Hollow Earth / Hollow Planets

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
5,174
#81
In all fairness the mantle is hypothetical. No evidence exists. I see others screaming there are books with evidence. And yet every book out there is based on educated guesswork. Not eva dense
Answer my question in post 44! Do you agree that the earth contains upwards of 20% iron, same as the meteorites that formed out of the same solar dust?

As soon as you answer that question, I will explain to you why a mantle xenolith is from the mantle.

By the way, if you believe the hollow earth theory to be robust, tell us the diameter of the cavity. Or alternately, how thick is the crust?
 

ShaunyCT

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
747
#82
....

But the best summed up explanation on how gravity is generated is this. Gravity is one of the mysteries to be solved in order to get a complete understanding of how the Universe works. Quantum theories of gravity predict the existence of "gravitons" which carry gravity just as photons carry the electromagnetic force, but no direct evidence for gravitons has been found
The evidence will NEVER EVER be found.
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
5,174
#84
Honestly i am ignorant of the makeup of asteroids and meteoroids.
Why not look it up? It's quite easy. And because meteorites formed from the same solar dust as the earth, they have the same bulk chemical composition as the earth, and the same age (4.6 billion years).

Now if you look at the chemical composition of the crust, you'll notice there's a lot of iron and nickel missing. Where did it all go? Well, it's dense. So it must have gone down. And that, my friend, is why the core of the planet is metal.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
79,194
#85
Honestly i am ignorant of the makeup of asteroids and meteoroids.

Do i believe the theory is robust?
Yes.


Do i believe its more robust?
Uncertain at this point in time. Will read the normal theory books next week to see what they base it on.
You are wrong, its not... its a crock of shyte.
 

Moosedrool

Expert Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
4,454
#86
You lol. What evidence do we have the earth has a molten core? Cause huisgenoot showed you an artistic rendering?

Why was it an artistic rendering and not a photo of the earth cut in half?
Whats the deepest we have gone into the crust? 12km.
The center is 3600km deep. That means we investigated 0.4% and yet so easily discredit it. Based off if 0.4% of confirmation
Because we can't cut the earth in half.
12.26km yeah.
Because you don't physically need to see something to conclude that it's there, let me explain.

Example a: Can you see wind?

Would you believe me if I told you this photo was taken of a very windy place at that time?



I mean, where on that picture do you think it's the windiest?
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
5,174
#88
W

When did i shoot down the standard theory apart from stating a fact, that there is no fact. Only educated guesses? Show me that post.

This thread is to assist in thinking as well, we tend to go about our days without curiosity. Apart from what color underwear someone is wearing.


Wait. So the standard theory is we have a metal core? I assumed its just compacted molten rock pulled into a tiny ball due to gravity.

What i do read is conflicting as its so hot rock melts, but this ball of metal does not. Rock melts around 1200 and some metals at 1600

If you go with the standard theory then the core is 6000 degrees celcius. But solid ball in center. Seems contradicting. But again i need to go read some journals to establish whst exactly the theory is that made the one theory a standard and the other pseudoscience.
Yes, we have a metal core. Otherwise we wouldn’t have a magnetic field and compasses wouldn’t work, birds would get lost migrating, and solar flares would kill us all.

Solid vs liquid is determined by 1.) temperature, and 2.) pressure. So the inner core is solid metal (high pressure), but the outer core, although metal, is molten - the only genuinely molten layer of the earth. The mantle isn’t really liquid, it’s more of a mushy solid.

A theory is as good as the stuff it explains. The core-mantle crust idea explains:

1.) magnetic fields
2.) earth's composition compared to the rest of the solar system
3.) earth's mass, and gravity (it would be to light without a metal core)
3.) movement of seismic waves
4.) plate tectonics

What does hollow earth explain that cannot otherwise be explained?
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,191
#89
There are thousands of books and peer-reviewed scientific papers on gravity and the nature of the planets, yet you deny/reject it just because you’re to lazy to read them and chose a nice book with big colour pictures instead.
1) quality over quantity
2) I don't.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,191
#90
Because we can't cut the earth in half.
12.26km yeah.
Because you don't physically need to see something to conclude that it's there, let me explain.

Example a: Can you see wind?

Would you believe me if I told you this photo was taken of a very windy place at that time?



I mean, where on that picture do you think it's the windiest?
This is a pretty significant own goal because the centre of that tornado is hollow(not windy)
 

Moosedrool

Expert Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
4,454
#91
This is a pretty significant own goal because the centre of that tornado is hollow(not windy)
Except we know that even though no direct measurements can be taken accurately of a tornado eye since it's small and not stationary. Science and logic tells you that there is an eye. Or eyes since most are discovered to be multi vortex anyways.

What logic lies in the nonsense which is a hollow earth? No natural processes would form something like that.
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
5,174
#92
ok finally got a few minutes to elaborate on 1 out of 17 subjects covered in the theory.
Lets start with seismology and geology
Now it's your turn to defend your theory:

Other geologists have argued that shearing and faulting are adequate heat generating mechanisms.
If faults produce heat, and it's hotter as you go deeper in the earth, there should be more faults at depth, correct? Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

It stands to reason if the heat is generated by the shearing / faulting then the lava would cool down while moving towards the top.
Why is there lava in Hawaii, away from any major fault zones?

And why are there major fault zones without lava (e.g. San Andreas fault)?


Imagine going from less dense to super dense back to less dense as you approach the cavity.
Why would that be stable? The denser material would sink. If you have a different model for gravity, share the equation? Does the equation allow you to calculate the trajectory of other planets orbiting the sun?
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
5,174
#94
This is the theory of the solid core. Not the hollow earth theory. It states as you go deeper things becomes more liquid. Hence i pointed out the standard theory contradicts itself.

So, how does hollow earth explain the geothermal gradient (increase in temperature with depth)? Would be hard to generate all that heat without much material.
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
5,174
#95
in std theory your composition at those depths would be incapable of earth quakes.
Not at all true. Subduction can get lithospheric plates all the way down to the core-mantle boundary. That is plenty deep to produce a deep level quake. The “standard model” also has the advantage of being able to explain where the force comes from (mantle circulation cells and slab pull). Where does the force to produce a deep-level quake come from in hollow earth?
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
5,174
#96
Need to go read up on what you said. The force comes from the shells / crusts. Inner outer seperated by liquid due to heat as they spin in opposite directions. Something like that. Will elaborate when i read on that further.

Do you have any good journals or sources i can read on subduction? Im sure i will find it, but any recommendations?
Depending how advanced you want to go:

https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northwestern.edu/dist/8/1676/files/2017/05/deepeq-1l4kq6l.pdf

And

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15002125
 

Sollie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
3,258
#98
Well, it is hollow.

Last night I was doing the washing. At the last stage, waiting for a bunch of socks to be done, I observed how the more denser materials gravitated outwards to the drum. The earth must be doing the same. The final straw that proved it to me, was when I took those socks out. Just about half of them had lost their mates. They're not in the house. Yet they went somewhere. Not in the house, not in the yard, that means they could only go down - swallowed by the hollow earth.

There you have it. Just trying to figure out at which exact angular velocity that portal to down under opens up during the spin cycle. Thinking about it, all my tools that turn - drill bits, screw drivers etc - all disappear at a stage.

This weekend I'm going to try to figure out the likely harmonic speed, then get into the washing machine and go down and retrieve my ruddy stuff! Will feed back on Monday ... (I hope). ;)
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
79,194
Thats just it. These so called findings are based on the same findings that supports both theories. There was no seperate study. It uses the same findings and interprets it differently.

Unfortunately the human condition and or inert primal coding to conform to the masses is why we sit with the statement that it was "proved" to be wrong.

It was not proven to be incorrect. It is merely more convenient to rather shun a specfic theory to remain "credible" in those circles.

Think of the Asch experiment. 75% of people will deliberately choose the wrong answer to avoid being ridiculed. They know they are correct but because the masses are wrong and knowing humans behave the way they do they rather give ghe wrong answer.

Hence we have scientists in the field who do not want to be ridiculed and cast aside, which would result in their careers demise, that would rather just agree around the hypothesis of solid earth as opposed to question it.

It does not make the one more accurate. It just points towards the primal need to conform.
No dude... Hollow earth stuff is bollocks just like the flat earth shyte
 
Top