Bible supports the Hollow Earth Theory

[manxboz]

I have been doing alot of research into the hollow earth thoery lately and i have come accross a passage in the Bible i think supports this.
Philippians Chapter 2 verse 10
"That at the name of Jesus every kneww should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth."
What do you guys think?

[mephibosheth]

I think you're on to something.

It's always going on about 'as above, so below', although it doesn't tell us what is 'above' and what is 'below'...it's all relative.

But I was think this very thing recently, reflecting on the book of Revelations.

It says in Revelation that at one point a deep pit opens up and from it issues forth a beast, and then all manner of nasty critters that go forth and make trouble for the world. Now suppose this pit refers to the opening up of a passage to to inner earth! Finally visible and accessible, as it may soon be due to the melting of the north polar ice caps. If the various stories of what lies beneath have any validity, we could be seeing a migration of some pretty bizzare beasts from the inner earth, especially if there is some sort of environmental crisis going on there.

Not to mention God separated the waters below from the waters above. The crust of the earth would make a fine separate for an inner and outer sea.

8)

[miracles]

http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

There is a lot of interesting stuff to back up what you are saying on this link.

[tracker]

again some interesting stuff here .

I cant recall where but in the bible it talks about not drowning a baby in its mothers milk .

the bible littereture is the milk

but as we grow in wisdom , we see the meat in the bible too , explinations like the above orsomething like them anyways .

it is good to see people accept the meat of the bible with all its meaty parts that can be ( for babies ) hard to digest , yet if one has developed , eating this meat will pose no problem .

good ideas there , really good .:cool:

[deadskinball]

Please don't try and solve the jigsaw puzzle whilst your building it.

Please don't take the bible as a history record. It would be very folish of you to try and force the facts to fit your preconceived conlcusion.

While you are at it, maybe you'd like to learn something called plate tectonics. If you think the earth is hollow, then you'll have an answer what supports the magma which these landmasses float upon if the earth is hollow like you think.

Plate Tectonics is a subset of geology. Geology is a science.

You know where this is leading?

[mephibosheth]

No one, not even geologists, knows what is at the center of the Earth. All people have are theories, and plate tectonics is one of them. No one has any idea how planets work, how they are put together, or what forces are operating at their deepest levels. Geology is not planetology. It doesn't say anything about the origin of planetary bodies.

When geologists reach the center of the Earth with some super drill, let me know. Thus far the deepest they've gone--according to official reports--is 12 kms.

[crystaljunkie]

Has anyone ever discussed that the hollow earth theory is true, but we are living on the inside and what we view as the sky is holograms. i dreamed this once :p

[metacomet]

There is the possibility that realities and dimensions are stacked on top of one another, or indeed, entirely different worlds layered like an infinite onion. If there is in fact an impassable shield around the earth as speculated by some and spoken of in visions by shamans etc... this might explain certain information about space being kept from us.

Are there alternate realities and dimensions above us in this mechanism, and different worlds beneath?

Are these the dimensions from which E.T.'s and extra dimensionals are slipping through to us?

Can you see why 'they' would not want us to know this?

P.S. this should be in a different forum, not religion

[amethyst]

http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

There is a lot of interesting stuff to back up what you are saying on this link.

I checked out the link on hell miracles. What's funny, is the website mentioned about worms that live near deep sea vents where incredibly hot temperatures escape, and I just saw a documentary on that very thing: those tube worms living near those vents :eek: It was bizarre!

[miracles]

Please don't try and solve the jigsaw puzzle whilst your building it.

Please don't take the bible as a history record. It would be very folish of you to try and force the facts to fit your preconceived conlcusion.

While you are at it, maybe you'd like to learn something called plate tectonics. If you think the earth is hollow, then you'll have an answer what supports the magma which these landmasses float upon if the earth is hollow like you think.

Plate Tectonics is a subset of geology. Geology is a science.

You know where this is leading?

Into your bin? :D

[miracles]

Has anyone ever discussed that the hollow earth theory is true, but we are living on the inside and what we view as the sky is holograms. i dreamed this once :p

Ive often thought we are already in hell, especially when I found this place:D

[deadskinball]

No one, not even geologists, knows what is at the center of the Earth.

Are you wanting to only accept what is said only after some one see its with their own eyes? *

Its like that murder scenario which pieces of the puzzle are laid out and one must make the conclusion based on the evidence left behind. What happens when it close to being solved but edit: NO ONE actually saw the murder take place. Are you saying that the murder cannot ever be solved because no-one did see the murder take place with their own very eyes?

Well, if you your answer is no, then why do you say what you have said in the mini-quote above?


All people have are theories, and plate tectonics is one of them.

If I had a dollar for every freakin' time I had to expalin the difference between "theory pulled out of someone's ass", and scientific theory...

Please stop giving me a reason to laugh at you.

No one has any idea how planets work, how they are put together, or what forces are operating at their deepest levels.

Why don't you take your own personal incredulality and work towards learning something.

"oh whoa is me... its all to complicated"

To you and the OP: There are -many- things known about planetary formation, abut our own planet and such. I'd suggest you learn something. Google and wikipedia would be a good start. The more you learn about it the more you'll see how utterly ridiculous a hollow earth idea really is.

But I like to have proofs as well BUT I will not make you drink the water, for I'll only lead you there with this question:

Work out the gravitation pull of the earth for:
- a hollow earth (eg: a crust of 200km (160mi) thick) <-- typical claims of hollow-earthers.
- a dense earth.
JSYK, mass and density are things that give rise to gravity. Garavity is a direct result of 'big' things.

Geology is not planetology. It doesn't say anything about the origin of planetary bodies.

Not really, but we aren't talking about how things actually formed which regards to the various types of planets out there. That is, geology in the study of rocks. A gas giant doesn't have rocks! You cannot apply geology to such planets and that was not my point to lead you in that direction.

When geologists reach the center of the Earth with some super drill, let me know. Thus far the deepest they've gone--according to official reports--is 12 kms.

see *

[miracles]

I checked out the link on hell miracles. What's funny, is the website mentioned about worms that live near deep sea vents where incredibly hot temperatures escape, and I just saw a documentary on that very thing: those tube worms living near those vents :eek: It was bizarre!

Spooky eh?

[manxboz]

That is very spooky website.

[manxboz]

Please don't try and solve the jigsaw puzzle whilst your building it.

Please don't take the bible as a history record. It would be very folish of you to try and force the facts to fit your preconceived conlcusion.

While you are at it, maybe you'd like to learn something called plate tectonics. If you think the earth is hollow, then you'll have an answer what supports the magma which these landmasses float upon if the earth is hollow like you think.

Plate Tectonics is a subset of geology. Geology is a science.

You know where this is leading?

If you can prove me wrong then i will admit it but the thing is you can't, its a theory and like all theories including eveolution its stays until disproved. All old religious texts are historic documents they are have just been wrote down in simple terms that the people of the time could understand. God i believe came from space and his Angels are his other spacemen. But thats what i believe.

[kasalt]

http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

There is a lot of interesting stuff to back up what you are saying on this link.

Why are there so many hoaxes perpetrated and promoted by religious believers?

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

http://www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.asp

Lies to promote religion. Same as it ever was....

[manxboz]

Why are there so many hoaxes perpetrated and promoted by religious believers?

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

http://www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.asp

Lies to promote religion. Same as it ever was....

I'm not promoting religion just putting forward evidence from one holy book forward. Until they prove the Earth isn't hollow i will believe it is. I prob could find more proof on the hollow earth theory in many other holy books.

[metacomet]

If I had a dollar for every freakin' time I had to expalin the difference between "theory pulled out of someone's ass", and scientific theory...


Scientific theory is theory...

THEORY . Not proven. Theoretical.

You are not more intelligent than anyone else by clinging to status-quo theories and calling everything else 'pulled out of someone's ass'. That's just an attitude which you and others use to make yourselves feel superior.


There are -many- things known about planetary formation, abut our own planet and such. I'd suggest you learn something. Google and wikipedia would be a good start.

Goodness me.

'many things' are known and they are all accessible with 'google and wikipedia'!

Life is so simple, isn't it! :rolleyes:

The more you learn about it the more you'll see how utterly ridiculous a hollow earth idea really is.

Hollow Earth theory has many different variables. Some of them actually fit well inside accepted models of the planet...

You're just sucking the status-quo teet, again.


Work out the gravitation pull of the earth for:
- a hollow earth (eg: a crust of 200km (160mi) thick) <-- typical claims of hollow-earthers.
- a dense earth.

Gravity itself is still an anomalous force in physics. I have said this before but people like yourself have very selective hearing.

If Gravity is anomalous than your assumption that a hollow earth negates gravity is wrong , friend.


Garavity is a direct result of 'big' things.

And?

Gravity is also an electromagnetic force and the gravity particle, is again: anomalous. We have not found it.

Gravity is not just about objects being 'big'

and Hollow Earth theory cannot be disproven by google searches and wikipedia alone. That is limp-wristed, status-quo thinking that gets us nowhere. Just toeing the line like everyone else :rolleyes:

[mephibosheth]

Are you wanting to only accept what is said only after some one see its with their own eyes? *

Its like that murder scenario which pieces of the puzzle are laid out and one must make the conclusion based on the evidence left behind. What happens when it close to being solved but edit: NO ONE actually saw the murder take place. Are you saying that the murder cannot ever be solved because no-one did see the murder take place with their own very eyes?


Strictly speaking, yes. You're just making up a story to fit the evidence. The evidence doesn't tell a story itself. It's just a set of facts. Your interpretation of those facts and your stringing them together into a narrative constitutes the story. And it may or may not correspond to the actual event that you are looking at in retrospect. You can't actually know.

There's a lot of inductions going on in such investigations. Certainty doesn't exist, just ranges of probability. And wherever someone can come up with a totally different explanation that fits the facts just as well, then there is no deciding between them.




If I had a dollar for every freakin' time I had to expalin the difference between "theory pulled out of someone's ass", and scientific theory...

Please stop giving me a reason to laugh at you.


A theory is a theory is a theory. It's a story we make up to explain some set of facts. All we have are these stories. That's what scientific paradigms are--narratives about reality. And they can and do frequently change and shift. It wasn't long ago that nobody gave any credence to the concept of plate tectonics. Folks apply various theories only insofar as they find them useful. They are practical and provisional, not final and absolute.

I'm not saying hollow earth theory is true or not, I'm only saying that if you think any human being knows what goes on in the center of the Earth you're fooling yourself. Plate tectonics is a useful device at present, but it isn't necessarily the 'truth' about the Earth's geology.



To you and the OP: There are -many- things known about planetary formation, abut our own planet and such.


'Known' eh, lol. Speculation is the meat of such 'knowledge'. Until human beings witness and record the formation of a planet, I'd be putting a little asterix beside that 'knowledge'.



Work out the gravitation pull of the earth for:
- a hollow earth (eg: a crust of 200km (160mi) thick) <-- typical claims of hollow-earthers.
- a dense earth.


I'm sure a robust hollow Earth theory would have to conform to all the standards of planetology et al, and fit all the facts, and allow for predictions and measurements. I don't know if there is such a model out there. Maybe there isn't. Now there's a summer project for an aspiring young fellow.



JSYK, mass and density are things that give rise to gravity. Garavity is a direct result of 'big' things.


LOL, if gravity is the result of 'big' things only, how did 'big things' come to be in the first place?

Like metacomet suggests, gravity is about the most mysterious force in the universe. To suggest otherwise is being dishonest.



Not really, but we aren't talking about how things actually formed which regards to the various types of planets out there. That is, geology in the study of rocks. A gas giant doesn't have rocks! You cannot apply geology to such planets and that was not my point to lead you in that direction.


If you don't know how planets form, how they operate, how can you say you know anything about their deep structures? How can you say that you know for certain that planets have solid cores without huge gaps etc?

Geology, like many other disciplines, requires a huge dose of creativity. People look at rock strata and start weaving a narrative about why it looks that way, projecting their findings from small, observable interactions onto large scales of space and time, assuming that there is no amplification or distortion and that the small and large operate the same way. Built on assumptions to weave a narrative to explain some observable fact.

Plate tectonics is the theory that works the best right now. But expanding Earth theory is interesting too, although certainly not as robust. All it takes is for someone to create a theory that explains the facts better than the prevailing one. If the hollow Earth is true, we'll know about it eventually.

8)

[thetonic]

Scientific theory is theory...

THEORY . Not proven. Theoretical.

You are not more intelligent than anyone else by clinging to status-quo theories and calling everything else 'pulled out of someone's ass'. That's just an attitude which you and others use to make yourselves feel superior.




Goodness me.

'many things' are known and they are all accessible with 'google and wikipedia'!

Life is so simple, isn't it! :rolleyes:



Hollow Earth theory has many different variables. Some of them actually fit well inside accepted models of the planet...

You're just sucking the status-quo teet, again.



Gravity itself is still an anomalous force in physics. I have said this before but people like yourself have very selective hearing.

If Gravity is anomalous than your assumption that a hollow earth negates gravity is wrong , friend.



And?

Gravity is also an electromagnetic force and the gravity particle, is again: anomalous. We have not found it.

Gravity is not just about objects being 'big'

and Hollow Earth theory cannot be disproven by google searches and wikipedia alone. That is limp-wristed, status-quo thinking that gets us nowhere. Just toeing the line like everyone else :rolleyes:

good stuff meta!

[deadskinball]

hold on a second....

The OP mentioned that hollow earth is a possiblity because there is vague reference to such in the bible, and now we have bible botherers giving weight to the thought of a hollow earth because the magic words "written in the bible".

Ah, CLICK!!

I am ashamed of myself that I did not pick up that earlier.

"I'm slippin' man, I'm slippin"

---

Well, where do I start?

I guess pointing to a wealth of articles a few clicks away isn't a viable option because you guys said so : rolleyes eye a bit more carefully : so wikipedia is out ofthe picture for easily accessable learning with layman terminology. Well where does that leave us? I don't know since I could suggest re-enrollling into an elementary school to learn about planets and shit, but I would have suggested a frontal lobotomy for you all instead. Its musch easier!

Now, once again, LEARN about the stuff before you consider hollow earth a viable item.

But I still won't get thru to you all, maybe some. So I'll ask these questions for those that keep insisting that hollow earth is possible?

- Hollow is thought to be empty, no? Like a place filled with gas, for example? (because it definitely ain't a vacuum! ). Well, with the weight of all the rocks and water and stuff, what holds it all up and not collapsing on itself?
- If a volcano is a fissure within this crust, then its a weak spot. If this weak spot were to be under the deeper parts of the worlds oceans, then what is stopping the water gurgling down this fissure like water gushing down the drain hole like in a bath?
- Since its common knowledge that we have a dense mostly iron core inside the earth and that gives rise to the magnetic field we have around the planet, what is the cause of this magnetic field if the earth is hollow, that is, missing an iron core?
- Caves and the extensive of it all does not indicate a hollow earth. It has no bearing on the idea of hollow earth, or even a large scoped out area underneath the crust, for example that they are large areas under the crust filedl with oil and natural gas. If, for example, such a cavernous area was emptied, would the crust collapse from the top down, or would it collapse from the bottom outwards and upward towards the surface even if it didn't show any deformity on the surface?

[metacomet]

now we have bible botherers giving weight to the thought of a hollow earth because the magic words "written in the bible".


Whatever makes you feel better, man.

That's not the case at all: but with most things, it's easier for people to sit back and call everyone a 'bible pusher' for having mentioned a verse than have a real discussion.


I could suggest re-enrollling into an elementary school to learn about planets and shit, but I would have suggested a frontal lobotomy for you all instead. Its musch easier!

This is just angry talk. Spitting and foaming at the mouth the same way most people do when others dare stray from status-quo.

You're the one who said gravity was about 'things being big ' :rolleyes:.

I agree with you, that is most definitely a scientific theory that you will learn in elementary school.

When you're ready: you can move on up to the big leagues, where gravity is not at all as simple as you seem to think it is.

I'll be waiting.



- Hollow is thought to be empty, no?

The earth doesn't need to be completely hollow to allow for hollow earth theory to work.

Deep subterranean continents are the only thing necessary to validate the hollow earth theory. It's not impossible. It's actually highly probable. But not in elementary school science classes or status quo, kiss-eachothers-ass academic circles.


- Since its common knowledge that we have a dense mostly iron core inside the earth and that gives rise to the magnetic field

Common knowledge?

Theory.

Nobody has seen the core of the earth or even come close. While the theory that electromagnetic currents and gravity itself come from a solid core is sound: there is no accounting for possible subterranean continents.

There is no reason these continents can't exist. There is no reason that Hollow Earth theory should clash with these other concepts your putting forth:

no reason except clinging to the status-quo accepted theories and being frightened to death of other theories. This is called Dogma. The Scientific community is full of Dogmatics.

[mephibosheth]

I think it's more that the Earth is considered to be a torus, not a hollow sphere. The prevailing idea is that there is a sun-like object at the very center, which is responsible for gravity, magnetic fields, etc. The crust basically holds itself together, but sources of magma etc come from the place of extreme pressure between the outer and inner surfaces. So it's not a weak point that leads directly to the inner surfaces per se. At least, that's what I gather from the various ideas floated about.

[deadskinball]

You're the one who said gravity was about 'things being big ' :rolleyes:.

Well if you want to get technical then everything has its own gravity. The glass of water sitting on the table, the table itself, the water, the dust on the table etc. Every single damn thing.

But is it measurable?

Hell no! The field it produces is way to small to detect with our current technology.

But what about big things?

The larger the mass or/and the larger the density then the more easier it is to detect the gravity. That is why I used the example of 'big' things. Laymans understanding, no doubt, but since you picked me up on it... So, it begs the question?

Do you understand?

It you do, then you'll agree with the impossiblity of this hollow earth hoo-haa. But, if you disagree then you are no better than the turd-on-a-sheep's-ass analogy I used earlier.

So, which is it?

[thedivinetruth]

The hollow earth is what we would call a black hole. It is a portal. As in every living molecule there is a center. It is a part of the tetrahedron theory. If everything is made of the structure of a tetrahedron, then there are infinite tetrahedron expanding- getting bigger and contracting-getting smaller. So the center of the earth is where the tetrahedron structures of infinite contracting concept and infinite expanding concept of the earth meet. The Sun has one as well. Therefore, if we find the center of our own molecules then there is unlimited things we could achieve.

[thetonic]

Do you understand?


I think the easiest thing to understand is that youve switched dogmatic religious ideas for an easy swap to dogmatic science ruling your belief system...Same story , different book. Youre more of a 'fundie' than some of the christians that harp on this forum.

Youre greatly stifling yourself by pretending that you know when you dont know a damn thing about the center of the earth or gravity... You make the illuminati proud for accepting their programming so blindly.

[metacomet]

But what about big things?


Is a planet with giant empty pockets (subteranean continents) not big enough for you to imagine it having gravity???

Or are you thinking selectively because hollow earth wasn't taught to you in school text books?

It's the latter.

you'll agree with the impossiblity of this hollow earth hoo-haa.

I already explained how hollow earth concepts can fit with accepted theory.

You are the one (among others) who needs to insist it's all impossible. Science has almost nothing to do with the impossibility of hollow earth... it's all about the Dogma of other people and their inability to consider these concepts.


But, if you disagree then you are no better than the turd-on-a-sheep's-ass analogy I used earlier.

Yeah, I've seen you use the 'turd-on-a-sheep's-ass' terminology in other threads. Is it supposed to put extra weight on your arguments or are you just resorting to schoolyard bullshit???

"if you don't agree with me you're stupid." Well, you happen to be wrong , so I am going to go ahead and disagree with you and let you call me stupid.

[metacomet]

The hollow earth is what we would call a black hole. It is a portal.
....
The Sun has one as well. Therefore, if we find the center of our own molecules then there is unlimited things we could achieve.

Thank you.

It's unfortunate these concepts are still way outside of the accepted scientific curriculum...

but then, we can't expect people to be taught they are quantum stars and existing in an interdimensional hologram called 'earth' can we?

[2013]

Jesus said the kingdom of heaven was within as well didn't he according to the book anyway.so maybe he meant it literally .As above so below indeed .Although my fathers kingdom is not of this world could suggest otherwise maybe it still could refer to inner earth .Still just a play on words .:D Perhaps as was stated here if the earth is a torus then perhaps as the movement of energy thru it expands and contracts that could explain the emergence of civilizations and consciousness and the diminishing of it as well in cycles as we move over the surface area inner or outer and back around again ?:D

[deadskinball]

...still way outside of the accepted scientific curriculum...

ooh i wonder whay that is so?

:p

[metacomet]

I think the easiest thing to understand is that youve switched dogmatic religious ideas for an easy swap to dogmatic science ruling your belief system...Same story , different book. Youre more of a 'fundie' than some of the christians that harp on this forum.

Youre greatly stifling yourself by pretending that you know when you dont know a damn thing about the center of the earth or gravity... You make the illuminati proud for accepting their programming so blindly.

Now that was just a harsh burn.

But quite my point :o

[metacomet]

ooh i wonder whay that is so?

:p

The concept of 'black holes' being in the center of everything being unaccepted scientific curriculum?

Well I'll explain nice and simple for you...

We are the product of extradimensional objects imploding upon themselves. Quantum physics is tip-toeing around this at the moment, if you insist on a scientific arena.

The other membranes and realities which collapse upon themself to create this one exist on the other side of observable material existence. Scientific field is not even close to being able to observe this, or even explain it coherently. This is why it wasn't in your gradeschool textbook, but was known by someone like Jesus.

[adimon]

I have been doing alot of research into the hollow earth thoery lately and i have come accross a passage in the Bible i think supports this.
Philippians Chapter 2 verse 10
"That at the name of Jesus every kneww should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth."
What do you guys think?

It doesnt how much scriptural evidence you could provide for a theory, to corroborate a theory you have to investigate it properly. Researchers have used sound waves to demonstrate that the earth is not hollow. This in itself is not conclusive, but its stronger than random unverified accounts, such as Icke's claim that there are hidden catacombs under the Grand Canyon.

[deadskinball]

The concept of 'black holes' being in the center of everything being unaccepted scientific curriculum?

Well I'll explain nice and simple for you...

We are the product of extradimensional objects imploding upon themselves. Quantum physics is tip-toeing around this at the moment, if you insist on a scientific arena.

The other membranes and realities which collapse upon themself to create this one exist on the other side of observable material existence. Scientific field is not even close to being able to observe this, or even explain it coherently. This is why it wasn't in your gradeschool textbook, but was known by someone like Jesus.

Damn it. You didn't bite! ;)

I'll agree with you their but my knowledge of such branes is not too involved. I'll just sit back and let 'the boffins' work something out a bit more. hopefully everyones idea can be heard and then after the chaff has been seived, then we may have more sound theories. I'd be guessing the LHC would have alot to do with this.

I think you are getting bit ahead of yourself here as well:

"exist on the other side of observable material existence"

materiel existence?

So, if its not material then its ethereal? Sorry, but until you you step out of your box which is our existenace here on this rock then you don't have any more more say then any ordinary joe.

Oh, and the jesux thing. Known by him? heheheh yeah, becasue its written in the bible....

Once again, you hinge your credibility on an old fashioned, regurgitatied, irrelevant book. oh please.

Hmm, lets see. Do this:

Walk into the LHC complex clutching your bible in your sweaty white knuckled hand and tell the scientists there that if they look towards the bible they may find something worthy of quantum principal since this jeebus fellow knew about it all.

then DO this:

Tell us how long it took for the guys in white coats to come and take you away.

---

But I digress, you started off what you were saying in that above quote quite well, then as soon as you mentioned jeesus you made a fool of yourself. Just like you'd make a fool of yourself if you mention jeebus in any Royal Society (whichever there may be around your locality).

Ditch the jeesux bothering and your stupid bible and then you may fully appreciated the difficulty that is scientific advancement. You are holding yourself back by acknowledging such irrelevant tripe which is the bible.

You head is screwed on right (the above quote proves that) but you have marbles rattling around inside.

[deadskinball]

The hollow earth is what we would call a black hole. It is a portal.

A black hole is not a hole at all.

FFS

The "hole" is only called that becasue the gravity is so damn strong that it sucks in -everything-.

Is is NOT a hole.

Imagine the earth. Now triple its mass but keep it in same area. You have just tripled the density, thus increased the gravity as well. Since this stronger pulling earth can now pull things from a further distacne towards itself, the 'heavier' it becomes and the denser. Keep doing this for a 'million years' and the density becomes so high that the stuff already there on the planet get squashed even further, thus gravity increases further, then more stuff gets sucked in, becomes heavier and denser still and gravity increases even more and so on and so on adnuseum eventually it will start sucking in photon because it gravity is so strong.

So...

Where is our planet which is now super dense we call it a black hole?

Still there!

(but maybe the size of a pinhead, but its still there). And not a hole like hollywood would like you to believe.

[miracles]

Why are there so many hoaxes perpetrated and promoted by religious believers?

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

http://www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.asp

Lies to promote religion. Same as it ever was....

Well mate, the story about the bloke who evidently bored into hell, I myself, dont put a heck of a lot of stock in, scripture is my guide. The link I provided has lots of biblical scripture about hell, and also the solution to guarantee that no human being need ever end up there. Thats all Im concerened about.
There are so called "Christians" on these threads who will tell you there is no such place as hell. The biblical fact of the matter is that there is, and Christ died on the cross to save us from going there. This is what salvation is, so get saved brother, get saved. Otherwise why would be need a saviour if there wasnt something particularly nasty that we needed to be saved from?


God bless you. :D

[miracles]

hold on a second....

The OP mentioned that hollow earth is a possiblity because there is vague reference to such in the bible, and now we have bible botherers giving weight to the thought of a hollow earth because the magic words "written in the bible".

Ah, CLICK!!

I am ashamed of myself that I did not pick up that earlier.

"I'm slippin' man, I'm slippin"

---

Well, where do I start?

I guess pointing to a wealth of articles a few clicks away isn't a viable option because you guys said so : rolleyes eye a bit more carefully : so wikipedia is out ofthe picture for easily accessable learning with layman terminology. Well where does that leave us? I don't know since I could suggest re-enrollling into an elementary school to learn about planets and shit, but I would have suggested a frontal lobotomy for you all instead. Its musch easier!

Now, once again, LEARN about the stuff before you consider hollow earth a viable item.

But I still won't get thru to you all, maybe some. So I'll ask these questions for those that keep insisting that hollow earth is possible?

- Hollow is thought to be empty, no? Like a place filled with gas, for example? (because it definitely ain't a vacuum! ). Well, with the weight of all the rocks and water and stuff, what holds it all up and not collapsing on itself?
- If a volcano is a fissure within this crust, then its a weak spot. If this weak spot were to be under the deeper parts of the worlds oceans, then what is stopping the water gurgling down this fissure like water gushing down the drain hole like in a bath?
- Since its common knowledge that we have a dense mostly iron core inside the earth and that gives rise to the magnetic field we have around the planet, what is the cause of this magnetic field if the earth is hollow, that is, missing an iron core?
- Caves and the extensive of it all does not indicate a hollow earth. It has no bearing on the idea of hollow earth, or even a large scoped out area underneath the crust, for example that they are large areas under the crust filedl with oil and natural gas. If, for example, such a cavernous area was emptied, would the crust collapse from the top down, or would it collapse from the bottom outwards and upward towards the surface even if it didn't show any deformity on the surface?


You're slipping current tense? Arent you being a little presumptuous with the truth there? Slipped maybe, :D

[miracles]

Damn it. You didn't bite! ;)

I'll agree with you their but my knowledge of such branes is not too involved. I'll just sit back and let 'the boffins' work something out a bit more. hopefully everyones idea can be heard and then after the chaff has been seived, then we may have more sound theories. I'd be guessing the LHC would have alot to do with this.

I think you are getting bit ahead of yourself here as well:

"exist on the other side of observable material existence"

materiel existence?

So, if its not material then its ethereal? Sorry, but until you you step out of your box which is our existenace here on this rock then you don't have any more more say then any ordinary joe.

Oh, and the jesux thing. Known by him? heheheh yeah, becasue its written in the bible....

Once again, you hinge your credibility on an old fashioned, regurgitatied, irrelevant book. oh please.

Hmm, lets see. Do this:

Walk into the LHC complex clutching your bible in your sweaty white knuckled hand and tell the scientists there that if they look towards the bible they may find something worthy of quantum principal since this jeebus fellow knew about it all.

then DO this:

Tell us how long it took for the guys in white coats to come and take you away.

---

But I digress, you started off what you were saying in that above quote quite well, then as soon as you mentioned jeesus you made a fool of yourself. Just like you'd make a fool of yourself if you mention jeebus in any Royal Society (whichever there may be around your locality).

Ditch the jeesux bothering and your stupid bible and then you may fully appreciated the difficulty that is scientific advancement. You are holding yourself back by acknowledging such irrelevant tripe which is the bible.

You head is screwed on right (the above quote proves that) but you have marbles rattling around inside.


Royal society? I thought all royals where reptiles disguised in humanoid from? No wonder there anoid by bible carrying humanoids! I'd be anoid too, because they aren't getting any of the credit for anything. I wonder what they think of the crocodile dundee films by the way? But thats off topic sorry.

Hey? Have any scientific genius's been able to figure out how our planet and other planets and stars n all are held up by absolutely nothing yet? I can't even get a balloon to hold up in the same place for a second let alone for 14.5 billion years.

[thedivinetruth]

A black hole is not a hole at all.

FFS

The "hole" is only called that becasue the gravity is so damn strong that it sucks in -everything-.

Is is NOT a hole.

Imagine the earth. Now triple its mass but keep it in same area. You have just tripled the density, thus increased the gravity as well. Since this stronger pulling earth can now pull things from a further distacne towards itself, the 'heavier' it becomes and the denser. Keep doing this for a 'million years' and the density becomes so high that the stuff already there on the planet get squashed even further, thus gravity increases further, then more stuff gets sucked in, becomes heavier and denser still and gravity increases even more and so on and so on adnuseum eventually it will start sucking in photon because it gravity is so strong.

So...

Where is our planet which is now super dense we call it a black hole?

Still there!

(but maybe the size of a pinhead, but its still there). And not a hole like hollywood would like you to believe.

Deadskinball-
Our universe is contracting and expanding at the same time for there to be equilibrium. So whatever matter/energy gets sucked through intrademinsional portal (center of the earth) the same amount of energy is coming out. However, there is just enough vaccum effect to keep us grounded which we call gravity. The center of the earth is merely just where contractionism meets expansionism.
If every cell has a hollow center than Earth would probably be a cell for something larger. Just like the cells that co-exist within us, the cells of our solar system and universe would all work together as well. That is why we are connected to everything and everything is connected to us. Just imagine if we all could attune ourselves on the micro-atomic level through prayers and meditation.
P.S. I believe you are correct about the size of the portal being to big as depicted in movies like "the journey to the center of earth". However maybe they went through the hole and back into time or into another dimension. I would think that the center of the Earth would be bigger than a pin head though because it would probably fit spacecraft through it. (UFOS)

[manxboz]

hold on a second....

The OP mentioned that hollow earth is a possiblity because there is vague reference to such in the bible, and now we have bible botherers giving weight to the thought of a hollow earth because the magic words "written in the bible".

Ah, CLICK!!

I am ashamed of myself that I did not pick up that earlier.

"I'm slippin' man, I'm slippin"

---

Well, where do I start?

I guess pointing to a wealth of articles a few clicks away isn't a viable option because you guys said so : rolleyes eye a bit more carefully : so wikipedia is out ofthe picture for easily accessable learning with layman terminology. Well where does that leave us? I don't know since I could suggest re-enrollling into an elementary school to learn about planets and shit, but I would have suggested a frontal lobotomy for you all instead. Its musch easier!

Now, once again, LEARN about the stuff before you consider hollow earth a viable item.

But I still won't get thru to you all, maybe some. So I'll ask these questions for those that keep insisting that hollow earth is possible?

- Hollow is thought to be empty, no? Like a place filled with gas, for example? (because it definitely ain't a vacuum! ). Well, with the weight of all the rocks and water and stuff, what holds it all up and not collapsing on itself?
- If a volcano is a fissure within this crust, then its a weak spot. If this weak spot were to be under the deeper parts of the worlds oceans, then what is stopping the water gurgling down this fissure like water gushing down the drain hole like in a bath?
- Since its common knowledge that we have a dense mostly iron core inside the earth and that gives rise to the magnetic field we have around the planet, what is the cause of this magnetic field if the earth is hollow, that is, missing an iron core?
- Caves and the extensive of it all does not indicate a hollow earth. It has no bearing on the idea of hollow earth, or even a large scoped out area underneath the crust, for example that they are large areas under the crust filedl with oil and natural gas. If, for example, such a cavernous area was emptied, would the crust collapse from the top down, or would it collapse from the bottom outwards and upward towards the surface even if it didn't show any deformity on the surface?

Well ok then but what i said was the bible supports the hollow earth theory and not a vague ref but many, also in other holy books, folklore and myths are there mentioned an inside earth.We should look into these myths more as all myths have a tiny bit of truth i believe.

[zero1]

There's a lot goes on under our feet as we walk the surface of this many-faceted, laden-with-secrets planet. ;)

[metacomet]

So, if its not material then its ethereal?

The immaterial? I have no idea what to call it.

They've been calling it 'dark matter' for a while... if that helps you.



Oh, and the jesux thing. Known by him? heheheh yeah, becasue its written in the bible....

I only mention Jesus because he has parables pointing to the higher dimensional influences in life. He and Buddha, among many other icons for all the religions you people hate :rolleyes:

You are holding yourself back by acknowledging such irrelevant tripe which is the bible.

You really have no argument whatsoever except "EEWW JESUS EWW BIBLE *spit* "

Come back when you can acknowledge the points I have made. Hollow earth is not just about the earth being hollow, it's about other worlds/realities which are close to this one. If you were to find an 'entrance' on this planet and go 'inside' you would assume you were on the inside of the earth but actually were in a parallel or alternate reality.

Hollow earth is a theory made up to explain why people have told stories of going inside the earth and seeing other worlds. The truth could be something totally different.

This is just like Biblical scripture, if you take everything literally and can't see the possibilities behind accounts you won't come to any real conclusions.

I have tied together intricate stuff and because the word Bible is used this information will be ignored.

[deadskinball]

Royal society?

I'm not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about.

UK based (http://royalsociety.org)

[deadskinball]

I think the easiest thing to understand is that youve switched dogmatic religious ideas for an easy swap to dogmatic science ruling your belief system

If you say so.

I'd like to think that evidence has alot more weight to an argument than someone's interpretation of the event.

If you think 'hot air' opinion and evidence based scientific advanced are on the same page, then you don't understand what a belief system is nor you don;'t understand how science works.

Hey, get back to me when you finally understand it.

[deadskinball]

Is a planet with giant empty pockets (subteranean continents) not big enough for you to imagine it having gravity???

Continent sized?

Like american continent sized?

:D

oh my, i think my IQ is being eroded by posting in this thread.

But I'll give you one question:

What is holding up the 'roof'

[metacomet]

I'd like to think that evidence has alot more weight to an argument than someone's interpretation of the event.

Present your evidence that there are no subterranean continents. Present your evidence of a solid core planet with no pockets.

Of course, you don't base your beliefs on evidence, because there is no evidence to those theories. You base your belief on Dogma and acceptance of status quo information. This is why 99% of people don't know the nature of reality or this planet.

[deadskinball]

Our universe is contracting and xpanding at the same time for there to be equilibrium.

OMG...

I think I need to plug my nose. I felt my brain starting to dribble out of it!!

Our universe is contracting and xpanding at the same time for there to be equilibrium.

The universe is expanding. Period.

[metacomet]

The universe is expanding. Period.

You're right, the physical universe expands and we observe this in space.

What does consciousness and the immaterial universe do? It contracts. Infinitely.

Guess where? Between your eyes.

But, this is icky spiritual knowledge ... icky jesus hippy stuff, yuck! Right?

[deadskinball]

Well ok then but what i said was the bible supports the hollow earth theory and not a vague ref but many, also in other holy books, folklore and myths are there mentioned an inside earth.We should look into these myths more as all myths have a tiny bit of truth i believe.

A sane post....

*pinches self*

Yes, and when the understanding relevant to that era, reletive to our understanding of things today, you must keep in check their idea of it and their INTERTPRETATION of said event(s) and teaching.

...but not just accept old shit as fact (like some others here with their bad habits). Thankyou.

[deadskinball]

You're right, the physical universe expands and we observe this in space.

What does consciousness and the immaterial universe do? It contracts. Infinitely.

Guess where? Between your eyes.

But, this is icky spiritual knowledge ... icky jesus hippy stuff, yuck! Right?

I read your stuff and I cannot help but think that you want there to be something. When I listen to waves crashing on the sandy beach with my toes dug under the hot sand and the wind tickling my nasal hairs (lol), I feel and sense of calm and relax. But I don't think that I'm achieving a higher sense of being becasue I feel good about it all even to the point of getting goose-bumps?

I think you would.

I think (this is a long-shot since i know you are intelligent) that you have a need to be like that. I don't not know what your life is like, but those which have less an ideal surrounding tend to loose themselves into the occasion to escape thier reality.

and possibly search of a higher meaning.

and possibly search in out more.

and possibly have it encroach on their physical existence.

and possibly do it so much they loose the distinction between the two.

[metacomet]

I read your stuff and I cannot help but think that you want there to be something.

To be what?

Existence is everywhere, I don't have to want anything. You're just trying to pin me down as a religious zealot of some sort because that's your only tactic, mate.

*yawn* Come back when you have actual rebuttals the points made in this thread. Get off your high horse, I have demonstrated more logic and scientific tact in this thread than you have.

[thedivinetruth]

OMG...

I think I need to plug my nose. I felt my brain starting to dribble out of it!!



The universe is expanding. Period.

Maybe you should let your brain fall out so you could listen to your intuition more. :) kidding

But seriously you say its just expanding because thats all that you can visualize and understand. If something is infinite then it can get infinetly smaller and bigger, when it gets smaller it contracts. That is the problem with many of the scientist theories. They cant seem to grasp the whole infinte smaller thing. Why do you think something cannot get infinitely smaller?

Our dimension is just at the right frequency to where we lie right in between the expanding dimension and contracting dimension. As are the other dimensions relative to there frequencies.

Your physical body lets you expand out as a human being, and your spiritual body lets you contract inwards from your physical body so that you can be at your highest consciousness awareness.

As for subcontinentals its hard to determine the true theory. My theory is that there may have been ancients that journeyed to the center (bible, sciptures, etc...) and they went through the blackhole and teleported to another dimension or planet and just thought it was a subcontinent. But who knows its just a theory as is everything else. It is a theory to even say that there is no hollow earth because nothing has been proven.

[deadskinball]

To be what?

Existence is everywhere, I don't have to want anything. You're just trying to pin me down as a religious zealot of some sort because that's your only tactic, mate.

*yawn* Come back when you have actual rebuttals the points made in this thread. Get off your high horse, I have demonstrated more logic and scientific tact in this thread than you have.

So, you'd like to answer that question?

"What's holding up the 'roof'"?

---

Logic only goes so far as the reality you know. I'd wager I know a fuckload more about our physical existence and our reality than you'd ever find in your crystal ball... mate.

Hmm...

REALity

REAL

yep, not head-in-clouds.

[deadskinball]

So, you'd like to answer that question?

"What's holding up the 'roof'"?


*crickets*

[manxboz]

oh my, i think my IQ is being eroded by posting in this thread.


Don't get ahead of yourself!
do you know what a theory is?
It means it's not proven or disproven. All i'm saying is that this text among others supports the theory.

[kesdin]

Ok to all of the hollow earth supporters I have a few questions.

How does a continent sized space in the center of earth support the weight of millions of tons of rock so it doesn't collapse inward?

If gravity pushes us in one direction up here, why would this be different down below in hollow earth?

Have you actually taken your theory a step further and gone out to do in field research like the geologists who provide you with data in this way?

Are all of the arguments that support this theory picked from random research and imaginative story-telling?

The explanation of how planets form so far involve particles and gravity. These particles collide into each other and soon form a big ball of a planet.

How does the gravity from this process cause the core of the earth to hollow out?
Imagine that you were in space and you could get a planet size amount of sand. Now imagine you slowly throw the sand out there and in a ball and you keep stacking the sand. The only way the sand would stick to each other is gravity. It is hard to imagine how you could get a hollow core from this process.

Can I talk to a hollow earth believer that has actually gone out in the field with earth piercing sound radar and so forth and that has actual in-field data?

Thank You

[manxboz]

Ok to all of the hollow earth supporters I have a few questions.

How does a continent sized space in the center of earth support the weight of millions of tons of rock so it doesn't collapse inward?

If gravity pushes us in one direction up here, why would this be different down below in hollow earth?

Have you actually taken your theory a step further and gone out to do in field research like the geologists who provide you with data in this way?

Are all of the arguments that support this theory picked from random research and imaginative story-telling?

The explanation of how planets form so far involve particles and gravity. These particles collide into each other and soon form a big ball of a planet.

How does the gravity from this process cause the core of the earth to hollow out?
Imagine that you were in space and you could get a planet size amount of sand. Now imagine you slowly throw the sand out there and in a ball and you keep stacking the sand. The only way the sand would stick to each other is gravity. It is hard to imagine how you could get a hollow core from this process.

Can I talk to a hollow earth believer that has actually gone out in the field with earth piercing sound radar and so forth and that has actual in-field data?

Thank You

Very good post. Mr D.Icke supports the hollow earth theory and has mentioned it in several of his books. It works like your washing machine, all the force (centifuge) pushs the clothes to the side, the Earth spins at such a speed all matriel inside would be pushed to the side while the gravity on the outside pushes in therefore stablising the Earth. Until someone digs a really big hole and finds the core or the hollow Earth neither side will put this arugement to bed.

[thedivinetruth]

Manxbox if that is the case then how do we know we are not in the center of the Earth?

[supersmell]

Hey? Have any scientific genius's been able to figure out how our planet and other planets and stars n all are held up by absolutely nothing yet? I can't even get a balloon to hold up in the same place for a second let alone for 14.5 billion years.
There's nothing to be held up from. Nothing in the universe isn't moving at incredible speeds.

The effects of gravity in the macroscopic world are completely understood, so it can be used to show that we wouldn't be able to have a planet with as much mass as we know we do if the earth was hollow.

But seriously you say its just expanding because thats all that you can visualize and understand. If something is infinite then it can get infinetly smaller and bigger, when it gets smaller it contracts. That is the problem with many of the scientist theories. They cant seem to grasp the whole infinte smaller thing. Why do you think something cannot get infinitely smaller?

They probably break out l'Hôpital's rule and find an actual value.

[gripit]

The hollow earth is what we would call a black hole. It is a portal. As in every living molecule there is a center. It is a part of the tetrahedron theory. If everything is made of the structure of a tetrahedron, then there are infinite tetrahedron expanding- getting bigger and contracting-getting smaller. So the center of the earth is where the tetrahedron structures of infinite contracting concept and infinite expanding concept of the earth meet. The Sun has one as well. Therefore, if we find the center of our own molecules then there is unlimited things we could achieve.

As good a theory as any ;)

[herushura]

The bible was written by astrological priest, they had no idea of what is under the earth. Hell is just an illusion, a place in which ancient though the sunset the sun was entering the underword - Hell - Shoel Ect.

[guuna]

Are you wanting to only accept what is said only after some one see its with their own eyes? *

Its like that murder scenario which pieces of the puzzle are laid out and one must make the conclusion based on the evidence left behind. What happens when it close to being solved but edit: NO ONE actually saw the murder take place. Are you saying that the murder cannot ever be solved because no-one did see the murder take place with their own very eyes?

Well, if you your answer is no, then why do you say what you have said in the mini-quote above?




If I had a dollar for every freakin' time I had to expalin the difference between "theory pulled out of someone's ass", and scientific theory...

Please stop giving me a reason to laugh at you.



Why don't you take your own personal incredulality and work towards learning something.

"oh whoa is me... its all to complicated"

To you and the OP: There are -many- things known about planetary formation, abut our own planet and such. I'd suggest you learn something. Google and wikipedia would be a good start. The more you learn about it the more you'll see how utterly ridiculous a hollow earth idea really is.

But I like to have proofs as well BUT I will not make you drink the water, for I'll only lead you there with this question:

Work out the gravitation pull of the earth for:
- a hollow earth (eg: a crust of 200km (160mi) thick) <-- typical claims of hollow-earthers.
- a dense earth.
JSYK, mass and density are things that give rise to gravity. Garavity is a direct result of 'big' things.



Not really, but we aren't talking about how things actually formed which regards to the various types of planets out there. That is, geology in the study of rocks. A gas giant doesn't have rocks! You cannot apply geology to such planets and that was not my point to lead you in that direction.



see *

Add one concrete minded disinfo stooge to the ignore list.

[nialldabass]

A sane post....

*pinches self*

Yes, and when the understanding relevant to that era, reletive to our understanding of things today, you must keep in check their idea of it and their INTERTPRETATION of said event(s) and teaching.

...but not just accept old shit as fact (like some others here with their bad habits). Thankyou.

Can you explain how the Ancients of this world built all the megalithic structures? Because we can not do it today even with all our superior knowledge, can you explain how they understood the universe enough to have calander spanning many thousands of years? We are only now able to do with computers what these peoples could do. And what infact is gravity because even that is only theory at the moment and one of the most recent theories is that it is leaking from a different dimension, so maybe mass is not so important.
I dont think there is a Hollow earth myself but wouldnt it be great if there was, and surely this is what pushes education forward. We would of been calling Galileo mad if we were educated men back then, and how stupid will we all look in 500 years time for the ignorant fools we are:D

[deadskinball]

Don't get ahead of yourself!
do you know what a theory is?
It means it's not proven or disproven. All i'm saying is that this text among others supports the theory.

Support the theory?

No, and it doesn't even support the theory if said theory was pulled-out-of-ass becasue thats all the hollow-earthers have to work with.

A scientific theory is a collection of facts. Which facts pertain to a hollow earth? Field studies, perhaps? Maybe someone has seismic charts with anamalous readings which may indicate somethings not right?

So far not one piece of evidence supporting a hollow earth has been provided. Heck, the easiest one would be to find strange seismology. Do you have some data?

[deadskinball]

Very good post. Mr D.Icke supports the hollow earth theory and has mentioned it in several of his books. It works like your washing machine, all the force (centifuge) pushs the clothes to the side, the Earth spins at such a speed all matriel inside would be pushed to the side while the gravity on the outside pushes in therefore stablising the Earth. Until someone digs a really big hole and finds the core or the hollow Earth neither side will put this arugement to bed.

IF the center-of-gravity of the earth is offset towards the denser part. This would make a prononced wobble to the point of maybe cracking the surface (my opinion). The wobble would be due to the inertia that a large mass has. Although out planet does have a wobble, it is due to the land mass above: the moon. It would also pull the moon towards the denser part and possibly 'hold' it there longer than usual for its cyclic progression. (not opinion but fact).

---

Gravity does not push in. You fail to understand what gravity is.

...so it comes as no surprise that you give creedance to the possibility of a hollow earth.

Fail.

.

[deadskinball]

Add one concrete minded disinfo stooge to the ignore list.

"stooge"

What a strong word which I have taken offence.


It does get tedious trying to drill knowledge and common sense into dim wits so thank yourself perpetuating your ignorance of science.

[deadskinball]

Can you explain how the Ancients of this world built all the megalithic structures?

Such as?

I'll choose .... hmmm....: Pyramids!!!

Look for a spiral loop on the outside of the brickwork slowly going upwards towards the peak. The corners should have the tell-tale 'brick turning' clear areas. Once completed, then the outside brickwork was slotted into a patchwork type facade.

I'll choose: Stonehenge!!

A pivot is a wonderful thing, and so is digging holes in the ground and offset weights. Youtube for more!

I'll choose: ......no YOU choose one for me.

Because we can not do it today even with all our superior knowledge

Incredaulness should be a crime.


can you explain how they understood the universe enough to have calander spanning many thousands of years?

and this has something to do with a hollow earth?

what infact is gravity because even that is only theory at the moment and one of the most recent theories is that it is leaking from a different dimension

My theory is that it forms from fat people becasue they are so big. And its only a theory at the moment.

Please make the distinction between a scientific theory and pull-out-of-ass-theory... then try again to explain yourself with that regard.

I dont think there is a Hollow earth myself but wouldnt it be great if there was, and surely this is what pushes education forward.

Well if there was a hollow earth we would have found evidence for it as soon as we understood how seismic waves travel through certain mediums. People love to jump to conclusions but don't really understand the basics. The basics are not learning a rocketry doctorate just to launch a bottle rocket, mind you, but just enough to understand the world we live on (not in).

[deadskinball]

Scientific theory is theory...

THEORY . Not proven. Theoretical.

OH MY, I must of missed this.



Learn this please:

A scientific theory is made up of facts and theoretical elements.



You play the word "theory" it like its black and white. You see the word "Theory" and you automatically think that everything under that certain umbrella is just guesswork... which is not better than just saying "its just a theory, like some has just guessed"

LOL

Even after you try and explain to me what a theory is within scientific circles you STILL cannot grasp it.

and you STILL fail.

[nialldabass]

Such as?

I'll choose .... hmmm....: Pyramids!!!

Look for a spiral loop on the outside of the brickwork slowly going upwards towards the peak. The corners should have the tell-tale 'brick turning' clear areas. Once completed, then the outside brickwork was slotted into a patchwork type facade.

I'll choose: Stonehenge!!

A pivot is a wonderful thing, and so is digging holes in the ground and offset weights. Youtube for more!

I'll choose: ......no YOU choose one for me.



Incredaulness should be a crime.




and this has something to do with a hollow earth?



My theory is that it forms from fat people becasue they are so big. And its only a theory at the moment.

Please make the distinction between a scientific theory and pull-out-of-ass-theory... then try again to explain yourself with that regard.



Well if there was a hollow earth we would have found evidence for it as soon as we understood how seismic waves travel through certain mediums. People love to jump to conclusions but don't really understand the basics. The basics are not learning a rocketry doctorate just to launch a bottle rocket, mind you, but just enough to understand the world we live on (not in).

Ah but it is all relative to the limited knowledge we are allowed to hold as true, at this moment. Todays truth will be tomorrows joke, and as I say I dont think the earth is hollow, but we are no smarter as human beings than we ever have been, despite how much we like to think otherwise. We have lost far more knowledge than we think. And on the subject of the pyramids or stonehenge, Im not pretending that man did not build them or he had magic powers, but that knowledge is lost to us, and i think you picked two of the easier examples, and I have no problem with your arguments just your stubborn dogma and lack of respect for ancient knowledge, which was my reason for posting in the first place.

[deadskinball]

Todays truth will be tomorrows joke

If those "truths" are still under debate, then I'd hope they are tomorrows facts as long as they are worthy, or tomorrows falsity if proven to be fraudulent.



Stubborn yes, Dogma no.

I'm a realist. Science does not work with subjective things. Emotions or gut feelings don't impart any influence on the facts, and spirituality does not give a bigger meaning to more morally correct results (as some here believe). Facts are facts. If such facts makes someone uncomfortable then who cares, if someone says those facts are wrong, then they damn well better give us the evidence to prove it wrong so science can change it and progress one little step forward. Many of the religious types willdisagree with scientific findings and say its wrong, but don't bother to back their words up with evidence... and then expect the scientific establishment to take them seriously. HA! Those that think that way with their religious undertones should STFU and GTFO.

---

Under the facade of the pyramids, in the corners, are sections which the stone blocks were turned. Each side of the pyramid had slopes going up to the "next" level (stone turning section) until the top. There was evidence found that such grindings (rotating of blocks on poles) marked the stoneblocks underfoot. There is evidence... evidence of wooden poles and stone grindings from the weight of the block etc.. (google!!). There is NO evidence yet of alien intervention with construction of the pyramids. I'll give you one guess which holds more relevance in scientific circles.
(HINT: which one has evidence?)

[dankai]

This is awesome. Never thought of this theory until I saw this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

This video is a Neal Adams animation about his theory that the Earth is growing. This collides with the Pangea theory. Watch it, you will be amazed.

[manxboz]

Support the theory?

No, and it doesn't even support the theory if said theory was pulled-out-of-ass becasue thats all the hollow-earthers have to work with.

A scientific theory is a collection of facts. Which facts pertain to a hollow earth? Field studies, perhaps? Maybe someone has seismic charts with anamalous readings which may indicate somethings not right?

So far not one piece of evidence supporting a hollow earth has been provided. Heck, the easiest one would be to find strange seismology. Do you have some data?

I just think that you hate anything that doesn't fit into your logic and that makes you close minded. You need to think outside the box to become awakend.

[manxboz]

Oh and hears so scientific 'proof' for you.

http://www.geocities.com/area51/shadowlands/6583/under012.html

[deadskinball]

Oh and hears so scientific 'proof' for you.

http://www.geocities.com/area51/shadowlands/6583/under012.html

Are you being funny or are you serious with that link?

[deadskinball]

I just think that you hate anything that doesn't fit into your logic and that makes you close minded. You need to think outside the box to become awakend.

Awakened?

Is that like jeesux-freaks saying I need to be saved?

Geez, your life must suck if you cannot live it to the full 'here and now' and need some 'higher force' or 'higher existance'. Sorry, but my life is good, why do you think i need to lower my self down to your level?

[supersmell]

This is awesome. Never thought of this theory until I saw this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

This video is a Neal Adams animation about his theory that the Earth is growing. This collides with the Pangea theory. Watch it, you will be amazed.

I'll never understand how some people can write so much without bothering to think about what he's saying. I read the 24 point summary, and 1/3rd of the points were pure fantasy, and the other 2/3rds showed the guy doesn't have any understanding of physics.

[rydeon]

I'll never understand how some people can write so much without bothering to think about what he's saying. I read the 24 point summary, and 1/3rd of the points were pure fantasy, and the other 2/3rds showed the guy doesn't have any understanding of physics.

Keep an open mind, the laws of physics aren't set in stone...

[manxboz]

Are you being funny or are you serious with that link?

Why don't you check it out? Of course i'm being serious.

[supersmell]

Keep an open mind, the laws of physics aren't set in stone...

If there was any reason to believe that one of the laws of physics wasn't correct then that law would be trashed. But that's irrelevant anyway, the guy who wrote that article was trying to use the laws of physics as they are currently understood to prove his point.

[metacomet]

If there was any reason to believe that one of the laws of physics wasn't correct then that law would be trashed.

Thank you for demonstrating the very lack of understanding I was on about earlier in the thread.

Gravity and many other forces of physics operate on theory and they cannot be 'proven' the way you people seem to think. Never the less Gravity has to be represented in physics formulae - because it's always there.

That doesn't mean we understand what Gravity is or what it really does. So... you're wrong.

But that's irrelevant anyway, the guy who wrote that article was trying to use the laws of physics as they are currently understood to prove his point.

As I already said, physics has lots of forces that are mysterious but must be represented somehow.

You are bashing the guy for using physics as they are 'currently understood'...

why?

Because you skeptics have lost the plot, that's why. It's all about sticking your noses in the air and pretending you know what the scientific consensus is :rolleyes:.

Then someone like me has to come along and correct you...

[metacomet]

So far not one piece of evidence supporting a hollow earth has been provided. Heck, the easiest one would be to find strange seismology. Do you have some data?

Again, more talking as-if-you-know-what-you-are-talking-about.

Well, you don't.

Seismology cannot detect composition of the earth more than a couple miles down.

Stop making things up to sound scientific, people. You do not know what questions to ask yet you seem to think you already have answers.

[metacomet]

Stubborn yes, Dogma no.


I've already caught you red handed relying on Dogma in this thread.

Try again.


I'm a realist. Science does not work with subjective things. Emotions or gut feelings don't impart any influence on the facts, and spirituality does not give a bigger meaning

Who mentioned spirituality, emotions, etc?

And how is a Hollow Earth theory in any way 'subjective'?

Are you just pulling phrases and easy arguments out of a box?

I think it might help if some of you posters graduated HighSchool before tackling these issues..

It never ceases to amaze me the attitude kids portray now-a-days about Science... you can't simply walk around waving this 'science stick' in arguments and expect it to work. You need to have a basic understanding of what physics is and how theories are accepted in this field. Stop talking out your asses.

[guuna]

I seriously wonder why certain people who are inclined to skepticism of Icke's ideas, actually come to a site called 'DAVID ICKE' surely the warning here is on the box. Their only objective is to try and stir up trouble with trolling.

This is not debate, it borders upon abuse. They have a simple choice not to come here. I'm certain James Randi's website would be more to their liking.

[metacomet]

I seriously wonder why certain people who are inclined to skepticism of Icke's ideas, actually come to a site called 'DAVID ICKE' surely the warning here is on the box.

It's quite obvious, isn't it?

Some people find a need to join conversations or communities where they can puff their chest out and pick easy arguments.

In the conspiracy theory field : skeptics have it made. As you can see, psuedo-skeptics will prance about declaring theories to be debunked without understanding the basics of accepted theories. They love to posture themselves as being scientifically sound individuals ... when really they are hiding behind extremely shallow arguments and relying entirely on the status-quo to maintain what little integrity they might have.

[supersmell]

Thank you for demonstrating the very lack of understanding I was on about earlier in the thread.

Gravity and many other forces of physics operate on theory and they cannot be 'proven' the way you people seem to think. Never the less Gravity has to be represented in physics formulae - because it's always there.

That doesn't mean we understand what Gravity is or what it really does. So... you're wrong.
I'm not wrong. The laws of physics are known to be completely correct. We might not understand the basic mechanics of gravity and stuff like that, but there is absolutely no reason to expect them to violate any of the laws.


As I already said, physics has lots of forces that are mysterious but must be represented somehow.

You are bashing the guy for using physics as they are 'currently understood'...

why?

Because you skeptics have lost the plot, that's why. It's all about sticking your noses in the air and pretending you know what the scientific consensus is :rolleyes:.

Then someone like me has to come along and correct you...
I'm not bashing the guy for using physics as they are currently understood. For the most part I'm not bashing him for using them in a way currently understood to be wrong. I'm bashing him for coming to conclusions from the physics he uses that are not supported by the evidence.

Seismology cannot detect composition of the earth more than a couple miles down.

Stop making things up to sound scientific, people. You do not know what questions to ask yet you seem to think you already have answers.
I'd be willing to bet if the earth was hollow the seismic data from large nuclear explosions would be drastically different if the earth was hollow. The shock wave would have bounced back and forth tens or hundreds of times over the time it would take the wave to circle the earth.

I seriously wonder why certain people who are inclined to skepticism of Icke's ideas, actually come to a site called 'DAVID ICKE' surely the warning here is on the box. Their only objective is to try and stir up trouble with trolling.

This is not debate, it borders upon abuse. They have a simple choice not to come here. I'm certain James Randi's website would be more to their liking. There's a large difference between trolling and not agreeing with everything. I don't believe in most of the stuff in these forums and I'll just leave the believers alone, but there's a very narrow band of stuff here where the majority of the content is close enough to reality that it can be disproved with a basic physics, so why not spend some free time arguing against it?

[metacomet]

I'm not wrong. The laws of physics are known to be completely correct.
I said your wrong because you assume gravity and other forces are understood. You and others in here.

You call things 'completely correct' when the field of physics (especially quantum) is changing all the time. This is called Dogma. We're all guilty of it I suppose.

We might not understand the basic mechanics of gravity and stuff like that, but there is absolutely no reason to expect them to violate any of the laws.

A hollow earth theory does not negate gravity. I explained this far earlier in the thread.


I'd be willing to bet if the earth was hollow the seismic data from large nuclear explosions would be drastically different if the earth was hollow.

Maybe. Didn't I explain that seismology cannot see everything? It's extremely finite.

[supersmell]

Quantum physics might be changing, but they're not relevant to this discussion. We're discussing a system that's 5.9736 × 10^24 kg, and we know through countless experiments exactly what effect gravity has on large systems.

The guy who wrote the article claims that there would be no gravity over the polar openings, which is completely absurd. Even if you're on a bridge over a giant hole that goes all the way through the earth you're still the same distance from the same amount of mass so you would feel the same amount of gravity.

Maybe. Didn't I explain that seismology cannot see everything? It's extremely finite. I might have missed a post, but from what I've seen you've never explained it, you've just stated it. From what I've read it provides low resolution results, but it still lets us have a general idea of what's going on all the way down to the core.

[deadskinball]

Science... you can't simply walk around waving this 'science stick' in arguments and expect it to work.

Ah yes, the self proclaimed spiritualist....

What could you possibly understand about hard science when you swipe most, if not all, science off the plate because it doesn't fit in with your numerology, astrology, alchemy, etc. etc. etc. .......

Go away with you head-in-the-cloud attitude for it gets really annoying when trying to get people to think about the world we live in, yet you come in and start prattling on about some spiritual thing (which you do in just about every thread).

If you are going to say that spiritualism has relevance to scientific principals and the methods we use, then produce your evidence to the table and we'll see if what you claim is relevant, actually is.


EDIT: Seismology cannot detect composition of the earth more than a couple miles down.

Now, what did I say earlier? :

"What could you possibly understand about hard science"

See, caught you out, MetaComet. You ain't educated enough to understand. Come back and give me a PROPER rebuttal when you know how.

.

[deadskinball]

I've already caught you red handed relying on Dogma in this thread.

Dogma?

ahahahahaha

You only think its dogma because you claim everything is an illuminati plot.

[deadskinball]

I seriously wonder why certain people who are inclined to skepticism of Icke's ideas, actually come to a site called 'DAVID ICKE' surely the warning here is on the box. Their only objective is to try and stir up trouble with trolling.

WHAT?

So its trolling if we don't agree with you, but debate if we do.


NEWSFLASH: David Icke isn't the overlord of all knowledge and power and such. I'd suggest you think for yourself and not have someone do it for you.

...but you don't like my realistic attitude - I'm ON YOUR IGNORE LIST! woohoo! LOL

[metacomet]

Ah yes, the self proclaimed spiritualist....


Hahahaha... oh my oh my.

So right off the bat you're going to resort to that 'spiritualist' bullshit? Beautiful.

It's so obvious the only reason you're in here is to pick a fight with religious people... seeing as the thread title has the words 'Bible' in it and you've been excitedly trying to pick a fight with 'spiritualists' since this thread begin.



If you are going to say that spiritualism has relevance to scientific principals

I fucking Don't and I've already wasted enough time on you, bro. Please, go finish high school and come back with real science if you want to argue for science. You are using terminology in this thread that is obviously beyond your grasp and I've wasted enough time giving you vines to grasp at to include quantum physics etc. in the discussion.

You're just not having it because you don't understand what any of this actually means... and that's not your fault. Like I said, maybe you should finish school first.

[metacomet]

...but you don't like my realistic attitude - I'm ON YOUR IGNORE LIST! woohoo! LOL

Mmm... *nods thoughtfully*

Yes, I think coming back when you're over 18 would help you alot in such discussions. Maybe this forum isn't for ya.

[deadskinball]

Well, if an education scares you, please plonk me on the ignore list and stick your head back in the sand.

Here is a little just for you, metacomet (if your still tuned in)

I'm 34, a scientist 'somewhere is Sydney Australia' doing a variety of work at 'some big mega-corp with gold plated toilet handles' and always on the lookout to limit the damage religious freaks can do to our funding (oooh now there is a clue on what sort of company i work for) and to make sure my, and my fellow associates, contribution to humanity (becasue that what it is) is not limited by such whackos.

You'll read through just about all my posts about science this and science that...because its what make humanity move forwards. Not stagnate, and certainly not return to dark periods of the past.

Heck, if you think everything has some sort of extrasensory trait which only a few are privy to the inner workings then I've got some bad news.

You try to enlighten all by saying that there is more than meets the eye (inter-dimensional <whatever. ), but you don't bother to provide any evidence of such interaction of any sort.

So you, to me and many others which have their feet firmly on the ground, come across as one who has their head in the clouds. Your words have as much weight as Miracles' dogmatic words. You keep going on about quantum worldstates and similar but you don't provide a grounding to your wor(l)ds. Our ground is science if you like or not, for if you disagree, then throw your computer out the window since its a product of science and didn't get zapped thru the nearest balck 'hole'. Also, don't you dare use any pharma if you get sick in the near future becasue it could be a product I may have helped develop and it would SHIT ME TO NO END if I knew a space cadet was using it but telling everyone its inter-dimensional energy that make you better and not a direct result of science.

Can this thread go to the RANT section now?

[element]

Well, if an education scares you, please plonk me on the ignore list and stick your head back in the sand.

Here is a little just for you, metacomet (if your still tuned in)

I'm 34, a scientist 'somewhere is Sydney Australia' doing a variety of work at 'some big mega-corp with gold plated toilet handles' and always on the lookout to limit the damage religious freaks can do to our funding (oooh now there is a clue on what sort of company i work for) and to make sure my, and my fellow associates, contribution to humanity (becasue that what it is) is not limited by such whackos.

You'll read through just about all my posts about science this and science that...because its what make humanity move forwards. Not stagnate, and certainly not return to dark periods of the past.

Heck, if you think everything has some sort of extrasensory trait which only a few are privy to the inner workings then I've got some bad news.

You try to enlighten all by saying that there is more than meets the eye (inter-dimensional <whatever. ), but you don't bother to provide any evidence of such interaction of any sort.

So you, to me and many others which have their feet firmly on the ground, come across as one who has their head in the clouds. Your words have as much weight as Miracles' dogmatic words. You keep going on about quantum worldstates and similar but you don't provide a grounding to your wor(l)ds. Our ground is science if you like or not, for if you disagree, then throw your computer out the window since its a product of science and didn't get zapped thru the nearest balck 'hole'. Also, don't you dare use any pharma if you get sick in the near future becasue it could be a product I may have helped develop and it would SHIT ME TO NO END if I knew a space cadet was using it but telling everyone its inter-dimensional energy that make you better and not a direct result of science.

Can this thread go to the RANT section now?
Dude, it's your attitude..
Nothing metaphysical will convince you, because you approach it empirically.

What has brought you to this DI forum?:confused:

Anyway, I don't believe in the hollow earth theory!
The scripture proves nothing, ''things under the earth'' is likely not literal, 'under' is also not 'in'.
The sentence itself appears to show the strong faith of those who written it.

[metacomet]

You try to enlighten all by saying that there is more than meets the eye (inter-dimensional <whatever. ), but you don't bother to provide any evidence of such interaction of any sort.


Lemme just wade through all that BS for a second and pick this out...

I stated that gravity is a force in quantum physics that cannot be explained but is used with accepted theory.

I made a statement that a well known force in physics has 'more than meets the eye' and that is the truth . All you've been doing is throwing shit on the walls and expecting us to applaud you.


Dude, it's your attitude..
Nothing metaphysical will convince you, because you approach it empirically.


You were already nailed to wall with this one, buddy. Carry on.

[manxboz]

Your whole problem deadskinball is your so closed, you only see what right in front of your face. You need to step outside the box to acheive something, when tetonic plates were first brought forward the guys was laugh at by people like you until it was 'proven' so just goes to show that outside the box science can be useful.

[metacomet]

Your whole problem deadskinball is your so closed, you only see what right in front of your face. You need to step outside the box to acheive something, when tetonic plates were first brought forward the guys was laugh at by people like you until it was 'proven' so just goes to show that outside the box science can be useful.

Exactly.

Now many things have been discovered in science, including the anomalous nature of gravity (it cannot be 'found' physically).

However you have people who are so dead-set on representing status-quo opinions that they don't understand what recent discoveries actually mean. They seem to have no grasp on how things really work, but instead use out-dated sentiments based on old science.

How many times has it been said that gravity for example makes it impossible to have a hollow earth? Many times in this thread alone. This is why I have to poke my head in and tell people to stop talking as if they know what they're saying. There are dimensions within this earth we have no idea about and people who are afraid to imagine subterannean continents are certainly not prepared for theories involving other dimensional portals etc.

We are throwing pearls before swine on a daily basis on this board.

[supersmell]

It was only mentioned twice that gravity could be used to disprove the hollow earth, and you haven't provided any reasons why it couldn't.

[metacomet]

It was only mentioned twice that gravity could be used to disprove the hollow earth, and you haven't provided any reasons why it couldn't.

The evidence of massive subterannean caverns already exists.

Gravity did not magically destroy these caverns.

Can you jokers please take a second to explain why you think gravity would prevent subterannean continents from existing?

Oh, I forgot... it's not your jobs to prove your arguments, it's your jobs to demand evidence from others :rolleyes: It's been that way for thousands of years.

[supersmell]

It can't disprove that there are large gaps inside earth, but it can be used to determine that there's no way the earth could be as massive as it is if there was nothing below a couple hundred kilometers below the surface.

[metacomet]

It can't disprove that there are large gaps inside earth, but it can be used to determine that there's no way the earth could be as massive as it is if there was nothing below a couple hundred kilometers below the surface.

I myself don't believe in a completely hollow earth, I believe that there are places inside the earth that are quite fantastic and, if necessary, there is a possibility that people have simply walked into new worlds without having the capacity to explain them.

There is nothing that can disprove the existence of populations in unknown places, the deepest oceans on this earth are 90% unexplored leaving MOST of the planet unexplored. We live on the smallest portion of the earth possible, the very outer skin, we have no clue as to how many environments may exist without our knowledge, in the oceans or deep earth.

This is all very good for science. There is endless frontier left on this planet, regardless of our satellite mapping etc. we have not set foot everywhere.

[manxboz]

It was only mentioned twice that gravity could be used to disprove the hollow earth, and you haven't provided any reasons why it couldn't.
It can't disprove that there are large gaps inside earth, but it can be used to determine that there's no way the earth could be as massive as it is if there was nothing below a couple hundred kilometers below the surface.
Here's so evidence for you.

Retired physicist Al Snyder wrote several books back in the 70's disputing the claims of Newtonian scientists. In his NEWTON'S LAWS ARE FULL OF FLAWS, Snyder shows how illogical the gravitation formula attributed to Isaac Newton is. When Newton proposed in 1687 in his PRINCIPIA that "there is a power of gravity pertaining to all bodies, proportional to the several quantities of matter which they obtain" and that the "force of gravity towards the several particles of any body is inversely as the square of the distances of places from the particles," he never actually stated the law of gravitation with its now-familier equation containing the gravitational constant G.

In fact, Newton never stated that gravity is a pull. It could be a push. In his time, scientists believed that space was full of an etheric matter through which light propagated. If space is full of an etheric matter, it could be the source of that push. Gravity could consist of the ether of space flowing into all particles of matter. As the ether of space flows through matter, it would exert a pressure on that matter in the direction where most of the mass is located. Since most of the earth's mass is located inside it, the ether flowing towards the earth from space passes through us and keeps our feet firmly planted on the earth's surface.

Newton did not even say that gravity increases to the center of the earth, which scientists today claim. They also claim that anywhere inside a hollow sphere everything would be weightless. If such was the case, any people living inside the hollow earth would be floating around.

And there are other incongruencies in the Newtonian orthodox science, such as the equal gravisphere distances between bodies in space -- that place where a rocket after its initial burn in a trajectory coasting away from one body will begin to accelerate towards the other. For example, Newtonians place the equal gravisphere distance between the earth and the sun at 160,000 miles from Earth, and yet the moon is located at over 250,000 miles from earth. How then could the equal gravisphere distance between the Earth and the Sun be located BETWEEN the earth and the moon? If it, in fact, was, the sun's gravity would cause the moon to fall out of earth orbit towards the sun. The same goes for the equal gravisphere distance between the Earth and the Moon. Prior to the Apollo missions which discovered by radar the distance of 54,828.7 nautical miles from the earth that the rocket stopped decelerating away from earth and started to accelerate towards the moon, Newtonians believed that the equal gravisphere distance between the earth and the moon was 1/81th of the distance from the moon to the earth, or about 3000 miles from the moon. That is why the first probes sent to the moon missed it altogether or crashed into the moon -- mission control was aiming at passing the equal gravisphere distance thought to be only 3000 miles from the moon instead of the 63,107.8 miles from the moon that it was later located at.

The tides as calculated by Newtonian scientists is even more incongruent. They even had to "mickey mouse" their Newtonian gravity formula to make it fit the observed tidal forces by cubing the distance between the earth and the moon instead of using the "square of the distances" as established by Isaac Newton in his PRINCIPIA. That is because, if you use the standard Newtonian gravitation formula of,

F = GmM/R^2

the sun by this formula exerts 99.5% of the gravity force on earth's tides and the moon only .05%. However, it has been known for millennia that the moon exerts the greater gravitation force on earth's tides, because the tides come up when the moon comes up, even when the sun is down. The moon comes up 50 minutes later every day and so also do the tides. We KNOW the moon exerts the greater gravity force on the tides, yet the Newtonian gravity formula says it does not. For further details and calculations see my gravity paper The Origin, Cause and Control of Gravity -- Found!

There is a definite need to revise our physics and gravity theories to resolve these and other incongruencies with the current physics. The physics of hollow planets will need to be included in the revision. Perhaps we can even achieve realization of the illusive United Field Theory while we're about it.

Since before the days of Albert Einstein, there have been those who have noticed similarities between the different force formulas. This has lead to the belief in the possibility of a United Field Theory in which perhaps one formula would describe all forces of nature. The underlying existence of an all pervasive etheric substance that would contribute to development of all forces of nature would definitely be the beginning. The ether that fills the immensity of space must be accepted as a reality. The next step would be looking for similarities between the forces and the formulas describing those forces for a reconciliation of the formulas into one United Field Theory formula that would apply to all the forces of nature. For example, notice the similarity between the above mentioned Newtonian gravitation formula and the electrostatic formula,

F = k Qq/d^2

Both have constants, both have two bodies and both are separated by a distance squared. The differences are that the electrostatic bodies are quantified with charges of opposite sign where as the gravitation bodies are quantified by mass, and the distance between electrostatic bodies is measured from their surfaces, but the gravitation bodies from their centers. If we were to unify these formulas into one, the differences would have to be resolved.

Let's start with the distances that separate them. Both are varied as to their distances squared. The only difference here is the starting point of the measurement one from the center, the other from the surface of the interacting bodies.

Remember that Newton stated in his PRINCIPIA that, the "force of gravity towards the several particles of any body is inversely as the square of the distances of places from the particles." Nothing is mentioned of measuring the distance from the center of the particles. Similar to the electrostatic forces between two bodies, the gravity force from the gravitational formula can only be applied to two bodies separated by a distance. It does not describe the gravity force within a body.

One of the definite flaws of Newtonian gravity theory is its assumption that the center of gravity is located in the center of the earth. Although gravity (ether) does flow into the central sun suspended in the hollow of the earth, it also flows towards the inner surface, thus allowing inner earth inhabitants to have their feet firmly planted on the inner surface instead of floating about as Newtonians maintain. The flaw in their theory of gravity is they assume that all gravity inside the earth flows towards the center of the planet. However, a closer reading of Newton's above statement on gravity indicates that the gravity force varys "inversely as the square of the distances" between all "particles" of matter in the earth.

Gravity flows towards the greatest concentrations of matter. In a hollow planet, there are two concentrations of matter, the hollow shell and the interior sun. Therefore, gravity will flow towards the shell from without and from within, AND towards the inner sun keeping it suspended in the hollow of the planet. This means that the center of gravity in a hollow planet's shell would be in its shell, not in the central sun. The guide in ETIDORPHA asserted that the center of gravity in the earth's 800 mile thick shell is 700 miles down from the outer surface. This indicates a greater concentration of denser matter towards the inner surface than towards the outer surface of the shell. In fact, the center of gravity in the shell would actually be a sphere, a central sphere of gravity where ether flowing from the outside surfaces meet. The resultant gravitational flow of the ether would be at this depth flowing in all directions. A person located at the central sphere of gravity would float as if he were in space, only he would be surrounded by air and the matter of the earth's shell.

Newtonian theory maintains that the acceleration of gravity increases to the center of the planet resulting in tremendous pressures that create great heat that causes their "outer core" to be molten. The inner earth explorer that called himself I-AM-THE-MAN in ETIDORPHA, reported that as he and his guide descended through communicating caverns they gradually lost weight until at the central sphere of gravity they weighed zero. At a depth of around 200 miles from the outer surface he was able to walk with leaps and bounds like as if he were on the moon at 1/6th gravity requiring very little effort to move. At 700 miles from the outer surface they were floating in the air. Pressures increase for a short distance from either surface as the acceleration of gravity into the mass of the earth decreases, but then pressure decreases towards the central sphere of gravity. Resultant gravitational flow gradually cancels out and weight decreases to 0 as the central sphere of gravity is approached. There is NO molten "outer core." The outer core is actually the hollow of the earth through which NO earthquake waves pass. See Chapter Eleven, Earthquakes Prove Our Earth is Hollow! for further detail on earthquakes.

Al Snyder pointed out another inconcruency in the Newtonian gravitation formula. He did this by comparing two sets of magnets, one set 10 times more power than the first. Using the Newtonian formula, he showed that for the first set of magnets of power 1,

F = m * M / R^2

1 = 1 * 1 / 1^2

But for the second set of magnets 10 times more powerful than the first,

100 = 10 * 10 / 1^2

Newtonians would maintain that the second set of magnets are 100 times more powerful than the first set, instead of the actual 10 times more powerful that we KNOW they are. Therefore, Snyder concluded that in the Newtonian gravitation formula, F is actually squared,

F^2 = m * M / R^2

For the second set of magnets 10 times more powerful,

10^2 = 10 * 10 / 1^2

F = 10

Could this mean that the force we attribute to gravity is exerted by a much less quantity of matter than previously thought to be the case? And could this much less quantity of matter in a hollow earth exert the gravity force we observe the earth to have? Newtonians have presumed a much more massive and dense earth than a hollow planet would seem to have.

However, even if we assume that the Newtonian mass and density for the earth are correct, this does not preclude the earth being hollow. It could still be hollow even with a density of 5.5 gm/cc. Let's review how the mass and density of the earth are determined.

Newtonians assume, by Newton's Second Law, that the momentum of a small mass accelerating towards the earth near its surface is equal to the earth's gravitational force acting on that small mass:

F = m * a

The Momentum Formula (Newton's Second Law)

F = GmM/R^2

The Newtonian Gravitation Formula

m * a = GmM/R^2

Solving for a, the mass m's cancel out,

a = GM/R^2

We can now solve for M, the mass of earth,

M = a * R^2 /G

using the Newtonian Gravitational Constant,

980.665 * 4.0678884 x 10^17 / 6.67259 x 10^-8 = 5.978541732 x 10^27 gms

The Newtonian mass of the Earth

From the Density formula

D = M/V

we obtain the Newtonian density of the earth.

From the volume of a sphere formula,

V = PiD^3/6

The volume of the earth is 1.082 * 10^27 cc.

The Newtonian density of the earth then is:

5.978541732 x 10^27 gms / 1.082 * 10^27 cc = 5.525 gm/cc

Since surface rocks have a density of 2.7 on average, the interior of the earth would have to be at least as dense as steel (about 8 times more dense than water, water = 1) to arrive at the Newtonian average earth density of 5.5 (8.3 + 2.7 / 2 = 5.5).

Now let's ask ourselves some questions. For example, how dense would a hollow earth be? Would it necessarily be less massive than Newtonians claim? How would gravity theory need to be revised to allow for a hollow planet? And if the gravitation formula and gravitation constant need to be revised, what would they be?

These are questions that need answering if hollow planets are a reality. For an ongoing review of gravity and how it may affect the hollow earth, see my study The Origin, Cause and Control of Gravity -- Found!

For now, let's visit the idea of whether an earth density of 5.525 gm/cc could be hollow.

Assuming the thickness of earth's shell at 800 mi or 1,287.48 km,

Diameter of Earth's hollow: Thickness of Earth's shell x 2 - Diameter of Earth

800 mi x 2 - 8000 = 6400 mi

Or

1,287.48 km x 2 - 12,756 = 10,181 km Or 1.018104445 x 10^9 cm

Volume of Hollow:

3.14159265 x (1.018104445 x10^9)^3/6 = 5.525551394 x 10^26 cc Volume of Earth - Volume of Hollow = Volume of Shell: 1.086781293 x 10^27 cc - 5.525551394 x 10^26 cc = 5.342261531 x 10^26

Density of Shell = Mass of Earth/Volume of Shell:

5.978541732 x 10^27 gms/5.342261531 x 10^26 cc = 11.19 gm/cc

This assumes that most of the earth's mass is located in its shell. As you can see, Newtonian physics would require an average shell density almost as dense as lead (11.3). And since surface rocks are 2.7, then the interior of the shell would have to be greater than the average density.

The interior density using the Newtonian mass of the earth requires than the interior of the shell would have a density of 2 * 11.19 - 2.7 = 19.68, which is denser than gold (19.3). Platinum is 21.4, so an inner shell density of 19.68 is not beyond the realm of possibility. In fact, if the earth is hollow as we maintain, the inner shell would necessarily need to be of a greater density to give the hollow planet enough strength to keep its hollow shape.

So we can say that a shell density of 11.19 gm/cc could be in the realm of possibility. After all, the earth DOES ring like a bell after a rather large earthquake. A bell is hollow and is made of metal, just as a hollow earth may be.

We might ask how much of the earth's mass would be contained by the interior sun? Actually, an interior sun of the estimated diameter of 600 miles would contain very little of the mass of the earth.

Assuming the interior sun has a density of glass which I claim all stars are actually crystals instead of burning gas, it's mass would be only .01% of the mass of the Newtonian mass of the earth.

V = pi D^3 / 6

pi * (600 mi * 1.60934722 km * 100,000 cm) ^3 / 6 = 4.714130881 x 10^23 cc

Volume of inner sun

Let's assume that the inner sun is also hollow and has a shell 10% of it's diameter, or 60 miles. This would give the sun's hollow a volume of 2.413635011 x 10^23 cc. So the volume of it's shell would be 2.30049587 x 10^23 cc mutiplied by 2.6, the density of glass gives,

Mass = Volume * Density

= 5.981289262 x 10^23 gms, Mass of inner sun

divided by mass of earth of 5.978541732 x 10^27 gms

= .000100046 * 100 = .01%

If the interior sun is composed of gas as orthodox science maintains stars consist of, then that percentage would be much less. By far, most of a hollow earth's mass would be located in its shell.

Another possibility, you may say, is that the earth's shell is thicker than 800 miles which would give it a lower average shell density. This also, could be a possibility. Some method of determining the shell's thickness needs to be devised. This could easily be determined by entering the hollow of the earth through a polar opening and bouncing radar waves off the opposite side of the hollow interior.

In all, actually, I see nothing in the Newtonian mass and density of the earth that would completely exclude the earth from being hollow. Earthquake waves have been noticed to bend as they descend into the earth causing them to curve back up to the surface before hitting the discontinuity inside the earth that scientists claim is the outer core. This indicates the earth does increase in density with depth which is consistent with a hollow shell using the Newtonian mass of the earth. In fact, if the earth is hollow and the Newtonian mass of the earth requiring an increased density with depth is correct, then that in itself would exclude their claim to a molten interior. That discontinuity inside the earth could be the inner surface. For further email discussions on gravity click here.

After applying Newtonian physics to the planets and assuming they are all hollow with shells having a thickness of 10% of their diameters, it turns out that all the planets including the sun would have solid surfaces (with one possible exception being Saturn with a shell density of 1.26 which is closer to the density of water=1). With surface gravities close to that of earth and interior suns that create their planetary magnetic fields and which emit solar winds through polar openings to light up their auroras, it is even plausible that most contain inner atmospheric conditions similar to earth conducive to plant, animal and human life on their interiors. For further information see The Origin, Cause and Control of Gravity -- Found!

[supersmell]

Here's so evidence for you.
Next time find some evidence that is not entirely BS.


In fact, Newton never stated that gravity is a pull. It could be a push. In his time, scientists believed that space was full of an etheric matter through which light propagated. If space is full of an etheric matter, it could be the source of that push. Gravity could consist of the ether of space flowing into all particles of matter. As the ether of space flows through matter, it would exert a pressure on that matter in the direction where most of the mass is located. Since most of the earth's mass is located inside it, the ether flowing towards the earth from space passes through us and keeps our feet firmly planted on the earth's surface.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Why would this pressure create a force in the direction of the center of mass? Why would people on all sides of earth feel the same force? How could this explain planetary orbits?


Newton did not even say that gravity increases to the center of the earth, which scientists today claim. They also claim that anywhere inside a hollow sphere everything would be weightless. If such was the case, any people living inside the hollow earth would be floating around.

I don't believe that scientists say that gravity increases as you move to the center of the earth, and if you were inside a hollow earth and integrated the force from every particle of mass around you you would end up with zero net force.


And there are other incongruencies in the Newtonian orthodox science, such as the equal gravisphere distances between bodies in space -- that place where a rocket after its initial burn in a trajectory coasting away from one body will begin to accelerate towards the other. For example, Newtonians place the equal gravisphere distance between the earth and the sun at 160,000 miles from Earth, and yet the moon is located at over 250,000 miles from earth. How then could the equal gravisphere distance between the Earth and the Sun be located BETWEEN the earth and the moon? If it, in fact, was, the sun's gravity would cause the moon to fall out of earth orbit towards the sun.
This isn't an actual problem. The 160,000 mile sphere of influence was calculated using an equation derived using some assumptions that were a bit too inaccurate. The moon is inside earth's sphere of influence if you use a more accurate formula.

The same goes for the equal gravisphere distance between the Earth and the Moon. Prior to the Apollo missions which discovered by radar the distance of 54,828.7 nautical miles from the earth that the rocket stopped decelerating away from earth and started to accelerate towards the moon, Newtonians believed that the equal gravisphere distance between the earth and the moon was 1/81th of the distance from the moon to the earth, or about 3000 miles from the moon. That is why the first probes sent to the moon missed it altogether or crashed into the moon -- mission control was aiming at passing the equal gravisphere distance thought to be only 3000 miles from the moon instead of the 63,107.8 miles from the moon that it was later located at. I'd like a citation for this before I'll believe anybody actually believes this.



Remember that Newton stated in his PRINCIPIA that, the "force of gravity towards the several particles of any body is inversely as the square of the distances of places from the particles." Nothing is mentioned of measuring the distance from the center of the particles. Similar to the electrostatic forces between two bodies, the gravity force from the gravitational formula can only be applied to two bodies separated by a distance. It does not describe the gravity force within a body.
Both of the equations can be applied to individual particles and integrated, so that the effect of gravity between two systems of masses or charges can be found.

One of the definite flaws of Newtonian gravity theory is its assumption that the center of gravity is located in the center of the earth. Although gravity (ether) does flow into the central sun suspended in the hollow of the earth, it also flows towards the inner surface, thus allowing inner earth inhabitants to have their feet firmly planted on the inner surface instead of floating about as Newtonians maintain. The flaw in their theory of gravity is they assume that all gravity inside the earth flows towards the center of the planet. However, a closer reading of Newton's above statement on gravity indicates that the gravity force varys "inversely as the square of the distances" between all "particles" of matter in the earth. I'm not going to bother proving that there is no way for a sun to exist in the center of a plant, but if you do any research in how stars operate you'd see how insane that idea is. The rest of the paragraph is makes too little sense to even bother addressing.

Gravity flows towards the greatest concentrations of matter. In a hollow planet, there are two concentrations of matter, the hollow shell and the interior sun. Therefore, gravity will flow towards the shell from without and from within, AND towards the inner sun keeping it suspended in the hollow of the planet. This means that the center of gravity in a hollow planet's shell would be in its shell, not in the central sun. The guide in ETIDORPHA asserted that the center of gravity in the earth's 800 mile thick shell is 700 miles down from the outer surface. This indicates a greater concentration of denser matter towards the inner surface than towards the outer surface of the shell. In fact, the center of gravity in the shell would actually be a sphere, a central sphere of gravity where ether flowing from the outside surfaces meet. The resultant gravitational flow of the ether would be at this depth flowing in all directions. A person located at the central sphere of gravity would float as if he were in space, only he would be surrounded by air and the matter of the earth's shell.
All forces due to gravity would be in the direction of this imaginary sun. If the earth were infinity large in the x and y directions, but 800 miles in the z then we would have a setup like says. But since the earth is a sphere then the mass of the opposite side of the planet would be pulling you to the center of the earth. The center of gravity can only be a a point in any finite system.


Newtonian theory maintains that the acceleration of gravity increases to the center of the planet resulting in tremendous pressures that create great heat that causes their "outer core" to be molten. The acceleration due to gravity would decrease, but the pressure would increase anyway since the force acting on any layer of the earth would be the integral of the force acting on all the mass above it.

The inner earth explorer that called himself I-AM-THE-MAN in ETIDORPHA, reported that as he and his guide descended through communicating caverns they gradually lost weight until at the central sphere of gravity they weighed zero. At a depth of around 200 miles from the outer surface he was able to walk with leaps and bounds like as if he were on the moon at 1/6th gravity requiring very little effort to move. At 700 miles from the outer surface they were floating in the air. Pressures increase for a short distance from either surface as the acceleration of gravity into the mass of the earth decreases, but then pressure decreases towards the central sphere of gravity. Resultant gravitational flow gradually cancels out and weight decreases to 0 as the central sphere of gravity is approached. There is NO molten "outer core." The outer core is actually the hollow of the earth through which NO earthquake waves pass. See Chapter Eleven, Earthquakes Prove Our Earth is Hollow! for further detail on earthquakes. Pure fantasy.


Al Snyder pointed out another inconcruency in the Newtonian gravitation formula. He did this by comparing two sets of magnets, one set 10 times more power than the first. Using the Newtonian formula, he showed that for the first set of magnets of power 1,

F = m * M / R^2

1 = 1 * 1 / 1^2

But for the second set of magnets 10 times more powerful than the first,

100 = 10 * 10 / 1^2

Newtonians would maintain that the second set of magnets are 100 times more powerful than the first set, instead of the actual 10 times more powerful that we KNOW they are. Therefore, Snyder concluded that in the Newtonian gravitation formula, F is actually squared,

F^2 = m * M / R^2

For the second set of magnets 10 times more powerful,

10^2 = 10 * 10 / 1^2

F = 10

Could this mean that the force we attribute to gravity is exerted by a much less quantity of matter than previously thought to be the case? And could this much less quantity of matter in a hollow earth exert the gravity force we observe the earth to have? Newtonians have presumed a much more massive and dense earth than a hollow planet would seem to have.

God, this is really frustrating. Everything there is complete lunacy, yet I can't think of a decent way of explaining why.



Newtonians assume, by Newton's Second Law, that the momentum of a small mass accelerating towards the earth near its surface is equal to the earth's gravitational force acting on that small mass:

F = m * a

The Momentum Formula (Newton's Second Law)

F = GmM/R^2
Geez, how could anybody believe somebody who thinks you can equate force and momentum?

I don't have a decent calculator with me so I'm not going to bother going through the rest of his post.

[manxboz]

It's all theory and because it doesn't fit into your world you dismiss it, that ain't right.

[metacomet]

Next time find some evidence that is not entirely BS.


Translation = La la la I can't hear you :rolleyes: So childish how these people operate.

Well done maxboz.

[supersmell]

Did you bother to read anything after my first line?

[manxboz]

Oh i read but what i'm saying to you is that your very closed and you beleive that if it doesn't fit in with your view of science then it doesn't exsit, breakthoughs are made by people thinking out of the box, they don't stick to the ridgid science that many put themselves into.

[supersmell]

But just about everything in that attempt at evidence either tried to use the accepted theory, or could easily be disproved experimentally.

[maximumgravity1]

I probably shouldn't weigh in on this topic...but oh well, here goes....

Science is basically the study of that which can be observed. From that point, all theories, models, postulates and laws are created to see if they are reproducible with consistent results. If the results can't be observed, it is not open to observation. Why then does science insist on basing it's "facts" on circumstantial evidence? Because it is all it has to go on. It CAN NOT remain silent on topics that impact it directly. The problems arise when the observable results do not work under all circumstances. Then science conveniently throws out all it has "learned" and known as "fact" and starts again.

Case in point, it wasn't that many years ago (cosmically speaking) that all matter was believed to be made up of one of 4 elements. That is laughable now because we have learned "so much". However, all of that hard earned and accumulated knowledge is always on the "chopping block" and subject to be tossed out as just as useless data as the 4 element theory. So what is the point of bantering about scientific theory and scientific laws. Scientific laws are only upheld until they are proven to be flawed. That isn't much of a law.

My kids could use the scientific method to "prove" that Santa Claus existed when they were younger. They repeatedly were able to observe the same cause and effect methodologies year after year. They postulated a theorem, and consistently observed the results every Christmas morning. Both of them independently testing and retrieving the same results - individually, and jointly.

Big hairy deal....

Personally, I don't have an opinion on the Hollow Earth Theory. I believe it could go either way. However, I do believe that the BS that modern science is pushing is flawed beyond belief. Aside from shear guess work, based on "scientific models" and circumstantial evidence gathered in "similar" observable environments, science is still taking a "best guess" pot-shot at what is in the middle of the earth. Until it sees it, until it finds out for sure, it is just a guess- no matter how educated, or how sound the models it bases it's "BELIEF'S" upon.

We know that gaseous planets exist in our solar system, and we have no problem accepting that they are held together without the same means as our "solid" planet earth - no clue how, but we know it is not the same way as earth, else it would have a crust, and be "solid" like the other planets. However, we assume there is no way that the same forces that hold together a gaseous planet could hold together a hollow "solid" planet like earth....we know better - it just wouldn't work - we have heard the reason why it wouldn't work on this thread - we need support structures, etc....bizarre....we know so much for knowing so little...

Here is a question I haven't been able to get a suitable answer to....

Assuming the earth is made of molten rock, and we observe this when we see a volcano explode, and see the magma flow down the mountains, we know that the magma cools, and turns to solid rock. Our proof is in the formation of new mountains, new islands, new land mass, etc. What happened before the crust had cooled? How did the planet ever develop a crust to begin cooling?

Imagine a 3' diameter spherical mold. Now assume we poured in some molten candle wax, sloshed it around and allowed to cool to form to the inside of the mold. With enough wax, enough spin, an enough patience it would be conceivable to have a large hollow ball of wax. Assume the form can be removed and we are left with a 3' hollow sphere of wax Even if we don't keep the proportions similar to our earth's crust, and say we create a a layer of wax 1" thick, what happens if we inject a litter of hot liquid wax into the center of that sphere? How long will that molten wax have to spin around the inside of that sphere before it cools enough to keep from melting through the "crust" and begins to build up on the inside of the sphere? It is conceivable, not too likely, but conceivable. Scientific method would dictate that the molten wax would PROBABLY melt right through the side, as we can test this with a 1" layer of cooled wax, and pour hot molten wax on top of it. It melts.

Now, what if we "filled" the sphere with molten wax? Would there be enough momentum developed to keep the hot wax from melting through to the outside? How long would that mass of molten wax have to cool before it could it lose enough heat to keep from melting through? Any idea of what thickness the crust would have to be? Or how thick it would end up if such a feat were possible? I will grant that in space, we are dealing with gravitational forces - and whatever force is holding the gaseous planets together, is holding our hot liquid "crustless" earth together, while we are waiting for the crust to harden. And it is conceivable, that there was just enough gravity holding together the right amount of molten rock "globule" in the beginning to form a planet that could cool just enough on the outer edge to allow just enough magma to harden up enough to form a crust. This element is missing in our wax sphere, since we re dealing with gravity in one direction - which is not toward the center of our sphere, but straight down. However, scientific method again dictates the only way this could work is with some form of "barier". Be it air, be it a vacum, be it something that molten wax (or rock) can't melt. The molten wax would have to cool enough before contacting the crust to keep it from melting through.

What if we stick an electric element inside the sphere to prevent the wax from solidifying? What if we continue to heat the wax to a molten state? Isn't this exactly the principle on how horse water bucket heaters work? Stick an element in the water to keep the water from freezing? It never forms a "crust" of ice. The molten wax will keep most of it's temperature at the molten temperature, and reconstitute the cooled "crust". Tell me where the "dividing" line between inside and outside of the sphere is - and what the temperature difference is between the two? If hot molten wax, in a closed sphere, that is not allowed to cool, touches cooled wax, how long before the cooled wax is reconstituted and the "inside" takes a micro-thin swipe from the "outside"? How many times does this happen before the inside reaches the outside? Where is the cooling force?

Assume we get a crack, or fissure? Thank heavens our wax sphere doesn't have an atmosphere or greenhouse effect to keep the molten wax from making direct contact with the sub-zero temperatures of space (like our planet does), otherwise the hot molten wax might not cool fast enough to keep from seeping through our crust and melt/reconstitute the wax in a splatter pattern, and develop holes where it touched. It would soon cause cave ins, and the entire "crust" would be consumed with molten wax, and all the crust would be gone.

In a nutshell, that is why the molten earth/solid core theory is a bunch of BS - it just provides more questions then it answers.


Last point, regarding this comment:

I'd be willing to bet if the earth was hollow the seismic data from large nuclear explosions would be drastically different if the earth was hollow. The shock wave would have bounced back and forth tens or hundreds of times over the time it would take the wave to circle the earth.

I believe that is EXACTLY what Tesla did in his Colorado Springs experiments when he created the largest Man-made Lighting bolt, and extracted 18 Million Horsepower from his "little coil". It was all about the resonance. In fact, he had measured the timing of his "shockwaves", and knew when the "lighting" bursts would erupt from his coil - and told his assistant when to be ready with the measurements.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Let the flaming begin....