Been working like a dog on this program that I intend to publish soon before I start working on the upcoming construction project that's worth $250 million. When I work, I like to have background info noises. Sometimes, I have the radio on with the news. Sometimes, I have youtube documentaries on.
Anyway, I randomly came across the following videos so I thought it was nice to listen to them while I work.
I must say this is the first time I've ever heard anything about the "hollow earth theory" and this supposed expedition.
Ok, from the videos, the interviewee talks about the hollow earth theory and how eye witness accounts in the past have talked about openings at the poles that supposedly lead into the Earth's inner surface. He also claims that the center of gravity of the Earth isn't in the center of the Earth but rather in the crustal mass.
Since this board is filled with people of all backgrounds from honest to god scientists to honest to god cranks (been lurking for a while), I'd like your opinions on this stuff.
Here's my take. As a layman science dude (I would hardly call an engineer a scientist or anything close to it), I know next to nothing about geology. What I do know is nowadays it is very fashionable to call someone a crank just because he doesn't hold the same view as mainstream anything. That and the fact that engineers have a track record of being young earth creationists around here...
From my education, the center of gravity of a sphere is always the center, unless it is lopsided. If we have a hollow sphere, then the gravity at any point inside a hollow sphere is always zero due to the cancellation effect. Yes?
So, if the Earth is hollow, what's keeping the crust from collapsing into the void? The pressure must be enormous down there due to all the matter that is above it.
That guy kinda lost me with all the religious stuff. But I did find his ideas interesting. I'm reminded of when Copernicus proposed the heliocentric model of the universe. There were people that posed similar types of questions: If the Earth is moving, how come the winds aren't blowing everyone and everything off the surface? I can't help but wonder if everything we claim to know about the true nature of the universe is just as ignorant as the people of Copernicus' time's claim to know god's ways.
So, I thought I heard the radio interviewer mentioned a name and expanding earth theory. Searched the name Neal Adams and found this.
In this video, the commentator talks about and illustrates the growing Earth theory. Neal Adams shows us how all the continents fit together perfectly on all sides. In other videos of the playlist, he shows us his evidence of other planetary bodies growing.
What do I think about this? I find all these ideas interesting. But I prefer to hold off my judgment. Again, I'm serious when I say I'm not qualified to say either way. That said, I can't ignore the fact that Neal Adams have illustrated that the continents fit together on all sides.
So, I just realized that I wasn't clear on connecting the hollow earth and expanding earth theories.
Expanding earth theorists have shown that all the continents fit together on all sides. So, if the Earth grew in size, then there must be hollow spaces within the Earth. Otherwise, where would the extra matter came from?
This idea actually gave me an idea for a science fiction novel. I spent about an hour last night googling around to see if anyone has ever done an idea like this. And sure enough, I couldn't find a single thing that even came close to the idea I have.
Between my projects and day job, it will probably take me like a couple years to write this out.
quote:Also, I showed a map of the world you could refer to, for easy pointing-at-stuff.
Here's the thing. Have you ever tried to flatten out an orange peal in one piece? For instance, Greenland in that map of yours is much bigger than it actually is.
I know you're not really trying, and neither am I. But throwing out random refutes (gish gallop), not looking at my links and info (lalala I can't hear you), and making snark backhanded comments are all YEC traits.
quote:You keep using that word... I do not think-ita-means what you think-ita-means. (Said with a wicked mustache)
Seriously, though. I'm just having some fun. I'm not trying to insult you or anything. Did you have something you wanted to discuss in-depth and actually have a back-and-forth about?
I'm sensing a lot of back-ing here, but not so much forth-ing...
Well, sort of.
Let me make a little forth-ing to clear up some misunderstanding.
I'm an atheist. I'm neither an evolutionist nor a creationist. It's not that I care. It's that I firmly believe to not have an opinion on something that I don't have a good grasp of. There are a lot of engineers here, so I'm sure people know what I mean about "normal" people nosing around where they're not qualified to do. It's annoying when other people do it to me. Why would I do it to other people?
Regarding this topic, I just found it and thought it was an interesting/cool idea. I think the misunderstanding stems from people's polarizing opinion on things. To most people here, interesting equates to supportive. That's where the snark and dismissive comments came from I suspect very much.
I have a very interesting idea for a science fiction novel that I plan to work on. And I was hoping to get some more info on the subject or perhaps some insight. The supposed phd guy I linked to talks about "negative vibrations from the inner mind" and all that crap.
I did more googling and found a few opinion pieces on it. But not much.
So, I guess I was hoping people here would find it at least a little bit interesting and perhaps even give a couple proposals on how this could be possible.
Instead, the very annoying YEC traits that I've been seeing over the years of reading on various evo vs creo forums are displayed by responders here. I say that with the greatest sincerity, and I can understand how people become defensive about it. But it's true.
Anyway, since this topic isn't really drawing anything but snark comments and displays of YEC qualities, I'm not really interested in it anymore.
I have some friends from college that have become college professors. I'll ask for their opinions. No, not the opinion of there's any validity to the hollow earth stuff. But opinion on how I can make a scifi novel on the topic sound less like it was written by a crank (me).
Ok, let me give you an idea of what I have so far.
All planets start out as solid. But through some natural process (I'll figure this bit out later), stuff began to slowly move to the surface and cause the expansion, causing a void in the center of the Earth that grew over time.
My plot would start out some time in the future when mankind has begun colonizing the solar system. Then mainstream science is stunt to find that inside all planetary bodies (not just the Earth) are hollow spaces. At first, most scientists would deny, but eventually enough evidence are presented to sway mainstream scientific community.
I know, that sounds boring, but I assure you, that's not the main plot. The main plot will surprise everyone. Me telling you guys what I have in mind would negate the novel, so no telling here.
What I'm trying to do right now is trying to come up with a plausible explanation for the expansion and hollowing of planetary bodies. Science fiction novels are only as good as the explanations behind their "science". That's why the most successful scifi novelists are also scientists.
By the way, thank you Dr. A for the alien idea. But my plot needs a "natural" process that affects all planetary bodies in the universe, not just the Earth. Otherwise, the climax that I've already mapped out wouldn't work at all.
Regarding the holes in the poles or this lost tribe of Israel living down there, I'm inclined to ignore them. May be I'll reference them in the story, but my imagination has limits!
quote:Yet another YEC PRATT ("points refuted a thousand times"). Please read the page I posted about my own research into the YEC claim about "moon dust", which depends on a false claim about the rate of influx of meteoric matter: http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/moondust.html
It turns out that if the moon is really 5 billion years old, it should have accrued a layer of meteoric dust that's a whopping ... 1/3 inch think!
The rate for the earth was either 10 or 100 times greater, but still hardly enough for your purposes.
Not what I'm after at all.
(1) All planetary bodies formed as solid bodies.
(2) Some kind of natural process not yet known to science causes the planetary bodies to grow and hollow out. I'm not talking about something with a really thin crust like a dyson's sphere.
Anyone remember the movie the core from the 90s? Remember that big-ass cavern they ran into in the mantle? That's the kind of spaces I'm thinking of due to planetary expansion.
I know what you're talking about. I've worked out that problem regarding the grav field of a hollow sphere many times.
That's not exactly what I'm after, though. I'm not looking for known scientific principles. Just use your imagination and make it sound plausible. If the earth started out as solid, then over time expanded because of spreading of ocean floors and hollowing out the inner parts, what would cause such a behavior?
And damn you're old. I wasn't even born back in 1980.