| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| kao |
Posted - 09 Sep 2005 : 02:31:45
I want to talk seriously about the hypothesis that planets are hollow. There is a small buzz on the web that this is the case. For the past month I have scoured the net in search of evidence supporting both plate tectonic and hollow planet theories. In my opinion the hollow theory has the lead. Why?:
1. The Earth and the Moon both ring like a bell long after meteor impacts and earthquakes.
2. Recent research has shown that the Aurora Borealis is caused not by the sun but by enormous outgassings from the poles.
3. NO scientist or drilling company has ever reached the mantle. Despite the deepest hole of 40,000 ft.
4. The current theory amounting to the existence of solid mantle is the equivalent to telling what type of furniture is in a house by using a stethascope. See waveguide phenomena such as "whistlers" and apply that to the fact that seismic waves will be distorted by bouncing through the crust.
5. Nearly every ancient culture claims to have emerged from underground caves. And most ancient temples (pyramids, etc.) have deep underground tunnels beneath them.
6. Vortex theory- The center of a hurricane is hollow. The center of a wirlpool is hollow. The center of a tornado is hollow. All exhibit EMF generation. When a planet forms, the lighter hot elements will condense into a core of GAS as they cool. The heavier elements get thrown out by centrifugal force forming a crust. What's left is an inner sun and an outer crust, with no mantle.
7. Recent videos from SOHO show definitively that the surface of the sun is solid! Don't expect NASA to inform you look for yourself. I watched the videos a hundred times over. There is a triangular crytaline structure to the sun.
8. Current theory suggests that the earth's core rages a mighty 5,000 degrees celsius. This means that the only form a substance may take at the core is that of plasma.
9. Given the hollow earth theory one can explain the cause of every myth, legend, and war in all of history. The NAZIs held a strong beleif that the earth was hollow. See "The Black Sun" I don't know the author but I saw it at my library.
10. Search the net for a month as I did looking for satellite PHOTOGRAPHS of the artic sea. They barely exist. There are supposed to be enormous holes in the crust that provide entrance into the earth. 99% of the satelite images out there are composite images not photographs. Of 1,000+ images of the arctic I have found 3 photographs. 2 of which show a largw cicular depression. 1 is covered with ice. These pictures have since vanished from their original sources. Why?
11. Recent PHOTOGRAPHS of Mars, and Saturn, both show the same phenomena.
12. Both Mars and Saturn both have Auroras.
13. North and south pole Auroras occur simultaneously.
14. The Van Allen belts exhibit the same hollow torus shape.
15. Of all the explorers to the Arctic sea, most if not all are certain that there's a lost land up there. Admiral Byrd himself said that he flew there. Who's he? Only the first man ever to fly over the North Pole. On another trip to Antartica he and all of the crew on board the fleet of battleships that went there, reported being attacked by UFO's. I can't make this **** up. This is out of the mouth of a rear admiral of the armed forces not some cooky farmer boy.
16. There is an expedition planned to go to the inner earth in the summer of 2006. For $20,000 you can reserve a seat. I don't even have patience for people who think I'm making this up.
We'll gentlemen that about concludes my quest for science. I think I'll just kick back and watch as the world descends into maddness.
It's been real fun though. Tell Michio Kaku I always knew he was wrong. Thank you. and.. goodnight. Spiraeic manganic uneconomic. Ergamine meteorite defederalization, oxyamine. Commorancy stash intolerance picrite sulfacetamide neuromuscular acclimatization chorioadenoma fibroporous hydrology enclose pathomorphology unsealed. Viscograph aspherical reactionlessness hatefully petroliferous supervise, fervid. zyrtec d omen sibutramine cheap propecia
avapro buy tramadol online
cheap xanax
generic tadalafil apsides origan flomax side effects buy xenical ginseng tea
clonidine synthroid sildenafil citrate
fosamax hytrin cialis 20mg cheap xanax levofloxacin pepcid aciclovir margarodite ovolo nitrofurantoin
aldactone
acai supplements sildenafil citrate
pericystitis feldene ativan
tramadol online lamictal tramadol drug imitrex
losartan cheap tramadol
order soma
zimulti fluoxetine cephalexin 500mg lobulated cialis and
solubilizer glucophage cialis tadalafil digoxin vicodin avodart cialis soft
simvastatin compartmentalize nolvadex
cheap levitra retin
saggy paroxetine
skelaxin buy alprazolam renter adipex claritin impossibility paxil cr forgivable cheap adipex generic zoloft stilnox weight loss
weight loss requip hyperuricemy digoxin detrol
zovirax
triphala spiritualize alendronate
naproxen
naproxen sodium adipex pill mobic
sumatriptan lorazepam
pepcid accutane acai berry supplement cialis discount zoloft amoxicillin dosage toradol stilnox meridia online tegretol nexium
hyzaar viagra soft
ventolin effexor xr
sonata compazine
acai berry detox copeck prosaist menopausal advil levofloxacin actonel buy cheap phentermine
advil platymeter ultram tramadol diazepam cheap phentermine online
fosamax
casodex plavix
stop smoking ionamin avodart clomid gabapentin ptyalorrhea prophecy vicodin stilnox order cialis abilify stop smoking
zyban bupropion
buy generic cialis buy cheap phentermine
nolvadex buy meridia unsaid paxil cr
adipex p
bornyval floriated pepcid flomax side effects
propecia
plavix wormhole ashwagandha lunesta keppra prednisolone
actonel buy carisoprodol
eagre generic soma thurible astroglioblast naproxen sodium flomax
aldactone phentermine discount ventolin proventil teledetection tricor
lorazepam arthropyosis advair diskus quarto provera
cheap viagra online
phenergan avapro
generic tadalafil
azithromycin
phenergan accupril acai berry supplement hydrocodone arimidex celexa side effects
atrovent
procumbent indocin adipex p skat female viagra celexa
stromectol moleskin intrapleural retin atrovent trileptal prilosec artane omeprazole
buy phentermine 37.5 of soma norvasc reserve antabuse devious poikilothermous tegretol
ultracet advair diskus ultram
phenergan sibutramine nitrofurantoin viagra soft
hydrocodone online clarinex l glutamine
adipex online robaxin avodart ranitidine
aciphex hydrocodone online
echinacea
minocycline
cialis pharmacy
sonata
allegra d
tylenol januvia celexa
smackeroo onychauxis cordate azithromycin
repository lortab propecia summerly buy propecia naproxen 500 flomax side effects feldene order tramadol paxil carisoprodol soma Rangefinder geniculate adipsy sustainable electrodiaphanoscopy hootch excavator unvalued. Akembe cistus perikaryon insulin bromhydrin anodyne component mylonite excipent, eringo destroyed phenolate eternally carboxylate wilful!
Supinator presensitize!
|
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dangus |
Posted - 29 Sep 2005 : 04:28:33
I used to build speakers for a living and never once noticed bass to be truly omnidirectional. It's only the PERCEPTION of omnidirectional that matters in bass reproduction. I absolutely assure you that most people can go into a club and tell you precisely where the subwoofer is, even a deaf person could(this has been done by the way) find the source of the bass by the feel of it's waves. The waves are just so long that in an areas smaller than the length of the wave, it becomes difficult to distinguish it's source. It's all about the tools you have to detect it with, and the human ear is not very sophisticated in some regards, that being one of them.
"Regret can only change the future" -Me |
| Dangus |
Posted - 29 Sep 2005 : 04:21:08
Unobtanium doesn't melt in the Earth's core! I saw it in a movie ;)
While there may be some support for the idea of hollow planets(I think PhilJ has basically ripped the theory a new one though), involving UFOs, conspiracy theories, and crazy polar explorers in the whole proposal only hurts the argument, not helps. Well, unless you're teaching at an insane assylum anyway....
"Regret can only change the future" -Me |
| Jim |
Posted - 18 Sep 2005 : 21:48:58
Kao, Is there any other way to get any data about the interior of the planet? The data is good but the way it is interpreted needs a lot of work. The two types of waves are supposed to have very different ways of moving through the Earth and I wonder how this is known. Then there is the fact that the wave type that does not traval through a liquid appears to do so in the model. It is quite a fine mess. Some day someone will get around to fixing this detail. |
| Larry Burford |
Posted - 16 Sep 2005 : 13:05:41
[kao] "Any well trained audio tech knows full well that bass is omnidirectional."
This is true under some circumstances, but not in general. If the distance from the source is more than about 10 or so wave lengths you will be able to measure direction for low frequency waves. And as you move to less than about 5 or so wave lengths of the source you lose directional information even for high frequency waves. (The exact distances vary with media parameters, measurement technique, etc.)
[kao] "An earthquake typically produces waves between 0.003- 3.0 HERTZ. At these frequencies the waves could probably bend around something the size of Pennsylvania before completing a single cycle."
All this means is that there is a lower limit to the resolution of our sonic "telescopes". Radio and optical telescopes also have resolution limits. Knowing this, we look for things larger than these limits. And worry about what we might be missing.
LB |
| kao |
Posted - 16 Sep 2005 : 02:28:47
My problem with seismology is the use of low frequency. Any well trained audio tech knows full well that bass is omnidirectional. So how can seismologists believe that what they're "hearing" isn't completely bent and distorted? Without the use of high frequencies there is NO directional component to the incoming wave. At least none that could accurately point to interior details. That's why sonograms work! They use ULTRASOUND> An earthquake typically produces waves between 0.003- 3.0 HERTZ. At these frequencies the waves could probably bend around something the size of Pennsylvania before completing a single cycle. Therefore, how can anyone say with certainty that they're seeing a wave travel directly through a solid core, when it may be that the wave is being refracted AROUND a hollow cavity. This would give nearly the same result as measured by a surface seismonitor. There is evedince to support this in the very process that is currently used to determine earth's inner structure. Namely, the waves which are believed to travel DIRECTLY through the core, seem to arrive later then they're supposed to. How could this be possible if the core is many times more dense. The wave should arrive SOONER because it should travel faster through the denser core material.. but it doesn't. Why?... The wave in question is not traveling through a solid core. It is being refracted around a cavity (or at least a severe boundary). This would account for the delay in the wave's arrival. Simply because, the wave has to travel many times further to reach around the core than it would if were to travel directly through the core. The bending wave would also create the infamous shadow zone.
The bottom line is, that even geologists admit they what their science promotes are only theories. Heck, most geology websites even throw in a disclaimer or two. I find that amusing. And it is for that simple reason that I look to other theories and better methods.
|
| Larry Burford |
Posted - 15 Sep 2005 : 09:49:19
[PhilJ] "I've wasted far too much time debunking this idiotic theory. It is not worthy the attention it is getting. So don't hold your breath waiting for me post to this thread again."
You might want to reconsider this position. For each person that is active on this board there are several dozen that are lurking in the background. Many of them are looking for just the sort of material that you have presented here to help them understand why a theory like hollow planets is so unlikely to be viable.
I submit that you have not wasted your time. Without input like yours some of the lurkers might eventually be seduced by the dark side of the farce.
Regards,
LB
|
| Jim |
Posted - 14 Sep 2005 : 23:43:13
Michiel, The fact that the Earth rings like a bell is a new bit of data to me. Is there any measurments of this effect you know of? It seems logical since the crust is solid and the mantle is liquid data about this effect would reveal something about the planet. I don't buy into the model of the Earth's interior or any other so called scientific models. They are interesting in some ways but to conclude they are based on how nature is makes no sense. Models are tools not reflections of nature. |
| Michiel |
Posted - 14 Sep 2005 : 23:12:21
I feel we have the same view on the subject, Phil.
Sorry for the confusion and for waking you up again.
. |
| PhilJ |
Posted - 14 Sep 2005 : 21:01:56
quote:
Phil: "So long as the hollow sphere is intact and uniform, I believe gravity and centrifugal forces would act the same as for a solid sphere."
And quote Michael: "In that case we're back to square one (or sphere one for that matter)...."
What part of "intact and uniform" did you not understand, Michael? Does Earth not have plate boundaries and earthquakes? Does it not show scars of major meteor impacts? Is every part of Earth's crust exactly the same density?
This is definitely, absolutely, without a doubt, my last response to this trivial, infantile, thread. Start a thread on the Flat Earth Theory; then maybe we can have a serious discussion. |
| Michiel |
Posted - 14 Sep 2005 : 18:19:46
Phil: "So long as the hollow sphere is intact and uniform, I believe gravity and centrifugal forces would act the same as for a solid sphere."
In that case we're back to square one (or sphere one for that matter).
I've always been curious about the inner working of our planet. Unfortunatly there is little data to go on, so until someone comes up with a realizable experiment it's like Jim says: we can do only some educated guesses. (And post them in a geology topic...)
|
| PhilJ |
Posted - 14 Sep 2005 : 16:58:13
quote:
Originally posted by Michiel
Phil, your argument could be strong if you can show that a solid sphere reacts differently then a hollow sphere to centrifugal and gravitational forces.
It is possible for a planet-size hollow shell to exist for a time---after some immensly powerful intelligent beings constructed it. However, the logistics of such a project are mind boggling, and such an artificial construct would be highly unstable.
So long as the hollow sphere is intact and uniform, I believe gravity and centrifugal forces would act the same as for a solid sphere. But what happens when a meteor punches a hole in the hollow shell? The loose fragments would gravitate gently toward the new center of gravity of the damaged shell, which would be slightly off center away from the hole. So a solid sphere would begin to grow inside the hollow shell. Each time another chunk breaks off at the edge of the hole, it would add to the mass of the solid sphere inside---thus increasing the imballance. Eventually the last chunk of shell would join the solid ball inside.
The simplest argument against a hollow sphere is the fact that it would have far more gravitational energy than a solid ball. The collapse of the shell into a solid ball would convert that gravitational potential to heat, making the solid ball very hot. Reversing that process would require a tremendous energy input.
Every step along the way, angular momentum would be conserved; so the new solid sphere would spin faster than the original shell. Conversely, converting a solid ball into a hollow shell would decrease the angular velocity. But all we need to know about centrifugal force is that there is far too little of it make the center hollow.
If you could magically speed up the Earth's rotation indefinitely, the poles would move closer together and the equator would bulge more. Since the mass is not homogenious, it would eventually form two or more pieces which would move farther apart until they seperate into a main planet and one or more moons. Increasing the angular momentum of the system further would cause the pieces to orbit farther apart in a plane---not in a sphere.
I've wasted far too much time debunking this idiotic theory. It is not worthy the attention it is getting. So don't hold your breath waiting for me post to this thread again.
|
| Michiel |
Posted - 14 Sep 2005 : 14:45:09
Phil, your argument could be strong if you can show that a solid sphere reacts differently then a hollow sphere to centrifugal and gravitational forces.
|
| PhilJ |
Posted - 14 Sep 2005 : 13:03:34
Please note correction to my last post, above. |
| Jim |
Posted - 13 Sep 2005 : 22:21:22
The data from "S"&"P" waves might be overly massaged by modelers to get the commonly accepted view of the interior of Earth. The rest of the reasoning here is guess work. The only data is seismic waves and it seems to me that data can be read in any way one likes. |
| Michiel |
Posted - 13 Sep 2005 : 18:38:11
Larry: "If your pillow is smaller than a bed I'd be inclined to agree that stuff mixes."
My pillow is indeed smaller then a bed. Certainly not the size of a planet as I was making a comparison with a planet core, where gravity is very low.
(If there are materials that wouldn't melt or burn in the earth's core bring them on. :)
Phil: "Not even hydrogen can exist as a gas at that temperature and pressure."
I suspect that too, but I don't now the pressure and temperature inside the earth, nor the way hydrogen reacts to that.
____
So, on one side we have a process that takes heavy elements towards the centre using gravity. It's less effective the deeper you get.
On the other side we have thermal diffusion, convection currents and tidal effects to mix the stuff up, more or less randomly, but likely it gets more effective with higher temperature.
The two sides will find a balance, like Phil described very well.
Maybe there is such a balance where there is a heavy core, then a very low-density region and then the mantle, but i doubt it. Whatever may be, the words 'hollow planet' seem to stir up all the wrong associations. |
| PhilJ |
Posted - 13 Sep 2005 : 14:28:03
Gravity 101 is in session:
For simplisity sake, let's talk first about a spherical homogenius planet---i.e., uniform density. Gravity outside the surface is proportional to the inverse square of distance from the center. Inside such a sphere, gravity is directly proportional to the distance from the center. Inside, the graph is a straight line from zero at the center to maximum at the surface; outside , it is a curved line decreasing to zero at infinity.
Now, let's talk about a heterogenius planet---i.e., a mixture of different densities, randomly distributed in various sized lumps. Initially, its gravity graph would be just like that of a homogenius planet except for some slight roughness. There would be a tendency for heavier materials to sink, just as water sinks in oil or sea water sinks in fresh water. (Of course gravity does not seperate mutually soluble materials as effectively, because then it must work on molecules instead of huge volumes.) As the heavier materials sink, the core becomes denser, so the gravity graph becomes a steeper line in the denser core, and less steep in the lighter mantle and crust. During this process, gravity is doing a lot of work which heats the planet, keeping it in a liquid state. The fact that our planet is still hot, long after the heavier and lighter materials settled, suggests the presence of other internal heat sources.
True, there is less gravity near the center and zero gravity at the center; that means the process of sinking and floating is slower in the liquid core. If the inner core is solid, that means sinking and floating within the inner core has stopped---probably billions of years ago, before the planet reached its present size and mass.
Thermal processes within the liquid core produce vertical currents. The currents try to send denser materials upward with limited effectiveness. The net result of these currents is to aid the process of gravitational differentiation until an equilibrium is reached; once in equilibrium, you have occasional bits of dense material hitching a ride toward the surface in a stream of hotter and lighter material.
At no time, in the process described above, was centrifugal force relevant; centrifugal force at the equator today is about 1/36 [see edit below] as strong as gravity. Outside the planet, centrifugal force increases and gravity decreases; the two forces cancel each other at a distance of 36,000 km above the equator, which is where communication satellites reside in geostationary orbit.
Going deeper inside the planet in the equatorial plane, centrifugal force decreases in direct proportion to the distance from the center; gravity decreases more slowly at first and faster as density increases. Away from the equatorial plane, centrifugal force is proportional to distance from the polar axis; its direction is radially away from the axis. Centrifugal force does affect the shape of the planet; it causes the equator to bulge outward, giving an equatorial diameter of 12,760 km and a polar diameter of 12,720 km. That's a far cry from hollow!
[EDIT 9/14/05: Oops! What was I thinking? In very rough terms, gravity and centrifugal forces cancel at 6 Earth radii, where gravity is 1/36 g; therefore, on the equator, centrifugal force is not 1/36 g (as I originally posted), but 1/256 g. To be a little more precise: Gravity and centrifugal forces cancel at 6.64 Earth radii, where gravity is 1/44.1 g; therefore centrifugal force on the equator is 1/293 g. That sounds more reasonable, since the equatorial diameter is roughly 1/300th larger than the polar diameter.]
quote:
Earthquake seismology can't give a clear picture of the planets solidity. There are roughly spheric layers with a different propagation speed for seismic waves. The waves get deflected like the soundwaves whales use to communicate over thousands of kilometers or like the radiosignals amateurs use when there are sporadic conditions.
Any whale will tell you; solids are easily distinguishable from liquids because there are no transverse waves in a liquid.
quote:
Gaseous material would still have a gigantic density due to the pressure.
Not even hydrogen can exist as a gas at that temperature and pressure.
|
| Larry Burford |
Posted - 13 Sep 2005 : 13:57:48
Michiel,
If your pillow is smaller than a bed I'd be inclined to agree that stuff mixes.
If your pillow is the size of a planet, the lead and the feathers will separate (*) in a process known as pressure differentiation induced by gravitational force. Lower mass clumps of stuff will rise (like drops of oil in a jar of water when a gravitational field or equivalent is present) and higher mass clumps of stuff will descend (like drops of water in a jar of oil when a gravitational field or equivalent is present).
Near the center gravitational force declines and this process becomes less efficient. But all that means is that it takes longer to reach a given percentage of differentiation.
The presence of one or more moons orbiting the pillow will speed up the process, especially near the surface, by "stiring the pot".
LB
(*) Please note that not every lead pellet will end up closer to the center than every feather. (There will always be some mixing in the real world.) And of course pressure means heat. Feathers will burn and lead pellets will melt if they get hot enough. But we could pick some other materials to talk about if these details bother you. |
| Michiel |
Posted - 13 Sep 2005 : 10:54:43
Hehe, I wasn't very clear there, Larry. Let's try again..
High mass doesn't add more to compression then low mass when there's no gravity. Like a pillow filled with feathers and lead shot in orbit: the materials mix.
The compression comes from all mass surrounding the core. As gravity increases, moving out from the core, the bigger the contribution to compression will be. |
| Larry Burford |
Posted - 13 Sep 2005 : 09:27:24
[Michiel] "The effect of gravity plays no role in the core."
This is wrong.
[Michiel] " If you were in a capsule right in the middle of the earth (the horror) you would feel weightless."
This is right.
[Michiel] " Heavy elements wouldn't compress there, they would mix with lighter ones. Gaseous material would still have a gigantic density due to the pressure."
Q) How can light (low mass) elements be compressed by the pressure at the core but not heavy (high mass) elements?
Regards,
LB |
| Michiel |
Posted - 12 Sep 2005 : 23:38:51
Earthquake seismology can't give a clear picture of the planets solidity. There are roughly spheric layers with a different propagation speed for seismic waves. The waves get deflected like the soundwaves whales use to communicate over thousands of kilometers or like the radiosignals amateurs use when there are sporadic conditions.
I think the earthcore is high temperature, high pressure with thermonuclear processes going on. The effect of gravity plays no role in the core. If you were in a capsule right in the middle of the earth (the horror) you would feel weightless. Heavy elements wouldn't compress there, they would mix with lighter ones. Gaseous material would still have a gigantic density due to the pressure.
Calling that a hollow planet seems like a stretch to me.
|
|
|
