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.

 

Hollow earth theory? Looking for free thinkers to discuss and ponder.

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by w3nd1g0
 


Not sure where you got 2 mile figure from, took me about 15 sec of searching to find the current deepest hole dug on dry land is 7.6 miles deep.

I wonder how much more interesting the discussion would be if you had taken at least that much time to research. After a few min you could probably find lots of info explaining how ludicrous the entire concept is.

There is even a picture of it.

It is named Kola Superdeep Borehole.

There are 2 others as deep but they are off shore.

Not sure why that matters, the earth is only hollow under land?

Maybe they use the ones under the ocean for their showers.




posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucifer84

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by w3nd1g0
 

You'll probably find my comments in one or more of the threads.

The "physics" used to validate the notion of a hollow Earth are absurd; beginning from the problem of the formation of a hollow planet and extending through gravitational effects and seismic data.


I would love it if it was true

Do you mean where they say the gravitational pull comes from the middle of the crust?

Have you seen the thread about the Nazis mapping it: Nazi Germany mapped the Hollow Earth

I'll be honest these "calcuations" they make mean nothing to me but according to the videos on the above thread they work out, everytime


Would you mind giving your take on them?
edit on 9/8/11 by Lucifer84 because: (no reason given)


Hi mate and thanks for participating in this thread!

Yes I actually watched these vid's as they were posted on ATS last week. I have read alot about the NAZI interest in regards the hollow earth theory and it is quite intriguing isnt it?

Quite how they mapped the "inner world" is still largely unknown and is definatley worth the research imho. I do like to keep the whole UFO/Vrill thing out of the discussion with regards the hollow earth as I feel it certainly helps it lose credibility rather quickly when discussing it openly.

The fact is that we really know very little about gravity... we only know what we have seen and have assumed what "appears to be happening" but its still very up in the air and becomes more apparent the further down the rabbit hole you go.

Many cultures speak of this and truly beleive of its existance. Tibetan monks for example firmly beleive that shamabala exists and say that it has an actual geographic place on/in OUR earth.


I have thought about the old "end of the world" theory from way back when sailors beleived that if they went to far that they would sail off the end of the sea and into the abyss......

but imagine this......

That back in those days before soo much ice at the poles... what if the possibility of actually going over that edge during fishing trips was very real hence the "edge of the world" theory in the first place. This would have also been a good cause for most folks believing that the earth is flat... as the physical edge of the world had actually been seen and reported by many a witness?

Now that will pickle your noodle! hehe

Peace



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOven
reply to post by w3nd1g0
 


Not sure where you got 2 mile figure from, took me about 15 sec of searching to find the current deepest hole dug on dry land is 7.6 miles deep.

I wonder how much more interesting the discussion would be if you had taken at least that much time to research. After a few min you could probably find lots of info explaining how ludicrous the entire concept is.

There is even a picture of it.

It is named Kola Superdeep Borehole.

There are 2 others as deep but they are off shore.

Not sure why that matters, the earth is only hollow under land?

Maybe they use the ones under the ocean for their showers.


Now now... lets not get all "you didnt google this" and blah blah blah.. I found it on google.. maybe i missed something.. i was at work after all knocking it out quicky on my lunch break. but meh.(just like now! lol)

OK.. so the deepest hole is actually 7.6 miles... and your point is?

Considering the hypothosised crust is alledgedly 6-800 miles thick.. then the 7.6 mile hole is still a waste of time in helping to explain this conundrum or even in an valid argument against it.

Please try to add something to the thread as requested in the OP... and some manners wouldnt go a miss either.

Peace.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by w3nd1g0
 


I also looked that up at work and on my phone.

The point I already made was it does not take much looking to get the facts straight.

If someone spent minutes instead of seconds they could find all kinds of information.

Here is another 15 second search.

The earth's crust is 31 miles thick not 800.


We present a new contourmap ofthethickness oftheEarth's crust. We use a 10 km contour interval plus the45km contour.This contourmap was created directlyfrom the 5 deg. by 5 deg. gridded crustal model CRUST 5.1 (Mooney et al., 1998) plus complementary information.An initialcontourmap was created using thecommand "grdcontour" in GMT, and theresultantmap was adjustedin AdobeIllustratorto honor individualpoint measurements and newly available information from Russia. The final contour map honors allavailableseismic refraction measurements for features with a dimension greater than2 degrees. To a first approximation, the continents and their margins are outlinedby the 30 km contour. Thatportion ofthe continental interior enclosed by the40km contour,and regions with crustalthickness of 45 to 50 km are found on all well surveyed continents (i.e., North and South America, Australia, and Eurasia). Continental crust with a thickness in excess of50km is exceedingly rare and accounts for less than10% ofthecontinentalcrust.These observations, now available on a global basis, provide important constraints on the evolution of the crust and sub-crustallithosphere.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

I guess there are all kinds of unexplained mysteries out there if you make things up.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOven
 


Considering that we have never drilled deeper than your quoted figure... these figures are based on an "agreed" model of the earth and not a "proven" model.

The fact is that this is all still just hypothosis. Until we can drill down further... we will never know what the inner core of our earth is truly made from.

The best thing about science is that you dont have to agree with everyone else.. thats what breaks moulds, encourages new technologies and fields of interest.

The common theory here is that the crust from inside to outside is from 600 miles to 800 miles in thickess. It has also been proposed that within this crust lies pockets of magma. Considering that modern science REALY has no idea as to what lies further down there underground and its all just theory... how can you be so sure of your own (or accepted other peoples work) that you are correct?

As you appear to be so proficient with your googling.... hows about adding some more to this? Do you have any further information which is valid in debunking this theory?

If you read my OP rather than just jumping on the nyah nyah band wagon.. then you would have read that I was interested in learing more and requested as much info as people wanted.

Nothing wrong with being nice, informative and prepared to discuss... but there is everything wrong with acting like a know-it-all and rudely adding to threads.

I hope you get better soon



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by w3nd1g0
reply to post by TheOven
 


Considering that we have never drilled deeper than your quoted figure... these figures are based on an "agreed" model of the earth and not a "proven" model.

The fact is that this is all still just hypothosis. Until we can drill down further... we will never know what the inner core of our earth is truly made from.

The best thing about science is that you dont have to agree with everyone else.. thats what breaks moulds, encourages new technologies and fields of interest.

The common theory here is that the crust from inside to outside is from 600 miles to 800 miles in thickess. It has also been proposed that within this crust lies pockets of magma. Considering that modern science REALY has no idea as to what lies further down there underground and its all just theory... how can you be so sure of your own (or accepted other peoples work) that you are correct?

As you appear to be so proficient with your googling.... hows about adding some more to this? Do you have any further information which is valid in debunking this theory?

If you read my OP rather than just jumping on the nyah nyah band wagon.. then you would have read that I was interested in learing more and requested as much info as people wanted.

Nothing wrong with being nice, informative and prepared to discuss... but there is everything wrong with

acting like a know-it-all and rudely adding to threads.

I hope you get better soon


Actually the common theory is that the crust of the earth is not that it is hundreds of miles thick.

That link I posted even has a map of the world showing the different thickness.

You making up claims of it being hundreds of miles thick is called conjecture.


Get the very basic facts straight and perhaps your argument might appear to hold water.

It also wouldn't hurt to hit the preview button and double check your spelling and grammar.

If I actually cared to continue this I might take another 15 seconds to search any number of other topics that would be a counter point to one you tried to make.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOven
 


LOL OMG and now your the grammar police too!!!! hahahahaha

When I said "common theory" it was meant as in "the common theory among hollow earthists".. but hey.. who cares.. you just want to obviously jump about and be a troll.

But thats ok... this is ATS after all where trolls live hahahaha

How did I (me) make up the theory of it being 6-800 miles thick? I didnt... its a long standing theory.. maybe if you'd have searched google for 15 seconds you would have seen that the whole theory was started by a hypothosis made by Edmond Halley.. you know.. of Halley's comet fame.. and then added to by several other mathmatitians over the following years.

I am merely following up on earlier workings by several very prominent figures in science history.

Your map shows various depths based on a 5.1 model of the earth... 5.1? as this number is ever increasing it obviously shows that they dont really know as they are constantly adjusting their model.

Again.. why not add something to the thread instead of whining about spelling and gammar, baiting me to bite you and generally acting supreme when you yourself have not really contributed anything else other than that so far?

Great work! keep it up!



P.s.. prolly lots of grammar errors in there but hey.... who gives a ****



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by w3nd1g0
reply to post by TheOven
 


LOL OMG and now your the grammar police too!!!! hahahahaha

When I said "common theory" it was meant as in "the common theory among hollow earthists".. but hey.. who cares.. you just want to obviously jump about and be a troll.

But thats ok... this is ATS after all where trolls live hahahaha

How did I (me) make up the theory of it being 6-800 miles thick? I didnt... its a long standing theory.. maybe if you'd have searched google for 15 seconds you would have seen that the whole theory was started by a hypothosis made by Edmond Halley.. you know.. of Halley's comet fame.. and then added to by several other mathmatitians over the following years.

I am merely following up on earlier workings by several very prominent figures in science history.

Your map shows various depths based on a 5.1 model of the earth... 5.1? as this number is ever increasing it obviously shows that they dont really know as they are constantly adjusting their model.

Again.. why not add something to the thread instead of whining about spelling and gammar, baiting me to bite you and generally acting supreme when you yourself have not really contributed anything else other than that so far?

Great work! keep it up!



P.s.. prolly lots of grammar errors in there but hey.... who gives a ****


Edmund Halley was an astronomer who came up with his hollow earth theory in 1692.
He hypothesized the crust at 500 miles not 800.

Sir John Leslie was a Scottish physicist and mathematician, proposed a hollow Earth in 1829.


Flat Earth organizations argued their case and conducted experiments to prove it during that same time. The Old Bedford Canal experiment of 1870 was one of them.

Perhaps you could start a thread on flat earth theory next.


That is not my map, it is on the usgs website and was probably created by scientists within this century.

Unlike the ones created by the prominent figures from science history 200 years ago.

However the only one that anyone could argue as prominent would be Halley, an astronomer.


Being able to effectively get your point across relies on getting the facts straight, especially the easy ones, and presenting them in the most professional manner possible.

How is anyone going to be able to be persuaded to consider your point of view if you don't take even the smallest amount of time to research or even proofread your statements.

As for nazis, I believe another claim about the hollow earth is that they control it.

Perhaps you believe that too.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOven
 


Well now.. there is some input... still with the over tone of a troll tho.. such a shame we couldnt have discussed this as civilised folk.

But at least your starting to offer some input.

It is not "my belief" that this is real .. i find the premise very interesting and worth a look.

You clearly have a belief and care to push it with a brash overtone on others rather than discussing and offering points to the contrary you have acted with little respect for my OP and by looks you are going to continue to do so.

And as far as "effectively getting my point across" goes... I didnt have a point... I was asking for further info from various sources and users... at which you have kind of delivered so for that i say thanks... but the method of which you have chosen to do so is still rude and intollerable.

I dont remember anywhere stating that I beleive this whole heartedly? Nope... i didnt.

I find the whole idea fascinating and simply amazing..... if it were true.

And while we still dont know... regardless of what you say... we just dont.. plain and simple.

In the title of the OP "looking for free thinkers to ponder and discuss".... so far you havnt really discussed anything. just jibed, corrected grammer and are still managing to be rude.

You cant have much going on at the mo if the best entertainment you have is to troll a thread that you clearly arent interested in.

lots of love




new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join