 g/cm3.

This tells us that the center cannot be hollow and actually has to be something much more dense.

Now we can test this experimentally as well and will be doing so shortly many mechanisms using Neutrinos have been proposed and while they may not match our radial based density calculation I am sure they are not going to support the "Hollow earth" theory.

Anyway here is one example.
Probing the absolute density of the Earth’s core using a vertical neutrino beam
Why the Earth Cannot be Hollow

[edit on 11/6/09 by coredrill]


reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 10:43 AM by All Seeing Eye
reply to post by coredrill


I tend to stay away from "Proof" that contains the words "Calculate" and "Assume". If you cant go into court and "Testify" to what you yourself know to be the truth, then all you have is hearsay and conjecture. No proof.


cal·cu·late (klky-lt)
v. cal·cu·lat·ed, cal·cu·lat·ing, cal·cu·lates
v.tr.
1. To ascertain by computation; reckon: calculating the area of a circle; calculated their probable time of arrival.
2. To make an estimate of; evaluate: calculating the team's chances of winning.
3. To make for a deliberate purpose; design: a sturdy car that is calculated to last for years; a choice that was calculated to please.
4. also cal'late (klt, -lt) Chiefly New England
a. To suppose: "I cal'late she's a right smart cook" Dialect Notes.
b. To plan, intend, or count on.
v.intr.
1. To perform a mathematical process; figure: We must measure and calculate to determine how much paint will be needed.
2. To predict consequences.
3. Regional
a. To suppose; guess.
b. To count, depend, or rely on someone or something: We're calculating on your help.

www.thefreedictionary.com...



assume
Verb
[-suming, -sumed]
1. to take to be true without proof
2. to undertake or take on: every general staff officer was able to assume control of the army
3. to make a pretence of: the man had assumed a debonair attitude
4. to take on: her eyes assumed a scared haunted look [Latin ad- to + sumere to take up]

www.thefreedictionary.com...



Trying to weigh the earth as proof is absolutely illogical and impossible because you don't know what elements and in what amounts your trying to weigh. To even begin to "Calculate" the weight of the earth you would have to KNOW whats inside, and the last time I checked, no one has been there to take inventory. The only thing that does exist is a collage full of assumptions.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by All Seeing Eye]


reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 11:44 AM by HiAliens
reply to post by coredrill



Thanks for posting that, I've seen it before. I agree that caverns may be a possibility, that's what interests me most.

Those calculations you posted may or may not be right. I think the general intention is to provide enough complicated numbers to intimidate the average onlooker. The tone is immensely patronising and that gets my back up.

Jan Lamprecht, in my OP, has also done his own calculations...



reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 01:25 PM by coredrill
reply to post by HiAliens



forget about the tone or whatever.

iam not trying to intimidate anyone. i just presented some calculations.

care to disprove the calculations?? thats the question!

[edit on 11/6/09 by coredrill]


reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 04:32 PM by All Seeing Eye
Originally posted by coredrill
reply to
post by HiAliens



forget about the tone or whatever.

iam not trying to intimidate anyone. i just presented some calculations.

care to disprove the calculations?? thats the question!

[edit on 11/6/09 by coredrill]
Your calculations are already disproved because they are based on rumors and hearsay, and I might add, a fanciful amount of fantasy and fiction.


reply posted on 11-6-2009 @ 10:44 PM by coredrill
reply to post by All Seeing Eye



huh? did i read that correct?

Not just you, all the posts after my post with the calculations is quite clear that these posters dont have and basic science or technical background.


No further comments.

[edit on 11/6/09 by coredrill]


reply posted on 12-6-2009 @ 12:12 AM by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by HiAliens



Good post. I don't think the Earth is hollow but I don't pretend to know what could be down below the surface waiting to be discovered. We as human beings like to fit our beliefs into a paradigm, and the mainstream paradigm says the Earth is more or less solid so people fit their beliefs into that paradigm without researching it for themselves... Its the same phenomenon as just picking a political party and buying into the platform without forming your own opinions...

My theory, the Earth is cream-filled


reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 12:50 PM by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by HiAliens


My knock on the HET was not aimed at the OP, but to the others who have said [paraphrasing] "The Solid Earth Theory has some inconsistencies, therefore the Hollow Earth Theory could be valid."

All I'm saying is that science isn't perfect and nearly every theory has some holes and inconsistencies. That doesn't mean that those theories are wrong and should be tossed aside. The overwhelming evidence suggests the Earth is basically solid/liquid (i.e. NOT hollow). There is not overwhelming evidence to suggest that it is hollow.

Are there inconsistencies with the current scientific model of the earth's basic composition? Sure there is, but that doesn't make it all wrong.


reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 04:28 PM by HiAliens
reply to post by trey85



Exactly.

This thread fell a bit flat on its face cos I couldn't get a decent discussion going.

I'm not so bothered if its hollow or not, just that there's A LOT going on under the surface. Im sure the survivors of Atlantis are still down there.

The more I read the more obvious it seems.

If you want to know more check out Jan Lamprecht.

See you in Telos one day... I'll buy you a Lemurian Cider.


reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 05:36 PM by Aquarius1
reply to post by HiAliens



You mentioned Jan Lamprecdht, I happen to have his book 'Hollow Planets' A Feasibility Study of Possible Hollow Worlds, heavy duty reading and have followed his work through the years.
The key word here is "Feasibility" interesting concepts, who knows he may be right.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 6 days ago with 96 member flags
12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 3 days ago with 80 member flags
The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 14 days ago with 70 member flags
Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 3 days ago with 45 member flags
Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 15 days ago with 29 member flags
R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 10 days ago with 21 member flags