My unexpected discovery. The Hollow Earth Theory.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


Fail because its NOT expanding! You're using one joke theory to support another!

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

How can a theory (specially a theory for which there isn't any real evidence, as far as I know) be considered evidence, even if circumstantial, of anything?

I believe, if you watched the video I posted and studied the expanding earth theory, it becomes "evident" to the common person that their is a reason why Africa and the Americas seem to fit together. The ages of the sea floors are "Evidence" gathered by the scientific community as noted. This is hard core "Evidence" of a expanding earth.

Watch the video and it will become self evident.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

Fail because its NOT expanding! You're using one joke theory to support another!

The joke is who ever gave you your very limited vision, and closed mind. The failure is your inability to consider new things past a "Flat" earth.

Yes! The Earth is Expanding
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Part 13

Part 14

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


I have two eyes you seem to have one and that appears to be SHUT if you believe that fruitcake!!!

Educate yourself a little

en.wikipedia.org...

www.itwire.com...

Plenty of evidence to prove its not expanding even if that IDIOT cant see it!

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
I believe, if you watched the video I posted and studied the expanding earth theory, it becomes "evident" to the common person that their is a reason why Africa and the Americas seem to fit together.

I have watched that video before, and I don't see how something like an expanding planet is a better explanation than continental drift?

The final result would be the same without any need for an expanding planet, something for which there isn't (as far as I know) any real data, while there is data showing continental drift, even in the few years it has been studied.

The ages of the sea floors are "Evidence" gathered by the scientific community as noted.

That could be seen (and has been seen) as evidence of continental drift.

This is hard core "Evidence" of a expanding earth.

Not really, because in some places the older sea floor is being destroyed,

Watch the video and it will become self evident.

It did not, the only thing that became evident is the need some people have to show that science is wrong just because they think they have a better idea.

reply to post by ArMaP

It did not, the only thing that became evident is the need some people have to show that science is wrong just because they think they have a better idea

Well, ArMaP, I suppose you are correct. We all still live on a flat earth, ride horses, eat our meat raw, wear animal skins for cloths because the guy next door refused to look at something new and different.

Granted, not all new ideas are correct or right, but I don't drive a 1919 Buick either LOL LOL. Someone with new ideas brought the horse and buggy all the way to the 20th century and made a few changes. The automobile industry came a long way, because someone thought they had a better idea than the engineers (scientists) of that day.

Science, no matter if it is Aeronautical, Medical, or Geology, will not stand still for long. Someone will in deed come along and rock the boat, its inevitable. You may keep your proverbial head in the sand if you like, but the next generation will look back and call you a fool, and reap your reward.

Another bit of "Circumstantial, theoretical, Evidence"

One of the longest running and most controversial theories in geology is the Expanding Earth theory. From the earliest school geology classes to the most advanced university geology lectures, almost everyone is taught that the Earth is not expanding. So when people are first presented with evidence for an Expanding Earth virtually everyone is astonished.

Some people are so shocked by the evidence for an Expanding Earth they deny there is any evidence and call it a pseudo-science, while others try to convince their peers that it has been scientifically investigated and debunked by plate tectonics so this evidence need not even be considered. This argument about the significance of the geological evidence for an Expanding Earth can become very animated at times.

But a small number of geologists are so convinced by the geological evidence for an Expanding Earth that they have investigated the facts in detail. Many of the supporters for an Expanding Earth are professors and doctors of geology who continue to present the supporting evidence today by publishing various scientific papers and books advocating the theory.

The most widely known geological evidence for Earth expansion is simple. The continents are ancient and some regions have existed for more than 3,800 million years. But in geological time scales the ocean floor is relatively young and ranges from only about 200 million years old at the continents to areas at the mid-ocean ridges that are still forming today. When the dinosaurs first evolved none of today's ocean floor existed.

www.dinox.org...

This thesis allowed me to calculate that dinosaurs' gravity would need to be about half the present force of gravity to explain the dinosaurs’ large size.

But celestial mechanics means that the Earth would need to be much smaller with reduced mass to have such a large reduced gravity.

At first it seemed unlikely that the ancient Earth could have been so small during the dinosaurs time, but I soon found that a number of geologists had already proposed that the ancient Earth was smaller and then expanded. Their reasoning had nothing to do with dinosaurs and was based purely on geological evidence. This is commonly known as the Expanding Earth theory and a number of geologists are still promoting this theory today.

Based on their geological evidence they proposed that the ancient Earth was about the same size predicted by the Reduced Gravity Earth. Both theories predict the same astonishing conclusion using completely different reasoning and evidence.

www.dinox.org...

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Well, ArMaP, I suppose you are correct. We all still live on a flat earth, ride horses, eat our meat raw, wear animal skins for cloths because the guy next door refused to look at something new and different.

Why do you say that? I only said that some people look like they have a need to prove that science (or whatever, as long as it's connected with the status quo) is wrong, regardless of having a better supported theory or not?

That doesn't mean that we should ignore new ideas (after all I'm Portuguese, and Portugal was the first country to explorer methodically the oceans), it just means that we shouldn't accept all new ideas just because they are new and against the established ones.

The automobile industry came a long way, because someone thought they had a better idea than the engineers (scientists) of that day.

Yes, but only some ideas survived until the present. Some did not because they were not good enough, some because they were not cheap enough to replace the existing ones, some (probably) because the established companies didn't liked the ideas and did everything in their power to slow the competition.

But that is not the same as in science, where capitalism is not as present as in manufacturing (although too present, I'm suppose). Any idea is a good idea, if backed up with relevant data, better. But if I don't think it's a good idea, I say it.

You may keep your proverbial head in the sand if you like, but the next generation will look back and call you a fool, and reap your reward.

No head in the sand, but no head in the clouds either.

I wonder why you act as if I had said that continental drift is the only explanation. I didn't, I only said that the expanding Earth doesn't look like a real explanation to me.

When the dinosaurs first evolved none of today's ocean floor existed.

I have a carcharodon megalodon tooth that I found some 70 metres above sea level and 10km from the ocean. To me, that means that at the time the ocean was covering the place where I live, so, not being ocean floor but part of the European continent, that part is older than the ocean floor but it was ocean some millions of years ago (apparently some 25 to 1.5, the time where the megalodons are supposed to have lived). Sea floor age is not enough to show that an expanding Earth is the right explanation.

This thesis allowed me to calculate that dinosaurs' gravity would need to be about half the present force of gravity to explain the dinosaurs’ large size.

How does that explain that both the 30 (or more) metres long Diplodocus and the 25 centimeters Epidexipteryx lived at the same time, with the smaller one being a little old that the bigger? I don't see how a global environmental influence like gravity could allow very large and very small animals at the same time.

And how was the gravity smaller with a smaller Earth? Isn't the gravity stronger as closer we are to the centre of the mass, in this case the centre of the Earth?

PS: my carcharodon megalodon tooth, more or less at its real size (12 cm long).

reply to post by ArMaP


Damn That is a big tooth.

A smaller Earth means less mass, so there would be less gravity. This day and age elephant and mice co-exist
together just as easily as your example under the same gravity.

I read somewhere that the extra mass comes directly from the sun in the form of light. Not that weird imo.

However if I remember correct, the giants of the cretaceous period are linked directly to an increased volume of available oxygen at the time. A result of a planet covert with plants and forests ?

Oxygen is needed for life to harvest energy sufficient enough to sustain it. More of it should result in a smaller diet ora bigger and stronger life form.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Yes, more oxygen is needed, and it appears from the initial reports from Lake Vostock that the atmosphere did in fact have more oxygen in it. Or at least, the water had more oxygen in it.

A team of Russian scientists just announced that they are within 100 meters of drilling into Lake Vostok, Antarctica. Lake Vostok is about the same size as Lake Ontario, but is shut off from the rest of the world by a layer of ice more than 3 kilometers thick. The waters of the lake are about 50 times as oxygenated as typical lake or ocean water.

www.oceanographerschoice.com...

For those who are interested in researching the Vostock waters please read the following link.
salegos-scar.montana.edu...

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
However if I remember correct, the giants of the cretaceous period are linked directly to an increased volume of available oxygen at the time. A result of a planet covert with plants and forests ?

Forests produce oxygen during the day but they consume it during the night, although not as much as they produce during the day, so I think that would have been the result of other type of oxygen production, either by algae or by some other means.

I think I read some years ago that the first life forms on Earth didn't breath oxygen and died when the atmosphere started getting too much for them (and oxygen is very strong, even for us, and I can confirm that, some hours breathing pure oxygen results in some hours with muscle and bone pains).

reply to post by ArMaP




From what I understand there was already some sort of simple , but complex life around until the first life forms that burped out oxygen as a waste product. Except those that could adapt and those that had a tolerance for oxygen survived. Not so long ago a discovery was made about a little animal called : Lorciferia.

The ability of ancestral mitochondria to make hydrogen, rather than use oxygen, was the basis of the primordial pact that gave rise to the eukaryotes, Martin and Müller argued. The bacteria produced hydrogen as waste, and the host cell used it to convert carbon dioxide into methane, gleaning a little energy from the process - just as many archaea, called methanogens, still do. The symbiosis began in an environment with little or no oxygen and only later, after the relationship was well established, did the host cell start exploiting the ability of the ancestral mitochondria to use oxygen.

This idea, known as the "hydrogen hypothesis", was proposed by Martin and Müller in 1998 (Nature, vol 392, p 37), but it has never gained widespread acceptance. It was not just up against the gut feeling of most researchers that the rise of the eukaryotes was related in some way to oxygen; on the face of it, what little evidence there was did not support it either

Read more in the following link. ----> New discovery makes us rewrite the theory of evolution.

Thingy was that oxygen was about 10 times more affective then hydrogen for energy harvesting.

What I understand from plants, trees and or forests is that photosynthesis provides an energy + situation during the day. The Co2 intake is to create new plant material. During the night photosynthesis isn't that much of a help, and the lifeform will fall back to an O2 lifestyle.
Oxygen is breathing in to maintain the ability to create enough energy outage to sustain survival. Oxygen replaces Co2 because it is used for a better energy production.Co2 is expelled because it naturally prevents oxygen from bonding or something... ? I know an oxygen molecule will not take over the place of a Co2 molecule on red blood cell yet the Co2 easily replaces the oxygen... My knowledge on this is limited for know...

Oxygen is used as doping in duration sports by increasing the amount of red blood cells in the bloodstream.
Scuba diving below a certain dept will be reason for replacing a part of oxygen for helium. To avoid oxygen toxin.

Oxygen is a potent toxin in large amounts. highly explosive and flammable as well if I remember correct

PS
forgive me for any error in my explanation. Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Oxygen is a potent toxin in large amounts. highly explosive and flammable as well if I remember correct

Oxygen, by itself is non flammable, non explosive. Oxygen does not burn. But in saying that any flammable that comes into contact with oxygen becomes more flammable as the oxygen content increases. But even at that it requires a ignition for combustion to occur.

Their is only one example I know of where no outside ignition source is required and that is when oxygen is directed in large amounts onto oil or grease, it will self ignite.

Oxygen toxicity only occurs when the pressure is elevated above atmospheric levels such as hyperbolic chambers.

en.wikipedia.org...

Atmospheric oxygen content of lets say 30% or 40% should have little to no adverse effects on living organisms. Forest fires and lightning shows would be much more robust.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


Forgive my mistake. So basically oxygen works as a power up ? The more oxygen, the bigger the reaction.

Like : a chemical reaction will be larger when you add more oxygen .

I just read that 50

Interesting...when I try to visit hollowplanets.com... I get this error message:

You are not authorized to view this page
The Web server you are attempting to reach has a list of IP addresses that are not allowed to access the Web site, and the IP address of your browsing computer is on this list.

Please try the following:

* Contact the Web site administrator if you believe you should be able to view this directory or page.

HTTP Error 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address of the client has been rejected.
Internet Information Services (IIS)

Technical Information (for support personnel)

* Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 403.
* Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled About Security, Limiting Access by IP Address, IP Address Access Restrictions, and About Custom Error Messages.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a very far fetched theory, but I find it extremely interesting. A friend and I have actually talked about finding sponsors and going on an expedition to find an opening...

I think that the hollow earth theory does not comply with the laws of physics. If you try to explain some other theories, may be they can be true. But this one just does not make sense. However, it is really funny that some people just try to make it sound real. Here's a funny article that I came across on the topic.

Holes In The Poles

Originally posted by andy435
I think that the hollow earth theory does not comply with the laws of physics. If you try to explain some other theories, may be they can be true. But this one just does not make sense. However, it is really funny that some people just try to make it sound real. Here's a funny article that I came across on the topic.

Holes In The Poles

Honestly, it is one of the most "out there" theories I've ever heard.

With that said, "does not comply with the laws of physics" should be changed to "does not comply with my personally limited understanding of mankind-as-a-whole's limited understanding of physics". If we knew for a fact that we knew everything about physics, then go ahead, make general statements like that. Otherwise, your thought "I think that the hollow earth theory does not comply with the laws of physics." is nothing more than a theory by definition:::

Theory - [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

No matter how absurd something is, don't respond with more nonsense.

Y'all are silly.
If Hollow means "empty space" such as...

(hol·low)
[hol-oh] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun, verb, adverb
–adjective
1.having a space or cavity inside; not solid; empty: a hollow sphere.)

then the earth cant be hollow, what with all them people living down there using up all that empty space!

reply to post by Punisher75


That must mean there is even more empty space - hollow... then there are subterranean people to fill it. :O

God I love this Hubble photo, it just says soooooooo much.





It just smacks full of, well, hollowness. It sends shivers down my spine, happy birthday you celestial bubble

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


What an amazing pic. A planetary nebula. Thanks

Although the name is confusing since the nebula is in fact the remnant of a star. The white dwarf still shines in its center.