PDA

View Full Version : Hollow Earth


Uncle Steezo
02-28-2010, 12:54 AM
the earths crust is 800 miles thick.
the deepest hole ever dug is a little over 1 mile deep.

how do you know if the earth is solid to the core?

Dwyck
02-28-2010, 01:29 AM
the earths crust is 800 miles thick.
the deepest hole ever dug is a little over 1 mile deep.

how do you know if the earth is solid to the core?

It's Not Solid... It's Liquid Metallic... Mostly Super Heated Iron Which Produces Our Magnetic Field... Has To Be The Truth Unless Our North And South Poles Are Made Of Magic... And The Sun Is A Super Nice Star That Decides To Shoot Charged Particles Around And Away From Us So We Don't Die...

SKAMPOE
02-28-2010, 02:19 AM
isnt there supposed to be like a minuture type of sun type lava ball burning on the vry core of the earth.... all this time i think this 2 be true..

EAGLE EYE
02-28-2010, 02:23 AM
I take it most people here have never used a compass.

Uncle Steezo
02-28-2010, 02:40 AM
skampoe's eye is open.

It's Not Solid... It's Liquid Metallic... Mostly Super Heated Iron Which Produces Our Magnetic Field... Has To Be The Truth Unless Our North And South Poles Are Made Of Magic... And The Sun Is A Super Nice Star That Decides To Shoot Charged Particles Around And Away From Us So We Don't Die...

liquid metal is the only thing that produces magnetic fields?
how do you know the core is liquid iron?
is there any data that proves that the core of our planet is liquid iron?

diggy
02-28-2010, 02:57 AM
I heard of the 'hollow earth' thing.

Strange how Google earth does not show the poles clearly.

I am not gonna believe either way cuz nowadays I move towards realizing the truth with my senses and logic.

If I am to believe the hollow earth thing, I would just be doing what I did when I was told the earth is full of liquid - I would be believing what someone else says without proof.

I don't know.

Edgar Erebus
02-28-2010, 06:05 AM
Okay, let's put it this way. Earth is like a onion, it stinks and it's layered.

http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/earthquakes/sci_media/earth_structure/18486-1-eng-NZ/earth_structure_full_size_landscape.jpg

Now, the crust is solid, the upper mantle is half-liquid, lower mantle and upper core is liquid, and the inner core is solid.

How do we know that?

The look of outer mantle can be SEEN - just look at any volcano eruption and it's obvious how it looks in there.

About inner mantle, we know that it's liquid by careful observation of earthquakes. No matter how deep is the hypocentre of earthquake, quake waves spread in ALL directions, including in the depth of the earth. Now, it's been noticed that secondary quake waves don't spread as fast as primary (the ones that spread on the Earth's surface, which is solid), but rather with the speed characteristic to liquids (in case you didn't know, waves spread slower in liquid medium than solid). According to that, we know that the inner mantle is solid. Also, by trigonometric observations of spreading of quake waves, it's been noticed that there exist diffraction and refraction of those waves, which happens when waves pass through different (layered) mediums, which is proof that Earth is layered inside.

About solid core, you must know that Dwyck was wrong and that liquid metals DON'T produce magnetism, only solid can do that. Because Earth's North and South magnetic poles move, and in the unpredictable directions, a good explanation for this is that there is a huge solid, metallic object in Earth's centre that acts like a magnet. Sure, it's not 100% proven, but explains that phenomenon in the best way possible.

Source: two years of studying Geomorphology and Geology.


And about Google Earth, the thing is that those satellites that make pictures used on GE circle more-or-less around equator, to make best use of Earth's centripetal and centrifugal forces, and because of that they don't have clear view on Earth's poles.

Dwyck
02-28-2010, 10:53 AM
http://geology.about.com/od/core/a/about_the_core.htm

Core Dynamics

In 1996, Xiadong Song and Paul Richards confirmed a prediction that the inner core rotates slightly faster than the rest of the Earth. The magnetic forces of the geodynamo seem to be responsible.

Over geologic time, the inner core grows as the whole Earth cools. Iron crystals freeze out at the top of the outer core and rain onto the inner core. At the base of the outer core, the iron freezes under pressure taking much of the nickel with it. The remaining liquid iron is lighter and rises. These rising and falling motions, interacting with geomagnetic forces, stir the whole outer core at a speed of 20 kilometers a year or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core

Temperature

The temperature of the inner core can be estimated using experimental and theoretical constraints on the melting temperature of impure iron at the pressure (about 330 GPa) of the inner core boundary, yielding estimates of 5,700 K (5,430 C; 9,800 F). The range of pressure in Earth's inner core is about 330 to 360 gigapascals (3,300,000 to 3,600,000 atm), and iron can only be solid at such high temperatures because its melting temperature increases dramatically at these high pressures.

[In My Own Words]

There's No Reason That Super Heated (Liquid) Iron Couldn't Produce Magnetism... The Molecules Are Changed Obviously... But The Elements Are Still Iron... And I Would Have To Leave It Up To You To Disprove That Because I Can't... In Fact The Liquid Flow Enhances Movement Which Would Generate More Magnetism... There Is Plenty Of Pressure In The Earth's Center To Melt Iron... And Of All Places On Earth... The Center Would Logically Contain The Most Pressure... The Edges Of The Inner Core Is Where It's Believed To Be Cooling (Hardening) Some...

But As The Earth Cools Down Though It Will Gradually Become More Solid... So One Day Your May Get Your Wish... Sadly None Of Us Will Be Here To Celebrate It...

Uncle Steezo
02-28-2010, 12:17 PM
slim, since you actually know what you are talking about...

during and after an earthquake, how would you account for "shadowing" which is an area on the opposite side of the epicenter that does not experience the global wave?

how does volcanic activity prove the mantle's composition? do we know the source of pyroclastic flow? besides GZA?

are you familiar with admiral byrd's work?

diggy
02-28-2010, 11:30 PM
edit

Urban_Journalz
03-01-2010, 08:17 AM
Okay, let's put it this way. Earth is like a onion, it stinks and it's layered.

http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/earthquakes/sci_media/earth_structure/18486-1-eng-NZ/earth_structure_full_size_landscape.jpg

Now, the crust is solid, the upper mantle is half-liquid, lower mantle and upper core is liquid, and the inner core is solid.

How do we know that?

The look of outer mantle can be SEEN - just look at any volcano eruption and it's obvious how it looks in there.

About inner mantle, we know that it's liquid by careful observation of earthquakes. No matter how deep is the hypocentre of earthquake, quake waves spread in ALL directions, including in the depth of the earth. Now, it's been noticed that secondary quake waves don't spread as fast as primary (the ones that spread on the Earth's surface, which is solid), but rather with the speed characteristic to liquids (in case you didn't know, waves spread slower in liquid medium than solid). According to that, we know that the inner mantle is solid. Also, by trigonometric observations of spreading of quake waves, it's been noticed that there exist diffraction and refraction of those waves, which happens when waves pass through different (layered) mediums, which is proof that Earth is layered inside.

About solid core, you must know that Dwyck was wrong and that liquid metals DON'T produce magnetism, only solid can do that. Because Earth's North and South magnetic poles move, and in the unpredictable directions, a good explanation for this is that there is a huge solid, metallic object in Earth's centre that acts like a magnet. Sure, it's not 100% proven, but explains that phenomenon in the best way possible.

Source: two years of studying Geomorphology and Geology.


And about Google Earth, the thing is that those satellites that make pictures used on GE circle more-or-less around equator, to make best use of Earth's centripetal and centrifugal forces, and because of that they don't have clear view on Earth's poles.

A Volcano is no proof at all that the Earth's core is no proof that the entire lower core and upper mantle are liquid. Would you want someone to assume that your entire 2nd and 3rd layers were made up of puss simply because you had mad zits on your face? Use the same analogy here.

An Earthquake is energy. Pure, raw energy. To try and guess the anatomy of a vehicle based on how fast energy is travelling through it, especially energy as raw as this, is a bit dangerous. Couple that with the fact that the speed is only being compared with a few other vehicles and not the possibility that we may be facing something that we know nothing about. Energy itself moves at it's own pace so there's no telling from one earthquake to another exactly what the inside is made of because it's all one big guess in the end for most of these scientific observations. Not to mention the fact that these scientists have to keep this information as acceptable and dummied-down as possible, in order NOT to have people going to their congressmen and presidents saying, "WTF else HAVEN'T you told us?!?!"

I'll present some historical moments later on that will shed some much needed light on this subject though. Meanwhile, for those of you that doubt that the Earth is Hollow, answer these questions.

-Why does one find tropical seeds, plants and trees floating in the fresh water of icebergs?

-Why is all of the ice at the North and South Poles made of fresh water?

-Why do millions of tropical birds and animals go FARTHER North in the wintertime?

-If The Earth is not Hollow, then why does colored pollen cover the Earth for thousands of miles?

-Why is it warmer at the Poles than it is 600 to 1000 miles away?

-Why does the North Wind in the Arctic get warmer as one sails North beyond 70 degrees latitude?

I look forward to any explanations. Scientific if possible, or at least semi-reasonable. No blind guesses to purge oneself of thinking outside the box. Please. Thank you.

TheBoarzHeadBoy
03-01-2010, 04:35 PM
Hollow Earth is an idea almost as old as when we gave up on an earth centered universe... So its probably not true... a lot has changed.

The heat issue on the poles has to do with the angle of the earth's tilt, im almost certain. But I haven't looked it up (I'm just roughing it out here with some logic), and clearly neither have you. The poles get almost as much light as the equator, but they're cold because of the snow reflecting light... The less snow the less reflection. So there is a band of cold sort of midway between the poles and equator.

Edit: Polar ice caps form because high latitude regions receive less energy in the form of solar radiation from the sun than equatorial regions, resulting in lower surface temperatures.

Prolifical ENG
03-01-2010, 04:59 PM
Earth's interior being "solid" is using definitions different from what we determine is a solid on the surface. From the mantle and the heat and pressure, the "solid" has both elastic and viscous properties.

In seismology the p-waves and s-waves determine the distinct layers. The p-waves dont go through liquids. The layer makeup is mostly determined by knowing the material density.

Urban_Journalz
03-01-2010, 05:13 PM
Hollow Earth is an idea almost as old as when we gave up on an earth centered universe... So its probably not true... a lot has changed.

The heat issue on the poles has to do with the angle of the earth's tilt, im almost certain. But I haven't looked it up (I'm just roughing it out here with some logic), and clearly neither have you. The poles get almost as much light as the equator, but they're cold because of the snow reflecting light... The less snow the less reflection. So there is a band of cold sort of midway between the poles and equator.

Edit: Polar ice caps form because high latitude regions receive less energy in the form of solar radiation from the sun than equatorial regions, resulting in lower surface temperatures.

I noticed that you took the time NOT to answer any of the aforementioned questions with regards to the Hollow Earth.

To add on to that, the AURORA BOREALIS.

The scientists say, that this is caused by energized particles in Earth's Magnetosphere. The Magnetosphere encompasses ALL of the Earth. So, if this were true, shouldn't we be seeing the Northern Lights ALL OVER THE WORLD??? Why are these lights ONLY confined to Earth's North and South Poles??? It's because the Central Sun's lights only shine from such points.

F.Y.I. Earth isn't the only planet that's hollow. Mars, Jupiter AND Saturn have the very same Auroras shining from BOTH poles. Don't believe me??? Go to Google Images and type in Mars Aurora, Jupiter Aurora or Saturn Aurora and see that the truth is evident son.

Again, I'll be back with more in-depth detail with regards to this, but if you have the bronyaz to go to Google and check it out, you'll see that Man's science in this arena is NOTHING but semi-educated guesses.

Also, you still haven't touched on the fact that ALL ICEBERGS ARE FRESH WATER. Where is this fresh water coming from??? Get at me son.:mmmyah:

TheBoarzHeadBoy
03-01-2010, 05:25 PM
Salt water cannot freeze at earth temperatures. The molecules won't do it. Its salt water minus the salt... Why isn't there salt in Rain? Doesn't Rain fall from the sky? Doesn't it come from the oceans too?

Earth isnt hollow. The earths core is magnetic. Its metal elements like iron and uranium and such. Its poles are where the magnets point. Thus the suns rays interact with the most magnetic points to create the auroras...

See I can argue with you and we're probably both wrong because we're both just making stuff up that sounds reasonable. And there are two auroras... Borealis and Australis... Magnetic North and Magnetic South.

From wiki:

Auroras are the result of the emissions of photons in the Earth's upper atmosphere, above 80 km (50 miles), from ionized nitrogen atoms regaining an electron, and oxygen and nitrogen atoms returning from an excited state to ground state. They are ionized or excited by the collision of solar wind particles being funneled down and accelerated along the Earth's magnetic field lines; excitation energy is lost by the emission of a photon of light, or by collision with another atom or molecule:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Structure_of_the_magnetosphere.svg

Prolifical ENG
03-01-2010, 05:44 PM
-Why is it warmer at the Poles than it is 600 to 1000 miles away?

-Why does the North Wind in the Arctic get warmer as one sails North beyond 70 degrees latitude?

I look forward to any explanations. Scientific if possible, or at least semi-reasonable. No blind guesses to purge oneself of thinking outside the box. Please. Thank you.

This is more dynamic meteorology than geology. Arctic circulation works differently than the mid latitudes and tropics. Obviously more studies are done to understand the mid latitude circulations which are also affected 50% by the local geography.

South of 60S and north of 70N the longitudinal circulation is more uniform. In mid and tropical latitudes, the land features are more of an influence. 60S is a much better model but it still applies to the Arctic Circle. With latitudinal circulation the polar cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_cells) is most responsible for the warmer surface winds. .

Urban_Journalz
03-01-2010, 06:17 PM
@ BoarzHead.....

Again, I LOVE how you chose to avoid the questions put forth above. It only shows me and everyone else who thinks freely that you have all of NO comeback for such facts.

The Earth is said to weigh Six point six, sextillion tons, if, IF her anatomy were anything other than hollow, she would weigh MUCH more than she does.

I'm still waiting to see how people explain the Northern Lights, because it's evident that these come from her Central Sun and NOT from the sun that we all know. If it were our sun, again, the whole world would see Northern Lights, not just the North Pole and Antarctica. So wtf?? Where are you facts and scientific arguments against THIS shit?? AGAIN, WHY are ALL icebergs FRESHWATER and surrounded by SALT WATER??? I mean, if the Earth ISN'T Hollow, and there ISN'T a fresh water stream coming from the interior, then where is this coming from??? Rainfall???

Mad Respect to WUndedFox....this shit, I.M.O. divides the men from the boys. One.

Urban_Journalz
03-01-2010, 06:20 PM
This is more dynamic meteorology than geology. Arctic circulation works differently than the mid latitudes and tropics. Obviously more studies are done to understand the mid latitude circulations which are also affected 50% by the local geography.

South of 60S and north of 70N the longitudinal circulation is more uniform. In mid and tropical latitudes, the land features are more of an influence. 60S is a much better model but it still applies to the Arctic Circle. With latitudinal circulation the polar cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_cells) is most responsible for the warmer surface winds. .

O.k. valid point. What do you say about the fresh water icebergs and the fact that there is pollen, trees, baby mammoths found in Russian rivers with fresh grass in their mouths found in said icebergs and so forth??

You have to admit man, the Earth's crust, being only 800 miles thick, is all but unexplored by modern man. There are things in the sea that we still don't know about, because the amount of pressure would crush the most advanced submarine, given the right depth.

TheBoarzHeadBoy
03-01-2010, 06:45 PM
Weight is based on gravity. Since we don't understand how gravity works but we can measure it (9.81 m/s^2). We should be discussing mass.

Okay let me attempt to reason this to you. The salt water won't freeze, but freshwater landing on it would. If the salt water is cool enough to not melt the ice it would accumulate on top since it would float. Salt Water freezes much cooler then fresh water. So snow could form fresh water ice on top of the water. Saltwater freezes at somewhere approx 0 degrees F (don't recall the temp since it varies with salt content). Water freezes at 0 degrees C. 32 degrees F difference. Thus the salt water doesn't freeze at say 30 degrees F but fresh ice could form over it.

Prolifical ENG
03-01-2010, 07:10 PM
O.k. valid point. What do you say about the fresh water icebergs and the fact that there is pollen, trees, baby mammoths found in Russian rivers with fresh grass in their mouths found in said icebergs and so forth??

You have to admit man, the Earth's crust, being only 800 miles thick, is all but unexplored by modern man. There are things in the sea that we still don't know about, because the amount of pressure would crush the most advanced submarine, given the right depth.

The icebergs broke off of the polar ice caps which ice is from the last ice age, precipitation isnt salt water. Water salinity is the lowest in both polar regions and the shallower depths. The ice preserved a lot of things such as air trapped within the ice which are clues to how the atmosphere changed during different geologic times. This includes life. When the glaciers advanced and retreated, they also picked up other things along the surface.

You are right that Earth's crust and sea is widely unexplored. Submarines can reach the ocean's floor. There should be more resources invested for these explorations.

EAGLE EYE
03-01-2010, 08:22 PM
Good job copying the inline style right into the thread title. That was a nice touch.

Uncle Steezo
03-02-2010, 01:13 PM
Good job copying the inline style right into the thread title. That was a nice touch.
its Enochian Number Magic.
Qftvr0kXxsg

Dwyck
03-02-2010, 02:39 PM
I Went And Did Some Reading About Liquid Iron Producing Magnetic Fields... Seems I Was Wrong In My Previous Post... But I Still Can't See Any Logical Way That The Inner Core Could Be Hollow... When I Get The Time I'll Look Into This Subject More... It's Gonna Eat At Me Until I Do... So Thanks For That... hahahahahahaha

Prolifical ENG
03-02-2010, 02:59 PM
I Went And Did Some Reading About Liquid Iron Producing Magnetic Fields... Seems I Was Wrong In My Previous Post... But I Still Can't See Any Logical Way That The Inner Core Could Be Hollow... When I Get The Time I'll Look Into This Subject More... It's Gonna Eat At Me Until I Do... So Thanks For That... hahahahahahaha

You must have forgot the Dynamo Theory which explains that.

What we dont know is why Earth's magnetic field switches polarity on a geologic time scale. We can use a Double-Dynamo Theory to show how the period can suddenly change, but so far that's all science has unless something was recently uncovered that I havent read yet.

Dwyck
03-02-2010, 03:35 PM
You must have forgot the Dynamo Theory which explains that.

What we dont know is why Earth's magnetic field switches polarity on a geologic time scale. We can use a Double-Dynamo Theory to show how the period can suddenly change, but so far that's all science has unless something was recently uncovered that I havent read yet.

Thanks... That Gives Me A Good Place To Start...

Edgar Erebus
03-04-2010, 04:19 AM
slim, since you actually know what you are talking about...

during and after an earthquake, how would you account for "shadowing" which is an area on the opposite side of the epicenter that does not experience the global wave?

how does volcanic activity prove the mantle's composition? do we know the source of pyroclastic flow? besides GZA?

are you familiar with admiral byrd's work?

Okay, about shadowing, basically it comes to that, since quake waves spread through the Earth's crust at, basically, same speed, there's a point where all those waves interfere and nullify each other.

Volcanic activity proves mantle's composition because a volcano is, by definition, a place where magma (liquid from mantle) comes to the Earth's surface. To understand that it's necessary to know a structure of a volcano.

http://www.hellagems.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/volcano-diagram.gif

The thing is that volcanoes can't and don't erupt everywhere. They usually appear on the edges of tectonic plates, which are in constant motion (for example, just during the last Chile earthquake, the Nazca plate moved for 8 cm). Because their boundaries always either collide or move away from each other, there exists a place where Earth's crust is broken out and from where magma can breach to the surface. The other way is the hot-spot (for example, Hawaii), where magma comes to the surface because the crust is more thinned-out.

The other proof that mantle is liquid is the movement of tectonic plates itself. Because of high temperatures of that liquid (on room temperature any rock is solid), there exists convection movement in the mantle. A simple model of that can be done if you cover a pot filled with boiling water with thin pieces of wood: they're gonna move and water will come on the outside in between the wooden pieces. (I hope I explained it understandible enough.)

I admit, though, that for now it's just a theory, but amongst all theories it explains the best the way it works.

Pyroclastic flow happens only if volcano is of the explosive type. Magma always has a portion of soluted gasses, but if the volcano is of that type where magma cools down a bit and becomes more plastic, those gasses come out (I can't remember the proper word, it's opposite of dissolution) and, because their pressure is constantly growing, they explode. Such an explosion causes a massive movement of broken rock mixed with those gasses which manifests itself as a pyroclastic flow, which runs down the volcano slopes because of gravitation. You must understand that they're very dense and behave almost as liquids in our athmosphere.


And, sadly, I'm not familiar with admiral Byrd's work. Can you enlighten me a bit?

Edgar Erebus
03-04-2010, 04:42 AM
A lot of mix-ups in a single post.


A Volcano is no proof at all that the Earth's core is no proof that the entire lower core and upper mantle are liquid. Would you want someone to assume that your entire 2nd and 3rd layers were made up of puss simply because you had mad zits on your face? Use the same analogy here.

First of all, you can't even compare volcanoes to pimples. A zit is an inflammation of sebaceous gland. Volcano is not an inflammation. I explained how volcano works in previous post, so I won't repeat myself.



An Earthquake is energy. Pure, raw energy. To try and guess the anatomy of a vehicle based on how fast energy is travelling through it, especially energy as raw as this, is a bit dangerous. Couple that with the fact that the speed is only being compared with a few other vehicles and not the possibility that we may be facing something that we know nothing about. Energy itself moves at it's own pace so there's no telling from one earthquake to another exactly what the inside is made of because it's all one big guess in the end for most of these scientific observations.

First of all, you can't see energy. Energy is a concept devised by scientists to explain why certain phenomena happens. What you can see, though, is work. Energy, as itself, can't move a sand grain: movement of sand grain is work. Energy that's "released" (although it has been there even before, in form of potential energy) in an earthquake is actually earthquake's work, which manifests itself in waving. Speed in itself is a measurable physical quantity and, although it can't tell everything about a structure of a vehicle, it can tell a lot.

And yes, it is a big guess in a lot of things, and that's why those things are called theories. Every geological research centre in the world is currently gathering data to support - or break down - those theories. That's what science does. It's not just intelectualizing, as most people's thing, it's mostly hard work in gathering and analyzing raw data; most of people don't know anything about that part of scientist's work, because, quite frankly, it's exhausting and boring, but necessary.

Not to mention the fact that these scientists have to keep this information as acceptable and dummied-down as possible, in order NOT to have people going to their congressmen and presidents saying, "WTF else HAVEN'T you told us?!?!"

Yes, they do keep things dumbed-down in order that general public understands what they're talking about. I can now start throwing complicated equations and results of measurements in order to prove my point, but what would I achieve with that? I actually agree with what my high-school teacher told me: "Understanding without knowledge is blind. Knowledge without understanding is dangerous."

I'll present some historical moments later on that will shed some much needed light on this subject though. Meanwhile, for those of you that doubt that the Earth is Hollow, answer these questions.

-Why does one find tropical seeds, plants and trees floating in the fresh water of icebergs?

Never heard of that. Examples?

-Why is all of the ice at the North and South Poles made of fresh water?

I must admit that's a good question. You can make your graduation thesis on that.


-Why do millions of tropical birds and animals go FARTHER North in the wintertime?

If you're talking about migration on Southern hemisphere, I think the answer is self-understanding: they're moving closer to equator, just as Northern animals are doing during their migrations.


-If The Earth is not Hollow, then why does colored pollen cover the Earth for thousands of miles?

Keywords: winds, aerosol. Earth's athmosphere is never still, it always moves. Pollen are so small particles that they're dispersed in air by the way of aerosol, and they're easily moved by any air movements.


-Why is it warmer at the Poles than it is 600 to 1000 miles away?

Except for the answers you already got, you must look at the geomorphological structure of Artic/Antarctic. First, the coldest measured place on Earth, the Vostok station, is located on a plateau on 3488 m above sea level, which is approx. 2000 meters higher than pole itself, and don't forget that the temperature of athmosphere cools down by 1 Kelvin with every 200 m of height.

About North pole, it's located at sea and sea itself works as a temperature regulator. The coldest place on Northern hemisphere is Oymyakon, Russia, far away from sea and without the benefit of sea temperature regulation, and because of it's northern exposition, it has extremely low temperatures during winter.

-Why does the North Wind in the Arctic get warmer as one sails North beyond 70 degrees latitude?

I look forward to any explanations. Scientific if possible, or at least semi-reasonable. No blind guesses to purge oneself of thinking outside the box. Please. Thank you.

Because north that 70 degrees altitude you have already passed the polar front, which is athmospheric phenomena that's cruical to weather in the Northern hemisphere. Even more than warmer, wind there becomes slower and therefore humans (and thermometers) register it as warmer.

Edgar Erebus
03-04-2010, 04:43 AM
Earth's interior being "solid" is using definitions different from what we determine is a solid on the surface. From the mantle and the heat and pressure, the "solid" has both elastic and viscous properties.

In seismology the p-waves and s-waves determine the distinct layers. The p-waves dont go through liquids. The layer makeup is mostly determined by knowing the material density.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that. Thanks.

Edgar Erebus
03-04-2010, 04:51 AM
I noticed that you took the time NOT to answer any of the aforementioned questions with regards to the Hollow Earth.

To add on to that, the AURORA BOREALIS.

The scientists say, that this is caused by energized particles in Earth's Magnetosphere. The Magnetosphere encompasses ALL of the Earth. So, if this were true, shouldn't we be seeing the Northern Lights ALL OVER THE WORLD??? Why are these lights ONLY confined to Earth's North and South Poles??? It's because the Central Sun's lights only shine from such points.

Obviously you don't know how that works. I don't blame you, it's larger poorly known.

First of all, magnetosphere is not circular. It looks like this.

http://www.bu.edu/cism/CISM_Thrusts/magnetosphere.jpg

And because it's thinnest and closest near Poles, you can see aurora borealis/australis the best in those areas. But not on Poles themselves.

But in reality, you can see aurora everywhere on Earth if you look and wait hard enoughhttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2829770679_4b91ee6d33.jpg. This is, for example, tropical aurora.

And where did you get that "inner sun" from, I really don't know. First of all, with those emissions of radiation that stars do, how could it be covered by crust at all?



F.Y.I. Earth isn't the only planet that's hollow. Mars, Jupiter AND Saturn have the very same Auroras shining from BOTH poles. Don't believe me??? Go to Google Images and type in Mars Aurora, Jupiter Aurora or Saturn Aurora and see that the truth is evident son.

It proves only that those planets have their own respective magnetospheres.

Again, I'll be back with more in-depth detail with regards to this, but if you have the bronyaz to go to Google and check it out, you'll see that Man's science in this arena is NOTHING but semi-educated guesses.

Also, you still haven't touched on the fact that ALL ICEBERGS ARE FRESH WATER. Where is this fresh water coming from??? Get at me son.:mmmyah:

Depends on where those icebergs are coming from. If they're broken-off parts of glaciers, the answer is self-evident: from snow.


And after all those questions, I have one more question to ask: did you finish highschool?

Edgar Erebus
03-04-2010, 04:52 AM
The Earth is said to weigh Six point six, sextillion tons, if, IF her anatomy were anything other than hollow, she would weigh MUCH more than she does.

You, obviously, can't even grasp how much is 6.6 sextillion tons.

Edgar Erebus
03-04-2010, 04:54 AM
You must have forgot the Dynamo Theory which explains that.

What we dont know is why Earth's magnetic field switches polarity on a geologic time scale. We can use a Double-Dynamo Theory to show how the period can suddenly change, but so far that's all science has unless something was recently uncovered that I havent read yet.

Nah, that's it. A lot of people work on it, measuring latent magnetism in deep-ocean crust, but they still haven't found the right answers.

TheBoarzHeadBoy
03-04-2010, 09:38 PM
I'm loving this Slim. Its good to have someone who understands physics at all. I wish I had more study of it, Junior Year is just really starting to look at it in school in any detail. Oh well I have 5 years at least of formal education ahead of me (no way in hell I'm not getting a Bachelors out of the system), so I'm sure I'll at least get some more understanding even its just liberal arts type stuff.

I love the shit like calculating the pull of gravity between objects
g=G m1 m2/r^2 or other esoteric shit like that.

Makes me feel like I actually understand the world a bit. But I can't see it being a career.

pro.Graveface
03-07-2010, 05:47 AM
Earth got a hollow space because its spinning!!!!!!

pro.Graveface
03-07-2010, 05:48 AM
follow the hammerheadz!

Robert
03-08-2010, 12:49 PM
I'll present some historical moments later on that will shed some much needed light on this subject though. Meanwhile, for those of you that doubt that the Earth is Hollow, answer these questions.

-Why does one find tropical seeds, plants and trees floating in the fresh water of icebergs?

-Why is all of the ice at the North and South Poles made of fresh water?

-Why do millions of tropical birds and animals go FARTHER North in the wintertime?

-If The Earth is not Hollow, then why does colored pollen cover the Earth for thousands of miles?

-Why is it warmer at the Poles than it is 600 to 1000 miles away?

-Why does the North Wind in the Arctic get warmer as one sails North beyond 70 degrees latitude?



Bahahahaha! You are killing me man!

beautifulrock
03-08-2010, 12:58 PM
the earths crust is 800 miles thick.
the deepest hole ever dug is a little over 1 mile deep.

how do you know if the earth is solid to the core?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

Duh.

Robert
03-08-2010, 05:01 PM
O.k. valid point. What do you say about the fresh water icebergs and the fact that there is pollen, trees, baby mammoths found in Russian rivers with fresh grass in their mouths found in said icebergs and so forth??


I have some questions for you. Where do icebergs come from?

More specifically, do they originate from collapsed glacial formations on land or do they develop at sea?

If they do originate from the land, where did the water within them come from?

Aside from this, sea ice (different to icebergs) in formed from salt water but is freshwater in composition. I'll let you do some research to figure that out.

I'm not sure what your point about the pollen, mammoths, and trees is. The Earth's climate has, in the past, been markedly different than it is right now.

Urban_Journalz
03-09-2010, 05:00 PM
Bahahahaha! You are killing me man!

Good to know, but can you answer the questions??

Urban_Journalz
03-09-2010, 05:09 PM
I have some questions for you. Where do icebergs come from?

More specifically, do they originate from collapsed glacial formations on land or do they develop at sea?

If they do originate from the land, where did the water within them come from?

Aside from this, sea ice (different to icebergs) in formed from salt water but is freshwater in composition. I'll let you do some research to figure that out.

I'm not sure what your point about the pollen, mammoths, and trees is. The Earth's climate has, in the past, been markedly different than it is right now.

My point about the pollen is, since pollen comes from plants grown in a tropical or semi-tropical climate, how did they get there if the Earth isn't hollow?? The Mammoths? Come on dude, seriously?? Mammoths are said to be extinct, but since you know nothing about Admiral Byrd's flight to the North Pole, it would be asking a LOT for you to know what the point of this post is. If the Russians are finding baby mammoths frozen in ice with fresh ice still in their stomachs, then it obviously means that they're NOT extinct and that they sought habitation elsewhere. A few skeletons being found doesn't mean anything except that scientists found something to keep most people shut the fuck up. No offense.

Fresh water icebergs come from the fresh water icebergs come from the inner earth, because that's the only way that a fresh water mass could form so abundantly. Same reason why the mammoth was found in Russia. Where else could fresh water icebergs come from??

Also, I notice you very nicely avoided the Aurora Borealis comment that I listed earlier. Explain that one, since you have so much to speak upon and please remember that the magnetosphere circles the entire earth, so if, IF the Northern Lights are the result of energized particles being activated in the magnetosphere, then why don't we see these lights ALL OVER THE WORLD, instead of the North and South poles?? Could it be that the Aurora is the result of the rays of the Central Sun shining and not that pseudo-scientific bullshit?

Edgar Erebus
03-10-2010, 01:45 AM
I already answered your "questions" about pollen and aurora and you, very conveniently, didn't read my posts in order to continue pushing your agenda. So I am not going to repeat myself.

You obviously have no idea how much fresh water is there on Earth. Believe, it's more than you find in pipeline.

About mammoths, and what the hell did you expect if they became suddenly covered with snow or became near-instantly frozen in any other way? If you're frozen you don't age, and if you're dead you don't digest no grass.

I'd be really interested what C14 analysis would have to say about age of those mammoths.

Urban_Journalz
03-10-2010, 08:36 AM
A lot of mix-ups in a single post.




First of all, you can't even compare volcanoes to pimples. A zit is an inflammation of sebaceous gland. Volcano is not an inflammation. I explained how volcano works in previous post, so I won't repeat myself.





First of all, you can't see energy. Energy is a concept devised by scientists to explain why certain phenomena happens. What you can see, though, is work. Energy, as itself, can't move a sand grain: movement of sand grain is work. Energy that's "released" (although it has been there even before, in form of potential energy) in an earthquake is actually earthquake's work, which manifests itself in waving. Speed in itself is a measurable physical quantity and, although it can't tell everything about a structure of a vehicle, it can tell a lot.

And yes, it is a big guess in a lot of things, and that's why those things are called theories. Every geological research centre in the world is currently gathering data to support - or break down - those theories. That's what science does. It's not just intelectualizing, as most people's thing, it's mostly hard work in gathering and analyzing raw data; most of people don't know anything about that part of scientist's work, because, quite frankly, it's exhausting and boring, but necessary.



Yes, they do keep things dumbed-down in order that general public understands what they're talking about. I can now start throwing complicated equations and results of measurements in order to prove my point, but what would I achieve with that? I actually agree with what my high-school teacher told me: "Understanding without knowledge is blind. Knowledge without understanding is dangerous."



Never heard of that. Examples?



I must admit that's a good question. You can make your graduation thesis on that.




If you're talking about migration on Southern hemisphere, I think the answer is self-understanding: they're moving closer to equator, just as Northern animals are doing during their migrations.




Keywords: winds, aerosol. Earth's athmosphere is never still, it always moves. Pollen are so small particles that they're dispersed in air by the way of aerosol, and they're easily moved by any air movements.




Except for the answers you already got, you must look at the geomorphological structure of Artic/Antarctic. First, the coldest measured place on Earth, the Vostok station, is located on a plateau on 3488 m above sea level, which is approx. 2000 meters higher than pole itself, and don't forget that the temperature of athmosphere cools down by 1 Kelvin with every 200 m of height.

About North pole, it's located at sea and sea itself works as a temperature regulator. The coldest place on Northern hemisphere is Oymyakon, Russia, far away from sea and without the benefit of sea temperature regulation, and because of it's northern exposition, it has extremely low temperatures during winter.



Because north that 70 degrees altitude you have already passed the polar front, which is athmospheric phenomena that's cruical to weather in the Northern hemisphere. Even more than warmer, wind there becomes slower and therefore humans (and thermometers) register it as warmer.

I can compare volcanoes to pimples, because both of them are places where an excess of matter is ejected at or near a surface of great mass. Be it the Earth or the Human Body. That being said, you still haven't managed to tell me why the Earth's interior is all lava simply because of a volcano or two.

Energy is a concept devised by scientists? :lmao:
Wonder what else those scientists cooked up that's being mistaken as natural phenomena. And I notice that with all the talk about energy, all you really managed to say was, "It's all a theory." Did it really take all that or were you trying to impress someone other than yourself?

What your high school teacher said makes sense only if you happen to have one of the qualities mentioned. Since people usually use quotes like that to shy away from the fact that thinking outside of the box, in it's TRUE essense, scares the shit out of them, you haven't said anything.

Graduation thesis? It really sickens you to admit that you have no idea, doesn't it?

As for the magnetosphere, even in your picture, it can be seen that it still spans the entire area of the Earth, meaning that even if the lights were further away, we could still see them. Unless you don't know this either, stars are much further away than that and we see those pretty clear, so try again.

Edgar Erebus
03-10-2010, 10:03 AM
I can compare volcanoes to pimples, because both of them are places where an excess of matter is ejected at or near a surface of great mass. Be it the Earth or the Human Body. That being said, you still haven't managed to tell me why the Earth's interior is all lava simply because of a volcano or two.

Those "volcano or two" is actually hundreds of volcanoes, and by the way, where would you say that lava comes from? You think there's an area in Earth's crust where it appears out of nowhere?

Energy is a concept devised by scientists? :lmao:
Wonder what else those scientists cooked up that's being mistaken as natural phenomena. And I notice that with all the talk about energy, all you really managed to say was, "It's all a theory." Did it really take all that or were you trying to impress someone other than yourself?

Can you see energy? Can you hear energy? Maybe I was off with my wording, but the point is that energy makes work and work is what moves everything. Your table, which doesn't move, has an exact amount of potential energy, so what are you gonna do with it?

Not to mention how you only read the first sentence of my paragraph and ignored all the rest.

What your high school teacher said makes sense only if you happen to have one of the qualities mentioned. Since people usually use quotes like that to shy away from the fact that thinking outside of the box, in it's TRUE essense, scares the shit out of them, you haven't said anything.

The thing is that you know some stuff here and there, but don't understand a bit how it actually works, so you jump on any - literally ridiculous - pseudoscientist theory and think how you are now special because you think outside the box and how it all makes sense. Although it doesn't, because if you understood a bit more how stuff works you'd realize how idiotic this whole "inner sun" and "hollow earth" theory is. I mean, inner sun? How can you say that phrase with a straight face?

Graduation thesis? It really sickens you to admit that you have no idea, doesn't it?

Not at all, and I think this is a good topic to be researched.

(You really think that I am ashamed because I don't know something? You clearly are - because you are the one who has an explanation for everything.)


As for the magnetosphere, even in your picture, it can be seen that it still spans the entire area of the Earth, meaning that even if the lights were further away, we could still see them. Unless you don't know this either, stars are much further away than that and we see those pretty clear, so try again.

Further away, less dense, and I proved it's visible in tropical areas, so what's your point? Why don't you actually read a meteorology textbook once if you wanna argue your position?

Prolifical ENG
03-10-2010, 10:35 AM
To think outside the box, you need to understand thoroughly what's exactly in the box before you start looking outside of it. Also need a good reason to look outside of it rather than not wanting to bother to learn whats in the box.

Robert
03-10-2010, 05:52 PM
My point about the pollen is, since pollen comes from plants grown in a tropical or semi-tropical climate, how did they get there if the Earth isn't hollow??

This might shock you, but the Earth's climate hasn't always been the same around the poles.

The Mammoths? Come on dude, seriously?? Mammoths are said to be extinct, but since you know nothing about Admiral Byrd's flight to the North Pole, it would be asking a LOT for you to know what the point of this post is. If the Russians are finding baby mammoths frozen in ice with fresh ice still in their stomachs, then it obviously means that they're NOT extinct and that they sought habitation elsewhere.

I'll stop you right there. Could you provide some evidence for the statement you made, a definition of "fresh ice", and how you made the massive leap of faith to "mammoths are not extinct".

Fresh water icebergs come from the fresh water icebergs come from the inner earth, because that's the only way that a fresh water mass could form so abundantly. Same reason why the mammoth was found in Russia. Where else could fresh water icebergs come from??

The sky.

Aside from that, like I previously inferred, sea ice, formed from salt water, is largely freshwater, because salt is excluded during the freezing process.

Also, I notice you very nicely avoided the Aurora Borealis comment that I listed earlier.

I didn't ignore it, it had already been answered more than once already.


Larry David would probably tell you to read a fucking book. I'm not sure though.

SID
03-10-2010, 06:00 PM
Are you lot really debating if the earth is hollow? I'm at a loss with this entire situation.