Hollow Earth Theory

[Wiecher 192]

So, if I read your page of text the right way, zukunftstraume, some scientists theories are that matter that gets into a black hole, get's transported out again somewhere else, another universe?

If that were true, then the big bang that started our universe could be the exit point of a black hole from another universe. The big bang started from a singularity, which would be the core of the black (or white) hole.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, why not?  It is as good an explanation as any other.

[Wiecher 192]

I wasn't critical of it, maybe my phrasing was a bit off.

It is an interesting concept.

[Zukunftstraume 220]

^ "That's the whole point of discussions like this, to make people rationalize ..."

 

Rationalize Ra"tion*al*ize, v. i.

 To use, and rely on, reason in forming a theory, belief,

 etc., especially in matters of religion: to accord with the

 principles of rationalism.

 [1913 Webster]

 

I'm a little leary of the use of that language.  Rationalize to me means to ignore the facts and carry on regardless.  Perhaps that could be reworded to something like 'to make people see the facts ...'

 

My interpretation changed who whole meaning of that paragraph in a post I agree with to that point.

 

The hollow earthers, flat earthers, and the biblical literalists all belong to the group whose motto is "Don't convince me with facts.  My mind is made up."  I wonder if there is anyone around who still believes in the particulate aether?  Thoroughly killed, I think, by quantum theory.  Objects produced using quantum theory work, so it must be true, even though I rather dislike cruelty to cats.  :kitty: meoxh :kitty:

 

Well, my higher vocabulary might be a bit off... But I meant "rationalize" specifically in the sense to reason, to question, to be curious, and ponder why things work a certain way, to accept the facts, look at everything through as many different points of view as possible (not just a single viewpoint), and then generate an ever-growing picture of the truth from that.

 

Take Kepler for example (OH NO, not a history lesson, blah blah blah!!! But, turns out this is actually a really cool story, so stay along and listen if you want)... Kepler's entire's life work was to try and prove that the orbits of the planets formed perfect circles, and as such also indirectly show that the circle is the universe's perfect shape. He was so obsessed with this idea, that it could be the way to show God as the creator of a perfect nature.

 

But his observations of the skies only lead him to inconsistencies, that the orbits weren't perfect circles. He desperately tried to swindle the data in his favor, but to no avail, so he rejected the correct answer. Months later he tried the equation of an ellipse for the first time and found that the orbits of the planets matched that of an ellipse beautifully. So, the planets didn't orbit in perfect circles, but in ellipses with the sun being at one of the "foci" of the ellipse. His work didn't mean God doesn't exist, just that one thing in his formulation for the truth wasn't valid.

 

Many people who were obsessed with an idea that they had worked their entire lives to prove and then have it disproved in front of their faces would simply ignore the truth and continue believing there was still good evidence to support the original idea or immediately reject whatever they were being told (like a hardcore creationist or one of the few scientists still trying to disprove the Big Bang or General Relativity). But no, Kepler was a courageous person and after a little internal trouble, he accepted this as the way the universe really worked. He went on and made many other observations about the orbits of planets and from that, we have Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion... which are quite awesome.

 

^ So, that's what I meant by rationalization. Someone who doesn't choose to ignore the facts and data, someone who is brave enough to open their eyes, someone who seeks the truth no matter how much it may hurt or be completely different from what you wanted to believe. Ignorance is not bliss, because it will bite you in the gluteus maximus one day or another.

[Zukunftstraume 220]

So, if I read your page of text the right way, zukunftstraume, some scientists theories are that matter that gets into a black hole, get's transported out again somewhere else, another universe?

If that were true, then the big bang that started our universe could be the exit point of a black hole from another universe. The big bang started from a singularity, which would be the core of the black (or white) hole.

 

Yup, pretty much!!!

 

I'll go into even more depth... Right down below is as deep as I can possibly go! And too be honest, I've never put this all together into words like this... So, if you stick around for the entire post then you're in for a treat! I hope it's as mind-boggling as I want it to be!

 

 

One of the more interesting things on top of that previous post is that you might say, "Wait, wouldn't that mean that the white hole that created the universe must still exist somewhere in it? Because let's face it, that black hole should still be sucking stuff in, and the Big Bang happened in an instant!"

 

Nope... not true, the physics of our universe makes it impossible for a white hole to exist here. The real insane part is this: All the matter that fell into that other-side black hole during the course of it's entire lifespan (which can be up to 10¹⁰⁰ years!), was actually all the matter that "came out of nowhere" during the Big Bang. I'm saying that our universe's creation started out with all the mass that black hole ever consumed!!!!!!

 

This happened because universes exist in different times from one another... Not in the future, not in the past, not in the present, just entirely different times that have nothing to do with ours!

 

What's even crazier is when you combine this theory with that of the Cyclic Model. The Cyclic Model states that our universe wasn't just created "out of nowhere", but that it was created from the previous universe collapsing back in on itself (called the Big Crunch). If a universe has too much mass, it'll eventually stop growing and instead start shrinking. Space will literally shrink and everything will be pushed back to a singularity (like a balloon with dots on it's surface, shrinking... since we theoretically live in a 3D universe on the surface of a 4D sphere!). But, at the moment of singularity, the universe doesn't just disappear into nothingness forever, it re-emerges from that near- (or actual) singularity due to the insane repulsion all the matter had with each other. During that instant however, the temperatures and pressures would have become so unimaginably large that the laws of physics would have managed to realign themselves. Physics would change from one universe to the next. From that immense repulsion, we got the Big Bang.

 

The Cyclic Model is this idea that our universe is actually a Chain of Universes... One starts, continues growing, maxes out, starts shrinking, collapses back down to a near-singularity, and then rebounds creating a new universe. An immensely long cycle of reincarnations for this chain of universes. Black Holes themselves would theoretically create their own chain of universes branching off from our own.

 

But wait? What created this chain in the first place? Surely it wouldn't be possible for the main chain to be around for an infinite amount of cycles right? Yup, that's right! This chain itself was created from a black hole within another chain. It's a chain, within a chain, within a chain, within a chain, and this continues essentially forever...

 

But wait just another minute! What about the laws of physics realigning at the singularities? As you can imagine, one universe is different from the one before it, after it, or all the ones branching out from it. Just how different they are is only speculation, they could be drastically different or only very slightly. Something like gravity being slightly stronger in one universe, to the speed of light NOT being constant, maybe even a 5th fundamental force in nature, or even physics much more unimaginable within 7 spatial dimensions, 3 dimensions of time, or some other insane scenarios that wouldn't be able to comprehend.

 

You can probably image the infinite chains of universes acting like the Tree of Life, continuously evolving over time, one universe would be somewhat different from it's next-door incarnations or it's offspring. But, universes that are millions of incarnations separate... or billions, would be INCREDIBLY different. I can only imagine how bizarre the physics would be there.

 

Also, the entirety of the network of chains that we call "the Multiverse" constitutes everything that can or ever will be. It's our entire reality. Isn't it possible that our Reality was created from some other event, because surely something can't be around forever, right? Well, this is where it gets extremely speculative. It could be possible that our Reality was created by something else, from a reality outside our own Reality. Like someone or something creating a VAST computer simulation much like the Sims. But if that Reality created our own, then what created that Reality? Pure speculation at this point. Perhaps you can keep "zooming out" forever and see there never really is no end to the greatness.

 

The last thing I want to say... Back to the concept of the chains in our reality. If universe chains are born, do they also die? Yes... yes they do. If a universe has too little mass (instead of too much)... It'll continue expanding forever, gradually increasing it's acceleration. One universe might have waaay too much mass, be around for very little time and cave back in on itself, while another might be next to void of mass and immediately wipe itself out like a soap bubble (i'll explain this in a second), and yet another might have the near perfect balance of mass of space that it'll be existent for a googolplex of years.

 

So, if one universe has too little mass, and too much space... it will continue expanding at an accelerating rate. That means that distances will become further and further apart. Spaces between spaces will continue expanding ever-so rapidly with increasing time. Said universe will become colder, less energetic, with interactions amongst matter happening very infrequently, everything will become darker, not just darker... but MUCH MUCH darker, with stars being unable to form because their matter dissipates into nothing. Entropy gone berserk is what this is. Matter itself decaying into radiation that will rarely encounter each other, black holes eventually dying... This is called the Heat Death or the Big Freeze.

 

But, that's not the end just yet! Presenting another one of the small handful of possible scenarios that will end our universe, and possibly the scariest... The Big Rip!!! So, with an ever-increasing acceleration, there will be one point in the finite future (should a universe not collapse back in on itself), that ALL DISTANCES WILL BECOME INFINITE. The temperature will have hit absolute zero at this point. Time will stop. The universe is over. That chain is obliterated from existence.

 

^ The scary part is that our universe itself actually seems to be headed towards that direction. You can read more about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

 

With this sense, the infinite chain of universe is analogous to the tree of life. Some species evolve from old ones, live out their lives, and gradually evolve into other species. While other species are unable to branch off into newer species, also being unable to last the test of time, and eventually become extinct.

 

If I have a religion, it is this... That the infinite chain of universes (being reality) is fighting an infinite war against being annihilated from existence by the darkness (non-existence). Only in a very rare few universes will the physics allow for life to eventually develop. Some universes will never be able to have the chemistry nor physics to give way for life. But the ones that do, might someday create life that  begins to question it's own existence. We are the universe experiencing itself. Not only that, but we're starting to master the laws of nature and create all sorts of awesome technologies that allow us not to be subject to nature's chaotic characteristics. Maybe the ultimate destiny of these chains is to one day produce intelligence and escape the confines of being destroyed at the end of an incarnation and travel to other universes. Maybe we can even create our own universes... and ultimately: Continue on the legacy of existence.

 

There's an infinite amount of possibilities out there...

 

 

 

This is all in theory by the way.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

My point about why not? was an agreement of sorts.  But I do point out that we know squat about what happens after the event horizon is passed.  Recently they've discovered that black holes radiate.  So all that matter-energy is coughed up in a cohesive beam of high energy particles?  Sure would make the physics world happier, but it is not proven that all that goes in comes out.

 

I've seen the "white hole" at the other end theory before.  This would make a black hole a kind of worm hole of fictional fame.  A singularity is a weird thing to even begin to wrap your mind around.  Perhaps in a three dimensional space it is a two dimensional solid?  (Impossible, what?).  Maybe a kind of cosmic Klein bottle.  I believe it is more likely to be a drain in the relativistic rubber sheet.

[KonstantinII 1,106]

Hollow Earth theory just doesn't work in real life. The laws of physics won't allow it so. 

The hollow earthers, flat earthers, and the biblical literalists all belong to the group whose motto is "Don't convince me with facts.  My mind is made up." 

Attack of the pseudo scientists! 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ Worse than Killer Tomatoes.

[Gannet 34]

This type of argument would be the same as coming across two copies of books that talking in depth about unicorns, and then going so far as to claim that unicorns are completely real despite the insane amount of evidence against it

While unicorns do not exist in nature, some creatures known to have puzzled  zoologists like Loch ness monster and Yeti are extinct on Earth but they are numerous inside the Argartha inner Earth.

[MandelSoft 2,775]

Erm, these creatures have never been proven by science, only by folklore stories and vague footage (why is all these footage vague and why can't scientists find them with highly advanced equipment?) This doesn't make ANY point why the Hollow Earth should exist.

[astronelson 339]

I have taken some time to think about how to word this post correctly. Quite possibly more time than the creator of this... hypothesis, at best... put into coming up with it. I wish to express precisely how ridiculous this idea is, while at the same time keeping a civil tongue in my head and refraining from petty insults.

 

The debate, if such a term even applies to this, is almost entirely one-sided.

 

One side has the backing of the laws of physics, centuries of scientific thought and observation, all the missions to the poles including the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station (located at the physical south pole), pictures of the Earth from space, among a vast host of other evidence, some of which has been recorded over the course of the thread.

 

The other side, on whom the full weight of the burden of proof lies, has easily-debunked half-baked suggestions, allusions to Tibetans, and a blurry picture of a cloud formation next to the south coast of Alaska.

 

The hypothesis is a simple one, and equally simple to test. All that needs to be done is to travel to the poles. If all of physics is so mind-bendingly wrong that the hypothesis is true, then there should be a giant hole in the ground 1,000 miles across where the pole should be.

 

If, through some magical happenstance, science is actually correct, however, and the hypothesis is wrong, then you should find no giant hole in the ground. If you were looking at the South Pole you should instead find the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. If you decided on the North and left from, say, Canada, you could keep going and find Russia. Travelling to the poles may be somewhat expensive (on the order of a few tens of thousands of dollars), but they are not inaccessible places.

 

However, I fear that no amount of evidence against the hypothesis would shake the conviction of someone who has already decided it is correct, even if they went and gathered that evidence themselves. It certainly appears to be the case here, much as it is when a hard-boiled creationist is presented with the veritable mountains of evidence for evolution. In the words of Erika Watson, "Faith and Reason inhabit different worlds--and so far there is no space travel between them".

 

I shall endeavour to waste as little of my time as possible here, and urge everyone else to leave this thread to a death it deserved back on page 1.

 

I also award the person who first suggested that the Earth was hollow no points, and may god have mercy on their soul. While they may be entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I also award the person who first suggested that the Earth was hollow no points, and may god have mercy on their soul. While they may be entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

 

and we are all dumber for having read it.

[KonstantinII 1,106]

I also award the person who first suggested that the Earth was hollow no points, and may god have mercy on their soul. While they may be entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

 

and we are all dumber for having read it.

It's the theory itself which is hollow, not the Earth!

[Cobraroll 138]

^That actually made a scary amount of sense. I can read the thread title a lot clearer now. Thanks!

[Gannet 34]

 

They say that Argartha is a land that is located inside Earth. Our planet may not be a solid ball but like a hollow egg shell with two openings at the poles to get between the two worlds. We live of course on the outside. The inside is lit by a small star. Argartha is habitable. It contains lands like Narnia and Middle Earth. Imagine the lands there and enormous waterfalls among tropical jungles filled with exotic animals! The Aztec empires are mere compared to what we may find there, having braved the frigid cold arctic! 

If all planets are hollow then our solar system contains life on the inside on every planet. Gravity pulls you toward the shell so you can walk as easily inside as outside.

[Gannet 34]

In fact the openings at the poles are convex, not concave. The Earth curves in on itself so technically you could walk right in. It's not like a big hole. That is also why the horizon is much closer in polar regions because the curvature is a bit greater at the poles.

 

If anyone doubts of the existence of hollow earth then read this article. It explains the theory very well.

 http://www.thenewearth.org/InnerEarth.html

[MandelSoft 2,775]

Congrats! You've just rendered your whole argument about the Hollow Earth Theory pointless by saying it hosts lands like Narnia and Middle Earth. Those are both fictional creations from two literary masterminds, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien and both NEVER claimed the existence of their nation. Even better: note how much Christian symbolism there is in Narnia, and yes, that's intentional. Reading your article only makes me laugh about actually how far-fetched this argument is and how easily we can disprove it (take a plane taking a polar route. You'll never see a hole and you won't find any mathematical evidence that you've taken a detour).

And again, gravity doesn't work that way. Gravity pulls you towards the center of the mass, not the center of the object. Even if the earth is hollow, the center of gravity of the entire earth would still be somewhere in the center.

Besides, the density of the crust is kind of unrealistic. Consider this: the mass of the Earth is: 5.97219 × 10²⁴ kg. Now say that the Earth's crust is like 800 miles thick, that's 1280 km. Now we know that the radius of the Earth is 6378.1 km. That means that the center of this hollow sphere is at a radius of:

6378.1 - (½ × 1280) = 5738.1 km

Now, lets calculate the surface area of the earth. The area of a sphere is 4πr². However, since we talk about the Hollow Earth in this case, we need to subtract the area of the holes themselves. An estimation for the total area of both holes is 2*πr_holes², making up the total formula of the surface area of the hollow earth:

4πr_earth² - 2πr_holes²

Now, we fill in for r_holes = 1000 miles = 1.6 × 10⁶m and r_earth² = 5738.1 km = 5.7381 × 10³m (since the extra volume added on the upper layers is subtracted at the bottom layers, so we take the center of this layer) and we get:

4πr(5.7381 × 10⁶)² - 2π(1.6 × 10⁶)² = 4.137 × 10¹⁴ - 1.61 × 10¹³ = 3.977 × 10¹⁴m²

The total volume of the crust would be:

3.977 × 10¹⁴m² × 1.280 × 10⁶m = 5.09 × 10²⁰m³

Now, to calculate the density of the earth's crust, we simply have to divide the mass of the earth by its volume. We get:

5.97219 × 10²⁴ kg / 5.09 × 10²⁰m³ = 11733 kg/m³. That's very, very dense. To compare: concrete is "only" 2500 kg/m³ solid steel is about 7800 kg/m³. The density you're looking for is that of lead (11340 kg/m³) and Thorium (11700 kg/m³). You can't convince me to say that this planet is made by material as dense as thorium, because all these material need very heavy elements, which are by the way not abundantly present in the universe since they are only formed at supernovas.

Now let's compare this density of the "solid" earth. The volume of a sphere is 4/3πr³. Fill in r = 6.3781 × 10⁶m and we get:

4/3π (6.3781 × 10⁶)³ = 1.086 × 10²¹m³.

The average density of the "solid" earth is:

5.97219 × 10²⁴ kg / 1.086 × 10²¹m³ = 5499 kg/m³.

This still seems high, but we can at least explain why it's this dense: the surface may be from "lighter" materials such as granite (2700 kg/m³) and basalt (2900 kg/m³), but the core is made of liquid iron (7870 kg/m³). This evens out nicely to the value we found.

THIS is physics and math, and it does render your argument invalid.

Best,

Maarten

[Cockatoo 2,257]

I can't believe this thread has 6 pages and an actual debate going on.

 

Next we should debate whether or not the sun exists. I think it's a hoax! It's probably just a big lamp or something.

[astronelson 339]

And now for the question that I don't think has actually been asked yet: why is this thread in Current Events?

 

It regards neither anything current nor any recent event.

[Bipin 3,403]

No celestial body could be hollow in the first place due to how they are formed, where debris (initially in the form of cosmic dust) essentially collide and come together to create an object of greater mass. This mass has gravitational pull greater than the other smaller objects in its vicinity, thus attracting more cosmic dust , meteors, etc. until a body forms that's the size of a planet. There is simply no mechanism that would create some sort of hollow vacuum in a planet, because there is no need to. Even in some sort of anomaly (which would really never happen)  where the matter inside the planet "disappeared", the body would be hollow only for a few seconds until it collapses in on itself. As in any case, matter will try and go from a high to low concentration (filling the void)...

 

JUST KIDDING!

 

...The CIA is actually dropping terrorists down into the center of the Earth to make it spin, sort of like a giant, omni-directional hamster wheel.

[Gannet 34]

We are not talking about this is scientific terms, are we? 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

One simple problem with Hollow Earth Theory; it can't explain the magnetic poles or why they sometimes flip upside-down. Plus also there's problems with major asteroid strikes, if the Earth hollow and contains naught but the crust why aren't there holes on the surface?

 

Then we run the problems of Hollow Earth Theory trying to explain plate tectonics, volcanoes, a radioactive interior (right at the centre), how small terrestrial bodies clump together. The list goes on and on and -- this might sound nutty -- but wouldn't a hollow Earth be really brittle so if a asteroid struck it, it would be the equivalent of hitting an egg shell with a teaspoon?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Still?

 

this subject just will not die.

[Bipin 3,403]

 

Still?

 

this subject just will not die.

 

 

We are not talking about this is scientific terms, are we? 

 

Which is probably why the thread won't die. Proponents of this backwards theory won't accept scientific fact.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

This really should have been locked a long time ago.

Although the 6 pages of discussion has provided some entertaining thought and interesting discussion, this theory can be considered void as it fails the basic aspects of considering it a theory. Besides I can no longer see any meaningful discussion happing, with either side simply trying to push without compromise.