PDA

View Full Version : hollow planets for Satan



roidspop
2002-Apr-16, 05:19 AM
I just had a suspicion form in the dim recesses of my noggin about these hollow planets that seem to be beloved by creationists. Forgive me for not doing my homework, but I think this is their attempt to salvage Hell. Where else could you put all the damned souls if the center of the world was filled up with white-hot iron? So, they have to invent hollow planets and all the machinations necessary to keep them from collapsing, including dinking around with gravity, so we can have an underworld. Does this seem to fit with what you know about this interesting interpretation of geology by our brethren? (I know about the hollow earth and flying saucers weirdness, but this doesn't seem to fit the new spin I'm seeing) I'd like to hear your ideas about this.

Conrad
2002-Apr-16, 07:53 AM
I do remember seeing an article on the Urban Legends website (taken from that scientific benchmark, the National Enquirer) about a drilling operation in Siberia that pierced through the Earth's crust into the Earth's interior and used microphones to listen to the moaning of damned souls in Hell, who dwelt down there.

Is that any good?

roidspop
2002-Apr-16, 05:31 PM
Probably not, but I have to go change my briefs now. Thanks.

Azpod
2002-Apr-16, 05:34 PM
On 2002-04-16 01:19, roidspop wrote:
I just had a suspicion form in the dim recesses of my noggin about these hollow planets that seem to be beloved by creationists. Forgive me for not doing my homework, but I think this is their attempt to salvage Hell. Where else could you put all the damned souls if the center of the world was filled up with white-hot iron? So, they have to invent hollow planets and all the machinations necessary to keep them from collapsing, including dinking around with gravity, so we can have an underworld. Does this seem to fit with what you know about this interesting interpretation of geology by our brethren? (I know about the hollow earth and flying saucers weirdness, but this doesn't seem to fit the new spin I'm seeing) I'd like to hear your ideas about this.


Most Creationists take a literal view of the Bible (myself included). However, the view of Hell being at the center of a hollow Earth is not Biblical at all. There is a reference to a "lake of fire" that the demons and the damned souls get tossed into, which is seperated from Heaven by a great rift that no one can cross. There is also reference to a "bottomless pit" which the Beast, the Antichrist and the False Prophet get locked into for 1000 years.

That's it. Lake of Fire and the Bottomless Pit are two separate things. Also, a Bottomless Pit does not have to imply a hollow Earth. Being blown into interstellar space could be considered a bottomless pit. So could being thrown into high orbit. Venus would do nicely for a lake of fire, as would Jupiter's liquid hydrogen layer. Even the Sun would qualify as a bottomless pit, since it has no solid core.

That's one of the problems with reading too much into prophecy: there isn't just one possible way it could be fulfilled. For instance: being tossed into the core of the Earth with no air and an entire planet's worth of liquid rock pressing down on me, but being denied the release of death, would do quite nicely for Hell.

The way I see it, there is no need to rescue the notion of Hell. I have seen no evidence that Hell could not exist, especially since there are many places in our own solar system that would fit the Biblical description of Hell quite nicely. Yet, it is likely that Hell is in none of them, as it's probably much worse than anything that our solar system could provide.

_________________
Lobster sticks to magnet. (http://www.solarisdx.net/features/1lm.html)
That is all.

--Azpod... Formerly known as James Justin

[edit: cant spel]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Azpod on 2002-04-16 13:38 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Apr-16, 05:50 PM
On 2002-04-16 13:34, Azpod wrote:

Most Creationists take a literal view of the Bible (myself included). However, the view of Hell being at the center of a hollow Earth is not Biblical at all.


On the other hand, aren't there some implications in the Bible that Heaven is above our heads? I seem to recall something about the problem with the tower of Babel being that it might rise high enough for humans to reach heaven.

Azpod
2002-Apr-16, 09:11 PM
On 2002-04-16 13:50, ToSeek wrote:

On the other hand, aren't there some implications in the Bible that Heaven is above our heads? I seem to recall something about the problem with the tower of Babel being that it might rise high enough for humans to reach heaven.


The account of the Tower of Babel is in Genesis 11:1-9. It is very short, so it is a quick read.

To answer your question: yes, there are multiple references of Heaven being above us, and there are references to Heaven being a purely spiritual realm, so whereever it actually is, we would be unable to detect it.

I could easily get into a heavy-duty theological discussion about the meaning of the Tower of Babel, but this is not the forum for it, as it has very little to do with astronomy. Needless to say, the existance of the tower itself wasn't the big problem; if it was, we'd be toast the day Sputnik left the ground. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

By the way, who seriously believes that the Earth is hollow? I'd like to see what type of evidence they present to support that theory, if any...!

_________________
That is all.

--Azpod... Formerly known as James Justin

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Azpod on 2002-04-16 17:14 ]</font>

Phobos
2002-Apr-16, 09:44 PM
On 2002-04-16 03:53, Conrad wrote:
I do remember seeing an article on the Urban Legends website (taken from that scientific benchmark, the National Enquirer) about a drilling operation in Siberia that pierced through the Earth's crust into the Earth's interior and used microphones to listen to the moaning of damned souls in Hell, who dwelt down there.

Is that any good?



You may find the following links informative;

The Religious Propoganda (http://www.av1611.org/hell.html)

Proof of Hoax (http://ship-of-fools.com/Myths/03Myth.html)

Phobos

Phobos
2002-Apr-16, 09:49 PM
By the way, who seriously believes that the Earth is hollow? I'd like to see what type of evidence they present to support that theory, if any...!

I do. I have even travelled into a few of the hollows (known as "caves"). OK, so I guess caves were not what you had in mind, but seriously there is a problem with definition here. We know that the planet has large areas of subsurface hollow cavities filled with everything from air, water and gas to molten lava. The question is not is the planet hollow, but how hollow.

Phobos

Azpod
2002-Apr-16, 10:09 PM
On 2002-04-16 17:49, Phobos wrote:

I do. I have even travelled into a few of the hollows (known as "caves"). OK, so I guess caves were not what you had in mind, but seriously there is a problem with definition here. We know that the planet has large areas of subsurface hollow cavities filled with everything from air, water and gas to molten lava. The question is not is the planet hollow, but how hollow.

Phobos


Yes, but these pockets would only occur in the crust, or possibly in boundry layers between the crust and the mantle, or the mantle and the core. I was referring to the belief that the Earth has a hollow core, or even a hollow mantle.

Phobos
2002-Apr-16, 10:17 PM
In that case I do remember reading about someone combining the expanded Earth hypothesis (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1.htm#Top) with a hollow Earth theory, but it may take some hunting to give you a URL.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-04-16 18:18 ]</font>

roidspop
2002-Apr-17, 01:08 AM
Do you suppose that, watching the animation of the expanding earth and seeing that nothing got rafted around and smeared off on continental margins, the author had a momentary feeling of that unpleasant sensation called "doubt"? Evidently not. That's a good site, Phobos. Thanks.

DStahl
2002-Apr-17, 03:29 AM
We have been to the North Pole, and there are no reindeer, no sleighs, and no buildings. We have voyaged under the icecap in submarines, and ditto for the undersea realm.

Where is Santa Claus? Inside. Hollow Earth for Santa!

--Don Stahl

SeanF
2002-Apr-17, 11:46 AM
On 2002-04-16 23:29, DStahl wrote:
We have been to the North Pole, and there are no reindeer, no sleighs, and no buildings. We have voyaged under the icecap in submarines, and ditto for the undersea realm.

Where is Santa Claus? Inside. Hollow Earth for Santa!

--Don Stahl


But, the Hollow Earth is where Hell is . . . wait a second! "Santa" and "Satan" both have the same letters, they both wear red, and have you ever seen them both in the same place at the same time?!

Oh my!

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Apr-17, 07:35 PM
Actually, collecting "serious" books about the Hollow Earth was a pasttime of mine for a while in high school/university. Credit Martin Gardner (he of the ancient "Mathematical Games" column in Scientific American) for sparking my interest--he delved into it in one of his columns a bit.

But associating Hollow Earth believers with Creationists is a relatively new phenomenon. Of course, in general skeptics like to lump all the "looneys" (as they see them) into one bucket, and I'm certainly not saying that there aren't people who hold both beliefs. But reading quite a bit of the HE books written pre-1980 (and some of them very much pre-1980), belief in Biblical Creation, or any part of the Bible in fact, is almost totally missing in any of the accounts.

There's much more of a cross-over with the UFO crowd, as many people have postulated that the UFOs aren't ETs nor Atlanteans, but HEers. Mount Shasta in northern Caforlornia is supposed to be one of their favourite transit points between In and Out; and, of course, the well-known (not to say well-documented!) Polar Openings.

The idea was popular enough at the time that Edgar Rice Burroughs set an entire sci-fi series (seven novels or story collections) in the HE, which he named Pellucidar. The first novel, At the Earth's Core, was serialised in 1914. One of his main sources for the idea was a Civil War-era officer, Symmes by name if I remember correctly, who was extremely convinced of the fact of the HE. I've got a reprint of Symmes' book somewhere.

The (oh yeah, Pellucidar has intelligent pteranodons) Curtmudgeon

John Kierein
2002-Apr-17, 08:29 PM
I've had considerable correspondence with Prof. S. Warren Carey on the concept of the Expanding Earth. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/SWCarey.htm
It's the best explanation I've seen on why the continents fit together so well and for plate tectonics. The only thing lacking was a mechanism for the expansion which the "Pushing Gravity" provides. Carey was of the belief that he might provide a mechanism through Tom Gold and Fred Hoyle's steady state universe if the new mass created was at the site of existing mass. Hoyle's steady state required new mass to be created to keep an expanding universe at a constant density. With "Pushing Gravity" we get an expanding earth without having to create mass from nothing like Hoyle's steady state required. http://shop.alpmicro.com/apeiron/

Of couse I don't think the earth is hollow, but there are some who are looking for bottomless pits: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134436378_melshole14m.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-04-17 16:34 ]</font>

roidspop
2002-Apr-18, 01:17 AM
It's not obvious to me how an expanding earth produces effects such as subduction. How would you account for things like India being rafted onto the margin of Eurasia, California being composed of exotic terranes, and so forth? Everything seems to be under tension, but I suppose you could jigger around with regional expansion rates so as to get one plate ramming into another. Certainly doesn't seem likely, though. And is this supposed to be a universal phenomenon or just terrestrial? Sure don't see any evidence of it on the moon or the asteroids we've visited. Mars...maybe. Venus? Complete crustal overturn, so who knows? That's the one that alarms me...hope the earth doesn't decide to do a over-easy number on its crust! Blue-plate tectonics!

Silas
2002-Apr-18, 01:33 AM
. . . California being composed of exotic terranes, and so forth? . . .


Ooh! Are you a fan of John McPhee? His book, "Assembling California," is an absolute delight.

(Actually, everything he's written is!)

Rather than California falling into the sea, it turns out that the various offshore islands are moving eastwards, to accumulate and build California up. In time, the Sea of Cortez will narrow and be sealed (a terrible shame for the rich biodiversity of the region...but that's nature for you...)

Silas

John Kierein
2002-Apr-18, 01:20 PM
Most of the objections to the Expanding Earth I got when I presented a poster paper on the subject at the Fall AGU meeting a few years back was: "Where does the water in oceans come from?" Carey has lots of answers to subduction. You'd have to read his books. I think he taught at Stanford for a while because I ran across some of his ex-students.
I think we can easily explain the source of water as coming from volcanoes from the expansion. A lot of this is at the big volcanic ridges that are expanding in the center of the oceans. There has been recent studies that show that rocks contain a lot more water than originally thought. (See the "fountains from the Deep discussion on this BB) http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm98&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm98%2 Ffm98&maxhits=200&=%22U32A-31%22
Of course Lou Frank of "The Big Splash" fame thinks it came from comets.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-04-18 09:25 ]</font>

James
2002-Apr-19, 03:24 AM
On 2002-04-17 21:17, roidspop wrote:
It's not obvious to me how an expanding earth produces effects such as subduction. How would you account for things like India being rafted onto the margin of Eurasia, California being composed of exotic terranes, and so forth?

While subduction does happen along some plates, mainly where land meets the sea(ex: Pacific Plate hitting and subducting under the Phillipine and Asian plates and a couple of other plates, the names of which escape me for the moment.), that isn't always the case. There are areas where the land is rising, as in the Himalayas. There, the sub-continent of India slammed into the Eurasian continent millions of years ago, and eventually formed the Himalayas. In Europe, the Alps were formed when Africa started slamming into Europe. The line between the European continent and the African continent is in the middle of the Meditteranean(sp?).

Earth, AFAIK, isn't expanding. It's just that the magma in the center of the Earth is constantly moving. And whenever there's a crack, it moves up.

California just had good luck when it got it's environments, that's all. Hawaii was extrememly lucky with it's islands.

John Kierein
2002-Apr-19, 12:51 PM
Well, the main argument in favor of the expanding earth is that the continents fit almost perfectly together on a smaller diameter earth; whereas they have major overlaps and gaps if the they are tried to be fit together in a big continent on today's diameter earth. This is a pretty powerful argument if a mechanism can be found for the earth expansion. Sea floor spreading is also where folks point out the we can see the expansion occuring before our very eyes. There is even some data on sea level rise and continental rise that supports actual measurements of very slow earth expansion, but this is highly controversial and is complicated by glacial rebound, etc., that make it hard to see the forest for the trees.
A blanket statement that the earth is not expanding is not warranted. There are conflicting theories and evidence. (Some people say that the dinosaurs could not be as big as they were because they couldn't pump blood that high against gravity; but if the earth was smaller several million years ago and had a lower gravity, there would not be such a problem.) It's not clear if the expansion is steady or happens in jumps, but most theories would say it's steady and perhaps slightly accelerating as planets get bigger. Most geology textbooks (My daughter was a geophysics major and I read her texts.) consider the expanding earth as a possible theory and do not reject it out of hand.

ToSeek
2002-Apr-19, 02:29 PM
On 2002-04-19 08:51, John Kierein wrote:
if the earth was smaller several million years ago and had a lower gravity, there would not be such a problem.


But if the Earth were smaller but had the same mass, the gravity at the surface would be higher, not lower.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-19, 02:46 PM
On 2002-04-19 08:51, John Kierein wrote:
whereas they have major overlaps and gaps if the they are tried to be fit together in a big continent on today's diameter earth. This is a pretty powerful argument if a mechanism can be found for the earth expansion.

Over ten years ago, when I last looked into Carey's theory, I talked with a guy in Wyoming, Ken Perry, who was doing computer modeling and had worked with Carey on it. As near as I could tell, they didn't account for things like internal expansion of the continents, which is pretty obvious in areas like the Basin and Range. In other words, if you reduce the size of that portion of the continents, the fit is no longer so good, and the plate tectonic fit is better.


Most geology textbooks (My daughter was a geophysics major and I read her texts.) consider the expanding earth as a possible theory and do not reject it out of hand.


I think you mean most geology textbooks that even mention the expanding earth theory. I think the great majority of geology textbooks do not even mention it. That the ones that do mention it also don't reject it out of hand is not very surprising.

John Kierein
2002-Apr-19, 03:00 PM
"But if the Earth were smaller but had the same mass, the gravity at the surface would be higher, not lower."
But the assumption was that it was smaller AND less massive. The mechanism I like is that new mass come from Pushing Gravity.

DJ
2002-Apr-19, 03:23 PM
The way I see it, there is no need to rescue the notion of Hell. I have seen no evidence that Hell could not exist, especially since there are many places in our own solar system that would fit the Biblical description of Hell quite nicely. Yet, it is likely that Hell is in none of them, as it's probably much worse than anything that our solar system could provide.


I've always just assumed -- through some literal interpretations of exactly what takes place in "Hell" -- that I'm already there.

This would certainly explain a lot of things that go on around us that seemingly defy explanation.

Interestingly, if you look at where we are in the universe, we are certainly in quite a cage. Deadly radiation all around, bodies that can't deal with weightlessness, vast unattainable distances to anything cool, and physical speed limits that prevent us from ever going there.

The good side is this type of world-view convinces you to look more inside than out at the stars... because the escape route is already inside.

DJ

Silas
2002-Apr-19, 04:31 PM
On 2002-04-19 11:00, John Kierein wrote:
"But if the Earth were smaller but had the same mass, the gravity at the surface would be higher, not lower."
But the assumption was that it was smaller AND less massive. The mechanism I like is that new mass come from Pushing Gravity.


You're really straining my credulity here... How in the name of dickens would "gravity" add mass to the earth?

Why isn't the moon showing signs of expansion? Why not Mars?

If the sun is gaining mass at the same rate you say the earth is (proportionally to its mass) then earth's orbit would be changing dramatically.

It seems to me that you're making a whole bunch of assumptions, and these assumptions would have consequences vastly beyond the observations you are trying to account for.

I might be wrong; I don't comprehend your theory. Do you have a web site that puts the whole "pushing gravity" theory into a coherent whole? Does it explain how gravity causes an increase in mass?

He'p me! He'p me! I'm WAY bewildered by this theory.

Silas

John Kierein
2002-Apr-19, 06:21 PM
Well the sun is radiating as much or more energy than it is receiving. I could say get the Pushing Gravity book. http://shop.alpmicro.com/apeiron/
But the essence is that Pushing Gravity says that very long wavelength radiation pushes things together to cause gravity. There is a vectorial cancellation of much of this radiation that cause a mass to absorb the radiation without a corresponding increase in velocity which causes it to increase in mass according to e = mc^2 or m = e/c^2. When the body gets big enough it re-radiates some of this energy. It's a pretty slow process. It's happening for all bodies, but the absorption is proportional to the mass so it happens more for larger bodies. That's why Jupiter radiates more energy than it receives at shorter wavelengths. The existence of this long wavelength background is a prediction of a static universe with a Compton effect red shift. Reber has measured some of it at hectometric wavelengths where the night sky is the negative of the night sky at shorter wavelengths. I am a proponent of this THEORY.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

John Kierein
2002-Apr-22, 02:27 PM
There is a large bibliography on the Expanding Earth. http://www.ping.be/jvwit/expandingearth.html
I just heard there will be aconference on "New Concepts in Plate Tectonics" in La Junta Colorado May 5th to 11th that will include sessions on the Expanding Earth.
As for how gravity adds mass, You need to read the book or get the videotape. http://shop.alpmicro.com/apeiron/ But the essence is that in a stable static universe the background of very long wavelength radiaion is quite large. This radiation has great penetrating power and pushes masses together in an inverse square law manner. This is Pushing Gravity. (There have been several papers on this and it has a long history.) For very long wavelength radiation this is a macroscopic or "bulk" effect, rather than causing heating. For the case of a single mass this radiation vectorially cancels its push, but the slight absorption of energy without a corresponding increase in velocity requires an increase in mass according to E = mc^2 or m = E/c^2. This mass is the source of earth expansion. It's a very slow process and is bigger for larger bodies. (Gravity is a pretty weak force, but pervasive.) This mechanism is a very nice solution to the problems of "stability" of a static universe and Olbers paradox, etc.