A Case against "The Hollow Earth"

Let's start way back when the Earth first started forming, we're talking 4.5 billion years ago and Earth was just a spinning mass of dust and gas. Now imagine this as a giant centrifuge, all of the heavier elements get pulled into the centre, creating a solid mass, which became earth. Over the millions of years out gassing, volcanic activity and ice laden comets striking this mass created water vapour which in turn created the oceans blah blah blah!

This is high school stuff and has quite simply debunked the hollow earth theory because there is no way the Earth could have been formed as a hollow shell.

I would love to hear a counter argument against the above.

So as I said, hollow earth is debunked already but let's load up the bases.

Isaac Newton's shell theorem

Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem saying that:
1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.
2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
3. Inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero at the centre of mass.

So what does that mean for the hollow Earth theory? it means if the Earth was hollow, and you were inside, you would not be effected by gravity and be weightless.

Seismology

There have been many advances in seismic technology over the years, seismologists have been able to create detailed images of wave speeds inside the earth much like the way a doctor images a body in a CT scan.

This method gives a much more detailed view of the interior of the Earth.

Mass

For the hollow Earth theory to be true there would need to be a mystical and undiscovered super heavy element in the outer skin of the Earth to account for the missing mass from the middle of the planet.

So there you have it, four damn good reasons why hollow earth is impossible.

Let me repost a slightly changed (for context and to remove the rant style ) post that I posted in one of the other hollow earth threads .

Why do all the deniers have to repeat the "earth is not hollow , science tells us this is impossible" motto all the time .. Of course it is not hollow like a ballon , but there is a big possibility that it might have huge (and I mean really huge) caverns that could host countries inside ..

So no ,we will not fall down to the center of the earth after we find a opening underneath , but we might find ourselves in a huge country sized cavern that could host a whole civilization .

The deepest that we have ever drilled (not even visited ) was , what 7-8 miles ? We have no idea how the crust behaves and how it is formed on the deeper levels .. All we know is just a vague theory on how we think it could be , but every geologist (?) will tell You (at least every honest one) , that really we have no idea what is below us .


So , yes it might be exactly like You think it is , but there is as much possibility that the insides of our lovely planet are much different then we think on deeper levels.

Sorry for the rant but it just got to me , that all those supposedly intelligent debunker's fail to use something called logic while debating anything..

So just to sum up , a lot of people are open to the fact that we might have huge caverns below us and using the term "hollow earth" just for the sake of calling the theory somehow

reply to post by Chadwickus


I think its possible. I would like to talk more on it but I am still trying to verify what I learnd. I also think there are caverns within Ea.

This is one of those threads that has an aggressive overture to it. Why does this bother you so? I think Im pretty open about things. And new discoveries and overturned knowledge happens everyday. Did you read something that really bugged you? What would you do if we find out someday that it is 1/2 true? Or partially true? Or was maybe ONCE true, but not now? Common perception in the past was that the Earth was once flat as well.

It may not be likely, and sure there may not be Aliens, Ghosts or the Easter Bunny...but why jump on it? Still, you do have that right. Just curious!

reply to post by Thill


Well of course there are 'caverns', but I doubt there are ones big enough to house entire civilizations in.

That's the problem with these sorts of theories, everyone has a different spin on it, did you know there are people who believe that we are inside a concave universe....

upload.wikimedia.org...

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Thill

 

Well of course there are 'caverns', but I doubt there are ones big enough to house entire civilizations in.

That's the problem with these sorts of theories, everyone has a different spin on it, did you know there are people who believe that we are inside a concave universe....

upload.wikimedia.org...

edit on 27/12/10 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

See thats what gets me , You doubt the existence of caverns that might be so big as to hold a whole city (remember do not think a city in our terms but an underground version that meets the standards of living there ) , so You dismiss the whole theory as such , but frankly You , Me and everybody else has no idea what is below us . Heck we know more about space than we know about the insides of our lovely planet .

OF course different people have different spins on most theories , but (and I am generalizing here) deniers/hardcore skeptics usually put everybody in the same bag and calls them nuts . I agree that some theories are way out there , and the probability of them being true are slim , but some have merit .

Frankly I do not see any problem with an enormous cave like structure that is able to hold a city like Shambhala with surrounding flora and fauna . To the unfamiliar explorer that might somehow end up there it will look like a hollow earth because he will not see the whole structure as a cave because of its gigantic proportions .

Nice thread.
The believers keep saying deep within the earth. Well we all know the deeper you go, the more it gets hot. Watch the crystal caves on Nat Geo. It is literally so hot that humans can not survive more than 45 minutes down there. It seems to mee that these believer posters are dismissing common scientific knowledge for their beliefs.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Too hot for what kind of skin and blood? Mammilian yes

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Oh ok, you clarified that one for me.

reply to post by liejunkie01


I mean mammals were to mine only so deep. There were still minerals deeper within so some had to be modified to go get them deeper down. My 3 cents

Frequencies, its all about frequency.

reply to post by WeMoveUnseen


Yes I agree. I also remember reading they would be able to come above ground when frequencies drop far enough to suit their vibrations. Current above grounders generating high frequencies as of now but catastrophy globall of some kind can cause signifigent drop in above ground location. Good point frequencies indeed.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Actually almost everything you've stated here would not apply to the hollow earth theory or is the opposite of what you stated.

First, with a rapidly spinning mass, centripetal force would send the mass outward not inward toward the center.

Second, Newton's laws of gravity actually specifically state that it requires a consistant density, which would NOT be the case in the event of a hollow earth.

Also, you wouldn't need gravity to affect the inner portion of a "shell" as centripetal force would act as a form of artificial gravity.

So, in effect, nothing you stated dispels the theory of hollow earth. The item you should;ve brought up if trying to disprove hollow earth theory would be sonic tests that have been conducted through the earth. The only problem with those are that often small scale tests that are used for sonic calibration often aren't mete out when conducted on larger scales, and there is the pontential for reverberations if the majority of the earth's mass is the crust.

You accuse people of not thinking, yet you fail to think yourself.

Me, I'm of a mind to think that hollow earth is not likely to be accurate, but I'm not foolish enough to outright say it is bunk, I've witnessed too much bad science both historically and in modern times to jump to any sort of conclusion.

Jaden

I think volcanoes alone disprove the hollow earth theory, all that magma and pressure build up, in different locations on earth to me say a big ball of molten material stretching right round the planet.

Originally posted by woogleuk
I think volcanoes alone disprove the hollow earth theory, all that magma and pressure build up, in different locations on earth to me say a big ball of molten material stretching right round the planet.

volcanoes are not at every location on earth.
view the volcanoes as tubes venting magma
from the core. There are vast regions of rock
around these lava tubes that could suffice
for civilizations to survive. View these lava
tubes (volcanoes) as air ducting in your house.
it gives you a heat source, but you can still
sit in your easy chair and watch TV.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

Actually almost everything you've stated here would not apply to the hollow earth theory or is the opposite of what you stated.

First, with a rapidly spinning mass, centripetal force would send the mass outward not inward toward the center.

Yeah, except that the Earth is not a rapidly spinning mass. The formula for acceleration in a spinning system, ie the force to provide gravity, is a = v^2 / r. Or, a = (w^2) r. (Technically that would be omega, not w, but it looks similar enough):
For w, angular velocity, in rad/s, 2(pi) / 24 * 60 * 60 = 7.27 * 10^-5 rad/s
r = radius, in this case of the distance from centre of mass to the shell interior. Lets say the shell is 800km thick, r becomes 5571 km, or 5,571,000 m.

So, a = (7.27*10^5)^2 * 5.571*10^6 = 0.029 m/s/s.
Earth gravity is 9.8m/s/s, so the centripetal acceleration is 0.3% of that. This basically renders the "centripetal accleration creates gravity in a hollow earth" argument completely rubbish. It should also be pointed out that this is for the equator, the rest of the surface on the inside would have less apparent gravity.

Second, Newton's laws of gravity actually specifically state that it requires a consistant density, which would NOT be the case in the event of a hollow earth.

Yes, this is true. However, this makes very little difference for the calculation, or the effect. If there was a lot of more dense rock in one area, then any object would be overall (though still with very little pull), be drawn towards that point, not to the centre or anywhere useful.


So the basic principles of Newtonian physics deny the possibility of Hollow Earth, by themselves.

Before someone says that those laws are proven not to be perfect, well things like the Pioneer Anomaly do not change the fundamental way that things work.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Let's start way back when the Earth first started forming, we're talking 4.5 billion years ago and Earth was just a spinning mass of dust and gas. Now imagine this as a giant centrifuge, all of the heavier elements get pulled into the centre, creating a solid mass, which became earth. Over the millions of years out gassing, volcanic activity and ice laden comets striking this mass created water vapour which in turn created the oceans blah blah blah!

This is high school stuff and has quite simply debunked the hollow earth theory because there is no way the Earth could have been formed as a hollow shell.

I would love to hear a counter argument against the above.

So as I said, hollow earth is debunked already but let's load up the bases.

Isaac Newton's shell theorem

Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem saying that:
1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.
2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
3. Inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero at the centre of mass.

So what does that mean for the hollow Earth theory? it means if the Earth was hollow, and you were inside, you would not be effected by gravity and be weightless.

Seismology

There have been many advances in seismic technology over the years, seismologists have been able to create detailed images of wave speeds inside the earth much like the way a doctor images a body in a CT scan.

This method gives a much more detailed view of the interior of the Earth.

Mass

For the hollow Earth theory to be true there would need to be a mystical and undiscovered super heavy element in the outer skin of the Earth to account for the missing mass from the middle of the planet.

So there you have it, four damn good reasons why hollow earth is impossible.

edit on 27/12/10 by Chadwickus because: (reason classified)

While i also agree Hollow Earth is far from being possible, what you've just stated does no favours in your quest to debunk this topic.

reply to post by Thill


Here we have a cave that can hold a skyscraper together with a small jungle , so why not a much much bigger one somewhere deeper into the earth ?
Link