Which theory is more plausible: Expanding Earth theory or Hollow Earth theory?

In your opinion, which one do you think is less ridiculous out of the two theories and might actually be plausible?
Expanding Earth theory or Hollow Earth theory?
Please explain why.

Thanks.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by sphinx551]

Expanding Earth theory makes more sense in relation to the apparent changes in Earths mass and gravity that once allowed larger animals to walk around.

reply to post by sphinx551


Both are pretty ridiculous. They are interesting theories but none of them have the scientific credentials to back them up. Neither theory can compete with real science.

I would say Expanding Earth is closer to being a legitimate theory while Hollow Earth was typically relegated to myth and superstition such as the belief that Hell is at the center of the Earth or that there are Earths within the earth like something out of Jules Vern.

Anyone defending these theories as truth should look at the facts but I have no issue with any who defend them as interesting sci-fi or mythological ideas.

Not sure anymore what the figures are, but our world recieves many thousands of tons of dust from space each year, which may account for an increase in size and mass over protracted time-frames.

I think the hollow earth theory is silly to say the least, as the mechanics of it are impossible from my way of understanding things. Especially the central sun concept.. madness.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by sphinx551

 

I would say Expanding Earth is closer to being a legitimate theory while Hollow Earth was typically relegated to myth and superstition such as the belief that Hell is at the center of the Earth or that there are Earths within the earth like something out of Jules Vern.

To be honest, I agree with you.
Good point.

But I do think the Moon is hollow though.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by sphinx551]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


ok, and to sound like a complete quack.
I was listening to this chap whom made a rather interesting arguement about the nature of gravity. How its not a focus into the center but rather gravity works as waves, creating levels of waning and waxing gravitational force from a singular point. It was a rather elegant theory, but trying to retell the theory sounds like sheer lunacy.

Anyhow, I will try to find some snippets and post them here, but ultimately he made a fairly plausable arguement on the nature of gravity, did some minor demonstrations, then went on to discuss how there could end up being many levels of a sort of hollow earth.working not unlike a gyroscope

Originally posted by Tayesin
Not sure anymore what the figures are, but our world recieves many thousands of tons of dust from space each year, which may account for an increase in size and mass over protracted time-frames.

This kind of Expanding Earth theory:
www.youtube.com...

I think the growing earth theory is more likely true out of the two. From what I understand the earth is not perfectly round. While there may not be any science facts to support this, it is a fun theory to ponder.

Expanding.

There are particles hitting the Earth all the time. Some of them get trapped below the crust. That would just make sense.

That is matter and energy accumulation.

Just imagining that we do not know the extent of trapping of particles or even all the particles that could accumulate, that we do not even know how accumuation of particles we do know of would impact below the crust of a planet....well I'd have to say that I wouldn't outright reject an Expanding planet.

People act as if plate tectonics should dismiss the possibility of such. The two theories aren't mutually exclusive. A moving crust over a flowing mantle AND expansion in the mantle isn't impossible.

reply to post by sphinx551


But the moon has significant pull on the Earth even effecting the tide. In order for the moon to have this effect it would have to have enough mass so if it is hollow the hollow portion must only be a fraction of its innards.

reply to post by Aeons


Those would be meteorite particles or cosmic dust, they would be detectable as such, they wouldn't be able to coalesce into extra rocks or miles and miles of soil made of the same stuff Earth is. Any increase in the mass of the Earth from such particles would be negligible if noticeable at all.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by sphinx551

 

Both are pretty ridiculous. They are interesting theories but none of them have the scientific credentials to back them up. Neither theory can compete with real science.

What is "real science"?

Take a look at the history of germ theory. The mainstream back then thought the whole idea was nuts.

Dr. James Maxlow has scientific credentials. As well as many other scientists who research the subject, not because they agree with it, but because it is apart of the scientific method.

I apologize if I am being rude but that way of thinking really touches a nerve with me. Science should not have boundaries, hypotheses should not be ridiculed because of narrow mindedness. Unfortunately I have found that such ridicule usually comes from persons in a scientific field who have little more than their own ego to agree with.

As for the topic at hand, if you hadn't figured it out yet, I think expanding/growing earth theory has more evidence at this point and is probably closer to making any impact in western "science".

I am thinking more along the lines of accumlation of physics particles.

Photons, split atoms, etc. New particles that haven't been detected. Things that can pass through the atmosphere, through the crust, and become trapped in the mantle layer.

Minute but plentiful is still a force. What does a particle interaction DO in a flowing magnetic rock?

Sure its minute. What is the long term EFFECT?

An atom is pretty minute. But you split it, and you can blow away your whole neighbourhood.

Minute shouldn't be confused with inconsequential.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Aeons

 

Those would be meteorite particles or cosmic dust, they would be detectable as such, they wouldn't be able to coalesce into extra rocks or miles and miles of soil made of the same stuff Earth is. Any increase in the mass of the Earth from such particles would be negligible if noticeable at all.

[edit on 2010/3/18 by Aeons]

reply to post by Blogbuster


Yes I am aware that many theories we accept as true today were considered absolute hogwash but the difference between them and expanding or hollow Earth is that they all had the evidence to over turn skepticism. Scientists are typically more willing to accept where the evidence points than the general public, this is why scholars knew the Earth was round for hundreds of years and the uneducated masses still thought it flat.

The fact it is ridiculed does not make it true only evidence can vindicate it. If one of these theories compiled legitimate scientific evidence and made it through peer review it would have to be accepted as evidently true.

There is a mountain of evidence supporting Plate Tectonics and that our planet has a solid inner core while there is no real evidence supporting an expanding earth or a hollow earth. Anyone wanting to prove either theory should first become a legitimate scientists with a firm grip on the scientific method and all the evidence against their theory, then if they still want to investigate and try to prove the prevailing theories wrong I say more power to them. The only thing that can result is the truth and who knows perhaps in exploring these seeming dead-end theories they could discover something else about how our world works.

I think that if the "expanding earth theory" is true (which i do think it is), it would also mean that the earth is hollow...

both theories only work if they have each other..

I cannot picture a situation of expanding earth being logical, with the earth being solid..

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Not all theories had the evidence to overturn them, at least not when they were proposed. In the aforementioned germ theory technology had to catch up to science before the proper evidence could be gathered. Fortunately, in the expanding earth theory's case there is plenty of evidence. Look into it, it's ok, you are allowed. I dont mean watch a 10 minute video and make an assumption, actually read the information, or listen to the Dr. maslow's lecture. You owe him that much before you attack his character and denounce him as a quack.






[edit on 18-3-2010 by Blogbuster]

reply to post by sphinx551

I didn't watch the full 10 minutes, got to about 3 minutes before wondering what drives these motions without the currently accepted idea of continental drift? That all the continents were together in a land mass once is already understood with our current knowledge, and includes the oceans within the Pangea concept.

I also wondered where in this theory does it account for all the water we see today in oceans. Perhaps had I watched the full 10 minutes they may have said.

Given that we see subduction zones in action, and the other side of that coin being mid-ocean areas producing new ground from the molten remnants of previous subducted ground, I find it hard to subscribe to this theory of a growing earth. Especially given the lack of additional substance to the inside of the earth to cause the growth that isn't already accounted for with the Continental Drift model.

Originally posted by baphomet420
I think that if the "expanding earth theory" is true (which i do think it is), it would also mean that the earth is hollow...

both theories only work if they have each other..

I cannot picture a situation of expanding earth being logical, with the earth being solid..

I disagree, In fact the oppisite is true in my book. I dont beleive in hollow earth becasause of the amount of evidence suggesting the earth is growing, the formed mass pushes up and out and spews through the surface as volcanoes and ocean spreads and large cavities would be filled long before the surface is broken and pushed out.

The fact is far more spreading can be found than subduction, sure the situation is complex, but subduction is very rare in comparison to spreading, unlike your were led to believe in school, and if the two arent 50-50 then tectonics has a lot to answer for.

The reason it doesnt get the credibility is becasue its a crazy notion to most scientists that mass could be formed in the centre of the earth and the ridicule from colleagues is enough to make them look the other way. NASA refuses to just put this to rest by just re-measuring the earth, its been almost 30 years its time to measure agian.

The pacific spread which is where the subduction from the rest of the worlds spreading should be occuring, is simply not been proven accuratly to be closing. Rather more spreading is found where the subduction should be.

Now whats important is that if the earth is growing then the technuiqes that measure earth from the surface cannot be used unless the radius expansion is factored in so although there is evidence suggesting a shrinking pacific spread this is only because the locals on the lattitude longtitude are radially expanding themselves skewing the data.

If NASA doesnt measure it soon (properly from orbit) china or india will, its only a matter of time before we can put this rest for good.

Also check out this intro I found the other day
www.expanding-earth.org...

The Earth isn't all solid. Problem solved.

zebu.uoregon.edu...

Originally posted by baphomet420
I think that if the "expanding earth theory" is true (which i do think it is), it would also mean that the earth is hollow...

both theories only work if they have each other..

I cannot picture a situation of expanding earth being logical, with the earth being solid..

reply to post by sphinx551

Which theory is more plausible: Expanding Earth theory or Hollow Earth theory?

I find them equally plausible --- that is, plausible that they will tie if entered into a contest for "Most Outrageously Dumb Theory of the Year" award.


"hollow" is patently ridiculous. "expanding", equally so.

There is no mechanism to come up with, by any stretch of imagination, to support this "expanding" nonsense. Where does this so-called 'extra' material come from, and how does it get inside in order to make this "expansion" occur?

AND...why do people apply this "theory" only to this one planet?

Honestly, I just don't understand how people fall for this kind of garbage non-science in the first place. Is it the poor science education in the school systems today?

There's a new study just out (for once not from the USA):

One in 10 British schoolkids think the Queen invented the telephone and almost one third believe Sir Isaac Newton discovered fire, according to a new study.

....A thousand children at primary and secondary schools were polled...

bigpondnews.com...


Secondary schools? I can understand little kids, young kids getting it wrong, that's cute, but older kids?

Future world leaders? Ai! I fear for our species if this continues.