Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Moderator: Referees

Farhan Lalji

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Farhan Lalji » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:04 am

Strangelove wrote: But being as this is Ohdee, the most powerful poster in the world, and would blow your head clean off,
I definitely agree with you there Doc. No one can blow a head clean off better than Ohdee. You and donlever should know that better than anyone. :P

User avatar
ODB
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:13 pm

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by ODB » Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:42 am

Farhan Lalji wrote:
Strangelove wrote: But being as this is Ohdee, the most powerful poster in the world, and would blow your head clean off,
I definitely agree with you there Doc. No one can blow a head clean off better than Ohdee. You and donlever should know that better than anyone. :P
GM spends three days insulting people and the ONLY person to respond is Cornuck (when he deletes his posts). :mrgreen:

Carry on GM, carry on! :lol: :lol: :lol:
BTW, NOT A FLAME ... JUST AN OBSERVATION ... :P

User avatar
Sick Bunny
CC Veteran
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:12 am

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Sick Bunny » Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:01 am

Strangelove wrote:1). God hast smitest thou with Ohdee (ie no mercy, "cyberhug" or otherwise).

2). You asked for a cyberhug from Ohdee because you are in love with Ohdee.

I know what you're thinking. "Which one did he intend?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is Ohdee, the most powerful poster in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky?
Well, at first glance this is only a poor man's double entendre -- more like a tautology -- with one meaning of "smite" being a mere allegory of the other. Looking deeper though, I'm intrigued by your choice of prepositions. Smitten with Ohdee, not by Ohdee, implying Ohdee is the instrument rather than the perpetrator. So the double entendre within the entendre is that you are calling Ohdee a blunt object? Thou art indeed a cunning linguist!
Hmmm “irrefutable” = undeniable, indisputable, incontrovertible.

Sooooo basically anything BUT “utter bollocks”! :mex:

Not sure wot kinda goddamned <--WOT! English their teaching you Russkies over there these days....
What they're teaching "these days" I have no idea either, but back in my day I had the benefit of a classical education... and funnily enough, I do remember refutability (I know exactly what it means, thank you very much) being the difference between a proper theory and utter bollocks. Just to use a random example, evolution is very much refutable -- find a few chimp fossils in among the dinosaurs, and it's comprehensively disproven -- thus making it a proper theory worthy of people's time at least. Whereas the idea that God created the Earth in seven days is entirely irrefutable, since any evidence to the contrary can be explained away as having also been created by God (to fuck with our heads, presumably) along with all his other miracles and instruments (such as Ohdee). Which, funnily enough, is exactly what makes it utter bollocks, scientifically speaking.

But I'm sure you know all that -- it's commendable that you have spun a bunch of utter bollocks into an 8-page thread though. It's all about the entertainment value, right?

P.S. Did someone mention Monobrow is in the building?

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 22179
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Strangelove » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:38 am

Well by that definition Bunny, you're gunna hafta lable your prevailing-by-scientific-consensus Big Bang & Abiogenesis theories as utter bollocks.

Funnily enough. :lol:

And if the Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis is... irrefutable utter bollocks... so too is the alternative view!

BTW the chosen preposition was necessary to make the double entendre work.

Speaking of "chosen", Ohdee would be classified as a subject of God rather than an object.

Speaking of crusades, I'm thinking of starting one in an all out effort to finally put to bring down the fascist intellectual bullies who have overrun certain branches of the.... so-called... scientific community.

Time to put the SCIENCE back in the scientific community methinks....
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Sick Bunny
CC Veteran
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:12 am

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Sick Bunny » Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:18 pm

Strangelove wrote:Well by that definition Bunny, you're gunna hafta lable your prevailing-by-scientific-consensus Big Bang & Abiogenesis theories as utter bollocks.
Oh right, play it by the script and trot out those two beaten examples. :D Come on Doc, big bang cosmology is eminently refutable. The predictions it makes about the universe are highly specific, and one can conceive of any number of hypothetical observational results that would immediately disprove the big bang. Funnily enough, such results singularly fail to turn up. As for abiogenesis, it's not even a theory as such but rather a whole field of theories, any one of which is certainly disprovable.
Speaking of "chosen", Ohdee would be classified as a subject of God rather than an object.
Well, if you, or indeed that God fellow of yours, are going to go around smiting people with a subject, then that subject is quickly going to turn into a [rather inanimate] object, wouldn't you agree? Hey Ohdee, hold still while we do this, will ya?
Speaking of crusades, I'm thinking of starting one in an all out effort to finally put to bring down the fascist intellectual bullies who have overrun certain branches of the.... so-called... scientific community.

Time to put the SCIENCE back in the scientific community methinks....
...one hockey forum at a time!!! :baaa: :baaa: Bravo Doc, sign me up, you know I'm always up for a crusade! (Remind me to tell you the one about the crusader, the hot wife, and the chastity belt some time.)

Farhan Lalji

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Farhan Lalji » Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:21 pm

ODB wrote:
Farhan Lalji wrote:
Strangelove wrote: But being as this is Ohdee, the most powerful poster in the world, and would blow your head clean off,
I definitely agree with you there Doc. No one can blow a head clean off better than Ohdee. You and donlever should know that better than anyone. :P
GM spends three days insulting people and the ONLY person to respond is Cornuck (when he deletes his posts). :mrgreen:

Carry on GM, carry on! :lol: :lol: :lol:
I wasn't insulting anyone ODB.

I sincerely apologize if it came across like that.

I was merely telling the truth as I saw it, and commented as such.

If anything, I don't think I did anything different from what someone like Mahatma Ghandi would have done.

"Where there is truth, there is victory"

p.s.____________To the best of my knowledge, only TWO (2) posts of mine were mod-editted out of my last 50 or so...and so I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. One post was a comment in regards to Reggie Dunlop of Calgarpuck.com, and another post was in regards to Canuckscentral alumni poster Sick Bunny. I also believe that quite a number of different posters were intrigued by my comments and responded to those posts of mine. Therefore, I do not think it was factually correct of you to imply that 'Cornuck' was the only poster responding to my post(s).

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 22179
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Strangelove » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:09 pm

Sick Bunny wrote: Come on Doc, big bang cosmology is eminently refutable. The predictions it makes about the universe are highly specific, and one can conceive of any number of hypothetical observational results that would immediately disprove the big bang. Funnily enough, such results singularly fail to turn up.
Ummmm.... BOLLOCKS!! :lol:

The ORIGINAL Big Bang theory has been disproven.

For example when calculations revealed "missing matter"... they simply changed the theory by adding another theory:

Dark matter.

The apparent "missing matter" completely refuted the Big Bang theory.

Yet the Big Bang theory remains!

Is any of this getting though?

It's irrefutable as long as they keep changing the parameters, which they can/will do until the end of time....
Sick Bunny wrote: As for abiogenesis, it's not even a theory as such but rather a whole field of theories, any one of which is certainly disprovable.
Nope. Abiogenesis is a theory suggesting life arose from non-life (utter bollocks btw).

But, like the God-created-everything theory, no amount of science can prove life didn't arise from non-life.

And btw each of the theories we have discussed thus far could/should be called "whole fields of theories". :roll:
Sick Bunny wrote: Well, if you, or indeed that God fellow of yours, are going to go around smiting people with a subject, then that subject is quickly going to turn into a [rather inanimate] object, wouldn't you agree? Hey Ohdee, hold still while we do this, will ya?
Nope, the subject gets to decide as to whether or not he wants to do the smiting this theoretical God asks of him. :drink:

As an aside, did you miss the following...

Strangelove:

"And if the Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis is... irrefutable utter bollocks... so too is the alternative view!"

:mex:
.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

Farhan Lalji

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Farhan Lalji » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:02 pm

Looks like much hasn't changed in the last 7 years.

Strangelove continues to consistently destroy Sick Bunny in practically every debate. :lol:

The post above mine is completely true by the way.

User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2922
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Aaronp18 » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:43 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Aaronp18 wrote: It has been estimated that scientists today know approximately 0.0000001% of all that is knowable. I'm not sure why you Aaron, like most folks, eagerly swallow "scientific consensus" as though it were the elixir of life. No one loves science more than Strangelove... and no one hates "scientific consensus" more than Strangelove.

Do you understand the... vast... difference between the two?

Don't be intimidated by what so-called experts BELIEVE to be true, only believe what they can PROVE to be true.

Hey, the fact they can't disprove the seemingly-bizarre theory I raised in the OP should give you a clue!
Well you could probably argue that scientist know less than 0.0000001% of all that knowable considering all that is knowable is basically infinite.

I'm not saying that Scientific Consensus is fact, what I'm saying is that based on what the current evidence is the Plate Tectonic Theory seems more plausible. And it seems for the time being the scientific community agrees.

There are holes in each argument of course, as any theoretical observation.

You ask why I "swallow scientific consensus as though it were the elixir of life" though I would ask you why you argue for a theory that is only seeing the light of day because of the technology and globalization of information that exists today. This theory was presented 40 years ago to the scientific community and it was debunked then due to the amount of holes in the theory.

They made some slight changes to the theory recently and have not had the scientific community overview the theory before it becomes viral on the internet.

Does any of this mean that no portion of the theory holds any sort of merit? No not at all.

It's very plausible that subduction zones exist and the earth is expanding, there may never be enough empirical evidence to prove either/or is factual. From the data that can be collected as of right now it would seem that it is logical to follow "scientific consensus", but don't get me wrong in no way am I saying that this should be taken as the one and only possible answer and that critical thought and innovative new ideas should be dismissed without review.

Hell the "scientific consensus" at one point was that the earth was flat!

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 22179
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Strangelove » Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:21 pm

Aaronp18 wrote: I'm not saying that Scientific Consensus is fact, what I'm saying is that based on what the current evidence is the Plate Tectonic Theory seems more plausible. And it seems for the time being the scientific community agrees.
Those who give waaay too much credence to Scientific Consensus tend to add sentences such as:

"And it seems for the time being the scientific community agrees."

;)
Aaronp18 wrote: Hell the "scientific consensus" at one point was that the earth was flat!
Right and your average Earthling at the time would've said something like:

"Based on the current evidence the Flat Earth Theory seems more plausible."

:mrgreen:
Aaronp18 wrote: There are holes in each argument of course, as any theoretical observation.
"theoretical observation" is an oxymoron.

And we're not talking holes... we're talking near-ridiculous assumptions.

Yes, in both cases.
Aaronp18 wrote: This theory (Expanding Earth) was presented 40 years ago to the scientific community and it was debunked then due to the amount of holes in the theory.
It was never debunked and it appears you are in need a brief history of Geophysics! If I may...

The theory of Continental Drift was first put forth in 1596 (Continental Drift is an integral part of each of our 2 little theories here). This was about the time folks were beginning to realize N/S America seemed to fit together with Europe/Africa...

Well the "scientific community" thoroughly rejected the idea of Continental Drift for the next three CENTURIES.

Then in 1912, Alfred Wegener got the ball rolling again, based on matching geological formations on each side of the Atlantic.

For his troubles, Wegener was ridiculed by the "scientific community" for the rest of his life!

Continental Drift was accepted 50 years later... due to overwhelming evidence... long after Wegener's death.

At the very moment the "scientific community" accepted Continental Drift they had 2, and ONLY TWO options:

1). Expanding Earth

2). Plate Tectonics

Can you see why a "scientific community" which fought tooth & nail against the very unsettling (yet OBVIOUS) idea of Continental Drift for the better part of four centuries would chose (2) above? Plate Tectonics is more comforting psychologically to the "scientific community" (HEY, it was earth-shatteringly <--WOT tough enough on them to FINALLY accept Continental Drift, let alone the mind-blowing, yet just-as-possible Expanding Earth).

Even more importantly, PT seemed to fit better in the overall scheme of things than EE with the developing Big Bang theory.

EE was never "debunked" Aaron, truth is they had two choices: the turn-everything-on-it's-ear ridiculous EE theory... or the don't-hafta-COMPLETELY-re-write-the-science-books-yet-equally-ridiculous PT.

And hey, either one would no doubt be... irrefutable... for the next few centuries, so 'say chaps let's not move any further out of our comfort zone than needs-be eh wot ole beans'?
Aaronp18 wrote: It's very plausible that subduction zones exist and the earth is expanding
Well it's either one or the other.

And judging by the notorious stuffy pride of your "scientific community" from Flat-Earth to Anti-Continental-Drift to finally-Continental-Drift it's extremely unlikely they'll switch to... the other... until a few centuries after it has become painfully obvious.

I'm saying don't believe ANY theories. Study them all, but don't believe em. :mex:

Just the facts please.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2922
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Aaronp18 » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:43 pm

Strangelove wrote: Those who give waaay too much credence to Scientific Consensus tend to add sentences such as:
"And it seems for the time being the scientific community agrees."
Possibly, or I could just be giving due respect for those far more intelligent and versed in the subject than myself.

:thumbs:
Strangelove wrote: Right and your average Earthling at the time would've said something like:

"Based on the current evidence the Flat Earth Theory seems more plausible
I agree. Seems like a pretty intelligent thing to say knowing full well that it impossible to know all the facts on a subject such as this.
Strangelove wrote: It was never debunked and it appears you are in need a brief history of Geophysics! If I may...
Well I was referring to the paper written in 1975 by Carey, who a lot of the videos and online articles seem to be deriving their latest incarnation from.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear at all.
Strangelove wrote: Well it's either one or the other.
Why is that? Because that's what the "scientific community" is telling us?? :mrgreen:

What if the earth is recycling it's mantle but not at the same rate that the divergent plates are moving apart? Now if the subduction zones didn't exists we would be able to measure this growth because it would be much greater than it currently is.

:look:
Strangelove wrote: I'm saying don't believe ANY theories. Study them all, but don't believe em. :mex:

Just the facts please.
Of this, again, I agree. Which is why I said this:
Aaronp18 wrote: It's very plausible that subduction zones exist and the earth is expanding, there may never be enough empirical evidence to prove either/or is factual. From the data that can be collected as of right now it would seem that it is logical to follow "scientific consensus", but don't get me wrong in no way am I saying that this should be taken as the one and only possible answer and that critical thought and innovative new ideas should be dismissed without review.
And for now the Plate Tectonic theory is more plausible in my eyes, but that would never stop me from having an open mind to new ideas. I just don't think there is enough evidence right now to make the Expanding Earth hypothesis more plausible.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 22179
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Strangelove » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:21 pm

Aaronp18 wrote: Possibly, or I could just be giving due respect for those far more intelligent and versed in the subject than myself.

:thumbs:
Riiiiight, so if a car salesman knows more about cars than you...... :roll:
Aaronp18 wrote: I agree. Seems like a pretty intelligent thing to say knowing full well that it impossible to know all the facts on a subject such as this.
"impossible to know all the facts"

Yet somehow those scientists just might... somehow... know??

Doesn't jibe buddy...
Aaronp18 wrote: Why is that? Because that's what the "scientific community" is telling us?? :mrgreen:

What if the earth is recycling it's mantle but not at the same rate that the divergent plates are moving apart? Now if the subduction zones didn't exists we would be able to measure this growth because it would be much greater than it currently is.

:look:
LOL, nice try!

Sure you could have some periods/pockets of subduction in an EE worldview...

But as an overall explanation?

Nope.

Gotta globe?

Look how far apart N/S America has moved from Euro/Africa.

Either the Earth has grown in diameter or there's a whole lotta subduction goin on.....
Aaronp18 wrote: And for now the Plate Tectonic theory is more plausible in my eyes, but that would never stop me from having an open mind to new ideas. I just don't think there is enough evidence right now to make the Expanding Earth hypothesis more plausible.
Well you obviously don't have a clue about just how ridiculous the theory of subduction is.

(as far as an explanation for Earth's observable features)

Impossible actually.

http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subfar.html

http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/index.php?o ... &Itemid=50

That first link explains the problems with subduction better.

The second link is part of a better overall site....
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2922
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Aaronp18 » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:35 am

Strangelove wrote: Either the Earth has grown in diameter or there's a whole lotta subduction goin on.....
Well if you factor out the rate at which the plates move by the estimated time that they believe Pangaea began to break apart that is a hell of a lot of subduction.

The mid-Atlantic ridge is moving between 10-40mm/a, Pangaea is estimated to have started to break up about 250,000,000 years ago. So lets estimate (25mm/a) x (250,000,000 years) = 6,250 kilometers.

The distance between Recife, Brazil and Douala, Cameroon is 5122.76 kms.

That's pretty damn close, of course the plates likely moved at different rates throughout time but it does seem plausible anyways.

Well according to Wiki (yes I do know how well we can trust Wikipedia) various tectonic plates can be measured moving:
Plate motions range up to a typical 10–40 mm/a (Mid-Atlantic Ridge; about as fast as fingernails grow), to about 160 mm/a (Nazca Plate; about as fast as hair grows).
Yet there's no observable evidence that the earth is expanding at this rate, there is no measurable data at all that the earth is increasing in size at all. So where is all this mantle going if the plates are moving at a rate of anywhere between 10-160 mm/a?

There seems to be more questions than answers for both arguments, and such is usually the case when coming up with theories.
Personally I like what this paper concludes:
Criticism can be fired at all the theories expounded to explain the mechanism of plate tectonics. Therefore, it is best to choose the theory, which contains only minor holes and explains the mechanism in a simple, clear and distinct way.

Convective plume theory, developed by Le Pichon (1968), Morgan (1968), Runcorn (1980) and others has three major flaws: (1) plate boundaries are not distinct; (2) the condition that each plate having its own accretion and consumption boundary, as for the case for the African Plate, is violated; and (3) if the plates are rigid, as assumed, deformation should have occurred in bottle necks where part of a plate margin was subducted and the rest was not. Of course, the presence of island arcs, subduction zones, hot spots and basalt relationships support the convective-plume theory.

The expansion theory of Cary has major flaws in it, among others, these are: (1) that the Earth was assumed to consist entirely of continental sialic crust; and (2) that a rapid expansion at a rate of 8mm/year had to occur in the last 200my; and (3) that the Earth had radius 76% of its present radius when Pangea broke up.

The slow-expanding Earth theory of Creer (1965) and others is more plausible but lacks evidence. It does not suggest why the Earth would expand, why continental drift began so late in the Earth's history or where the energy source for expansion is derived from.

The conclusion is that the convective-plume theory is the most plausible, based on evidence available.
And you're right I don't completely understand the processes, I'm not a Geologist.

But i do believe they are a tad more educated in their field than a car salesman would be in theirs!

User avatar
Arachnid
CC Legend
Posts: 6177
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Old Berlin
Contact:

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Arachnid » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:13 am

Ass usual, Doc is a master mannippleateher and is twisting the facts around...

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o1191.html

...and only half right 8-)
I love every move Jim Benning makes 8-)

User avatar
Sick Bunny
CC Veteran
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:12 am

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Sick Bunny » Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:19 pm

Strangelove wrote: Dark matter.

The apparent "missing matter" completely refuted the Big Bang theory.
Errm Doc, I'm beginning to suspect you're a little bit out of your depth here. Care to explain your understanding of Big Bang theory, and how dark matter refutes it?

To put it in terms closer to your understanding, you appear to be confusing St. Paul with Sir Paul McCartney here. :drink:
Abiogenesis is a theory suggesting life arose from non-life (utter bollocks btw).
Ding ding, wrong again. So where was it that you acquired an understanding of cosmology and abiogenesis? Sounds like creationist forums, with a sprinkling of Wikipedia. Perhaps you should stick to what you know, such as a concave hollow Earth created by God in 7 days.

Anyway, about that crusade, have you started laying in supplies yet, and would you consider taking a fascist intellectual bully along if he promised to behave, and brought along a half-decent pasta strainer? :D

Post Reply