Hollow Earth / Hollow Planets

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
79,005
Anyway. Currently the only thing that can legitimately discredit hollow earth theory is to find real evidence of gravity's origin.

It is assumed gravity originates at the center. However its just a theory. If it does not originate at the center then all seismic data we have becomes invalid.
Dude... You really aren't doing yourself any favours here.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,090
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.
Lol amazing how you try and squirm out of that one.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
79,005
Its like asking what color is red. I was hoping my answer would have allowed you to deduce just how obtuse the question was in itself.
No its not like asking what colour is red.

There is fsck all obtuse about the question. Where is the solar systems gravity centered. It is a cut and dried answer, with absolutely zero real wiggle room.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,683
Very familiar pattern of non-answers. Odd.
Something that has stopped being odd for me is the prevailing pattern of shakey arrogance where people get angry at their "proven" beliefs being questioned.... if it REALLY was so proven and solid in their own minds they would remain calm.... seems like they really get more angry at their own doubt being stirred up than their supposed opponents.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,683
No its not like asking what colour is red.

There is fsck all obtuse about the question. Where is the solar systems gravity centered. It is a cut and dried answer, with absolutely zero real wiggle room.
That can actually be inverted.... what is gravity is more push than pull? How would it be provable?
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
79,005
Something that has stopped being odd for me is the prevailing pattern of shakey arrogance where people get angry at their "proven" beliefs being questioned.... if it REALLY was so proven and solid in their own minds they would remain calm.... seems like they really get more angry at their own doubt being stirred up than their supposed opponents.
You will find most people get "angry" because they can't believe people can be so retarded as to believe the pseudoscience crap....
 

Pox

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
3,317
I don't see any anger at scientific belyoefs being questioned. It usually anger because the person spouting new theories never answers any questions or never gives anything to back up what they say.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,683
You will find most people get "angry" because they can't believe people can be so retarded as to believe the pseudoscience crap....
If true that would be a very childish response.... and the opinions of such people should on that alone be questioned.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,683
I don't see any anger at scientific belyoefs being questioned. It usually anger because the person spouting new theories never answers any questions or never gives anything to back up what they say.
Really? In my limited experience the anger is usually acompanied by a inability to properly defend the mentioned scientific beliefs.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,683
I think that has more to do with people are simply incapable of reason once triggered. Once you get angry you automatically lose the argument. Look at the EFF throwing chairs when the argument did not go their way.
Temper tantrums are never excusable. I hold myself by that same standard though admittedly I don't always succeed in not getting aggravated at emotionally driven wilful blindness nor do I always refrain from expressing the same behaviour. Difference is I don't force myself to stop thinking for myself the way I often see others do, it's better to think live thoughts than to only think the dead (set in apparent stone) thoughts of mostly dead men. Stagnation breeds ignorance.

In the end I keep coming back to the same conclusion, it's not even a specific version of science that is being protected since it rarely gets defended objectively.... it's a kind of religion. Religion and love are the only things that ever get people this worked up after all..... and being in love with "science" to that degree is problematically odd....
 
Last edited:

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,683
In this case, you are claiming that just about every fundamental theory that exists at the moment from gravity to the Theory of relativity is "wrong" because "there is no evidence" just because one or two papers have produced some seismological data which has been interpreted differently. In fact, you are doing those very observers of that data collected a dis-service and are insulting their intelligence by inferring things from their interpretations that they themselves have not made.

Ture Scientists are above being influenced by the things measured in the Asch experiment. Pseudoscientists are however not. They exist entirely because they are swayed in any which way the wind blows are by what needs to be "proved" as determined by the whatever drives them, including where they get their funds from.
I find your reverence for the priests of science strange and unnerving. Unless you admit that many the institutions are filled with pseudo-scientists.... and that anyone calling their BS gets called a heretic because he dared poke the sacred cow.

Your argument seems to broadly follow a rule of thumb of "those that conform are scientists and those that do not are pseudo-scientists, Universities are the holy temples that only produce truth, etc."

Also you seem to falsely represent the apparent opposing viewpoint, it's not that that the current theories are wrong it's that they are potentially wrong and subject to potential total scrapping and that no worldview should be built upon such shakey ground, that utter faith in such a theory is itself religious etc.

Such views are becoming blatently common with many proven pseudo-scientists like Bill Bye calling for the heretics (thoug he would not dare to use the word or even think of it) to have their children removed from them because they don't believe in man made global warming. His alarmist position being we should first believe it and then properly prove it because it's too dangerous to do it the other way around first. I should add I suppose that there is no actual concensus and most actual climate scientists giving MMGW lip service do so because they don't wanna get fired.....

I'm quite sure these super-human beings you refer to as "true scientists" don't actually exist.....
 

mattrudlles

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
705
I find your reverence for the priests of science strange and unnerving. Unless you admit that many the institutions are filled with pseudo-scientists.... and that anyone calling their BS gets called a heretic because he dared poke the sacred cow.

Your argument seems to broadly follow a rule of thumb of "those that conform are scientists and those that do not are pseudo-scientists, Universities are the holy temples that only produce truth, etc."

Also you seem to falsely represent the apparent opposing viewpoint, it's not that that the current theories are wrong it's that they are potentially wrong and subject to potential total scrapping and that no worldview should be built upon such shakey ground, that utter faith in such a theory is itself religious etc.

Such views are becoming blatently common with many proven pseudo-scientists like Bill Bye calling for the heretics (thoug he would not dare to use the word or even think of it) to have their children removed from them because they don't believe in man made global warming. His alarmist position being we should first believe it and then properly prove it because it's too dangerous to do it the other way around first. I should add I suppose that there is no actual concensus and most actual climate scientists giving MMGW lip service do so because they don't wanna get fired.....

I'm quite sure these super-human beings you refer to as "true scientists" don't actually exist.....
My only question that I would like answered by Flat Earth, and Hollow Earth theorists is: what possible reason would the establishment have for lying to you?
 
Top