Explore the Hollow Earth Theory: Geologists' Perspectives

[scarecrow]

I just heard of this theory on Coast to Coast and to me this sounds fascinating. To think that Earth has a thriving environment deep inside of its own crust is amazing. The theory holds that the iron core of Earth is actually a "sun" that helps allow vegetation and other living creatures to thrive.

The perspective inside Earth is totally different than on Earth's surface: continents appear to be floating in the clouds and shadows never move or change shape since everything is static and no rotation.
The most outrageous claim is that there are intelligent beings much more advanced than humans living there and are responsible for mankind's progress.

Here's a link to the site that was mentioned on the broadcast:

http://www.hollowearththeory.com/articles/hollowEarthHistory.asp"

What are the geologists' thoughts on this topic?

 

[Mk]

Ha ha, sorry to spoil your fun, but I know physicists would think it is pretty damn near impossible.

For one thing, what stops the upper crust from falling into the lower crust?

Also, I guess the vegetation does not use photosynthesis to derive its energy, because there must be a barrier between the *hot* magma, and organisms, so that they would not fall into it and die.

The crust is loosely attached, in fact its not, its just a bunch'a dirt and rocks. I did some research on Dyson Spheres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere, and one of the reasons that is so incredibly uneconomical, is that in one architecture of the sphere, the tensile strength of the material would be comparable to the strong force.

I used to listen to Coasttocoast when Art Bell was on. A radio genius Was it Red Elk who talked about it or somebody else? You really have to catch the "Mel's Hole" shows. Those are GOLD. GOLD!

 

[matthyaouw]

We know the Earth's composition to be as it is because of the way in which seismic waves refract and travel through it after an earthquake. There's no way a hollow Earth could produce this pattern:
http://dl.ccc.cccd.edu/classes/internet/geology100/IntroLecture_files/image028.jpg
http://dl.ccc.cccd.edu/classes/internet/geology100/IntroLecture_files/image030.jpg

 

[ZapperZ]

In addition, the "sun" produces a different type of reaction to produce heat than the iron core interior of the earth. Obviously, the people who proposed such a thing can't tell the difference. I'd like to see them try to account for the recently detected geoneutrinos, and compare that with the typical solar neutrinos.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/16

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just heard of this theory on Coast to Coast and to me this sounds fascinating.

As a long time C to C fan I can tell you that you should dismiss at least 90% of the stories, and 99.9999% of the theories found there. It can be fun, interesting, and entertaining, and they have the occasional credible guest, but its a radio show designed for entertainment, that's all.

 

[kleinjahr]

The "theory" goes back to, at least, "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and "Tarzan at the Earth's Core", the books not the movies. It didn't help that a few years ago the tabloids were doing articles on the hole at the pole, shown by satellite photos. Uhuh, suuuure. Think blind spot.

 

[selfAdjoint]

An American ex military man named Rafael Semmes published a book on the hoolow Earth theory in the 19th century. It included the "holes at the poles". I believe it was the source for later references to the hollow earth, including Burroughs' stories.

A completely different theory is the cosmic ice theory (Welteislehre) that so interested the nazis. This holds that we live in a hollowed out sphere in a vast, maybe infinite, field of ice filling the universe. The sun and stars are lights on a smaller sphere in the middle of the hole that turns to give us day and night and all the phenomena of astronomy.

 

[DaveC426913]

As Kleinjahr notes, the Hollow Earth theory has been around for many, many years. While few scientists ever really gave it much credence, the advent of seismological technology (allowing us to actually map the Earth's innards down to the core) banged the final nail into that coffin once and for all.

 

[Sir_Deenicus]

lollerskates. Please keep in mind that my favorite subject is topology when reading this post.

Mathematically, the two are technically equivalent. We cannot prove or disprove the hollow Earth theory, implying that we do not know if we in fact live on the surface of a sphere or not. The waves and what not from seismoloigical evidences would map in just the same way as everything else. The way things are turning out, I would not be suprised that both world views are wrong. meh. I've learned to not try to put any limit or structure on the way nature must be since my sense of perception is so limited and leaves out so much of the external reality. I do not presume to know what is correct, only what is most likely.

So yeah, this guy named Roman Sexl http://www.springerlink.com/index/XL2V220665650721.pdf" actually allows for an equivalence between the hollow Earth and standard view.

Nonetheless for reasons personal, namely that, it is more epistemologically reasonable that a quantum of action is distance invariant rather than being variable with respect to the centre of the "earth" or that light doesn't actually travel in a straight line and other such, I believe the hollow Earth theory to be more incorrect than the standard view. Which makes more sense but probably is not telling the whole story. (non classically). Standard view that is.

edit in: see also http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/dgriffin/Research/Griffin-HE_in_Science.pdf"

 

[DaveC426913]

... The waves and what not from seismoloigical evidences would map in just the same way as everything else...

I don't know why you would say that, we have pretty good data about the innards of the Earth:

http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Seismology/shadow_zone.html"
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/interior.html"

 

[Sir_Deenicus]

what I mean is that both the measurement devices, the measurements themselves, right down to the particles in question would be subject to the nature of the imaging or mapping function (mathematical) such that there would be no way of knowing if things could be otherwise. Check the links i posted.

Basically, a person in a picture cannot step out and look at himself to see how things are actually going. Note that I do not subscribe to the hollow Earth theory, only that with the right definitions (distance dependant concept of action, light only seems to travel straight but actually doesnt, even in flat face etc) , one can consistently map all of modern physics and theories to a hollow Earth universe. And there would be no reason to not use one or the other beyond reasons of logical simplicity.

 

[ZapperZ]

what I mean is that both the measurement devices, the measurements themselves, right down to the particles in question would be subject to the nature of the imaging or mapping function (mathematical) such that there would be no way of knowing if things could be otherwise. Check the links i posted.

Basically, a person in a picture cannot step out and look at himself to see how things are actually going. Note that I do not subscribe to the hollow Earth theory, only that with the right definitions (distance dependant concept of action, light only seems to travel straight but actually doesnt, even in flat face etc) , one can consistently map all of modern physics and theories to a hollow Earth universe. And there would be no reason to not use one or the other beyond reasons of logical simplicity.

So it will only work if you modify present-day physics into something that's wrong? And you're comfortable with this?

And you're contradicting yourself. If you argue we we cannot step out of the picture, then no matter how much you argue, I could use the same principle and tell you that you have no way of proving you're right. So why are we bothering with this?

I still am waiting for someone to "map" the geoneutrinos onto this hollow Earth thing.

Zz.

 

[DaveC426913]

what I mean is that both the measurement devices, the measurements themselves, right down to the particles in question would be subject to the nature of the imaging or mapping function (mathematical) such that there would be no way of knowing if things could be otherwise. Check the links i posted.

Basically, a person in a picture cannot step out and look at himself to see how things are actually going. Note that I do not subscribe to the hollow Earth theory, only that with the right definitions (distance dependant concept of action, light only seems to travel straight but actually doesnt, even in flat face etc) , one can consistently map all of modern physics and theories to a hollow Earth universe. And there would be no reason to not use one or the other beyond reasons of logical simplicity.

You're calling into question the very perceptions of our existence?

Nonsense. We have data that needs to be explained.

The data from decades of seismic imaging nicely fits an Earth that has a solid core surrounded by a liquid outer layer. How does a hollow Earth explain that data?

 

[fargoth]

he doesn't say we have to change every theory to a wrong one, he says the new one would have the same predictions as the conventional theories.
it doesn't seem right to me, but I am no expert in topology, so i guess his word is better then my intuition.
and he doesn't contradict himself, he said there's no way to know...

 

[DaveC426913]

he says the new one would have the same predictions as the conventional theories

What theory? Is there a Hollow Earth Theory that explains the data from seismic readings?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What theory? Is there a Hollow Earth Theory that explains the data from seismic readings?

From the original post.

History of the Hollow Earth Theory
The Hollow Earth Theory has been around for a long time. While the first concepts were crude, this 'crazy' idea has slowly developed into a viable alternative to the solid Earth model. In light from today's technology, many of our findings point towards a hollow structure as the only method to explain many of today's scientific findings.

There are four main hollow Earth models. Let's briefly discuss each one...

but here is the key to the theory...

More information on The land of No Horizon Book
Buy The Land of No Horizon

http://www.hollowearththeory.com/articles/hollowEarthHistory.asp

And this is much of what you get on Coast to Coast. If some wacko who interviews well writes a book, C to C is the place to sell it. I doubt that many of these people are even serious. They are just selling snake oil.

 

[Sir_Deenicus]

So it will only work if you modify present-day physics into something that's wrong? And you're comfortable with this?
And you're contradicting yourself. If you argue we we cannot step out of the picture, then no matter how much you argue, I could use the same principle and tell you that you have no way of proving you're right. So why are we bothering with this?
I still am waiting for someone to "map" the geoneutrinos onto this hollow Earth thing.
Zz.

It amuses me that most people prefer to enter into something with contention in mind, to show how wrong someone that is not them is.

Firstly I never said I believed or disbelieved anything, I simply stated that others have proven a mathematically equivalence of a hollow Earth theory. Talented physicists and mathematicians. I have already provided expository links with the relevant information for those interested. I have already stated precisely what you said, you cannot prove or disprove one or the other.

Secondly the physics is not wrong since it has never been the task of physics to answer the why but rather, the how. To explain and not to question. Sort of like knowing the rules of vs how to play the game of chess. A hitch in doing science is that so many have an expectation for how things should be. The only differences are in suppositions that are dropped and replaced, the situation remains the same, save that they require more explanatory baggage (hence my dislike for it).

But any competant mathematician can tell you that an inversion is a perfectly valid way to construct a hollow sphere universe from our current view; while also having all the standard physics be consistently and logically reworkalble into it. Astronauts in space? Due to an optical illusion that results of the circular nature of the way light travels. There have been many academic discussions into the possibility of such an Earth ending with no conclusion.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, hang on. Scarecrow (the OP) thinks this Hollow Earth concept is a cool idea. And it is. Makes for great brain pushups.

But Sir_Deenicus seems to jump in and suggest that it might actually deserve to be taken seriously. I think S_D should check with the OP about whether that's actually hijacking the thread.

This concept fails Scientific Method criteria on many levels, even if it is mathematically valid. Some of the SM criteria for a theory is that it support everything we've learned so far, that it build on that, and/or that, if it's going to change anything, it has a darn compelling way of explaining some part the universe better than what we have now. This idea fails all those criteria.

There have been many academic discussions into the possibility of such an Earth ending with no conclusion.

Yeah, "ended with no conclusion". Just as the questions about Area51 theories and the 'Moon Hoax' ended with no conclusion. For some people, reality is just too dull.

This fanciful concept is fun and kinda cool. It's food for the imagination, the math muscles and the physics muscles. Mathematical models are great, and you can learn a lot from them.
But that doesn't mean they represent reality. This concept doesn't come close - on so many SM criteria - to passing any test for being an acceptable theory.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for area 51, there are claims of observations, not so much theories.

As for the rest, I don't see that we have any unexplained phenomena; that is, we have theory but nothing to explain, so I'm closing the thread.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

temporarily opened to allow for a correction to be made...