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

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

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Aaronp18 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:36 pm

Strangelove wrote:
A LOT more thought.... :)
I just don't see it.

Didn't they say that the earth is expanding so slowly that it isn't measurable?

At the rate the earth is supposedly expanding it would allow for flexibility of the outer crust. As we can visually see there are folds in solid rock in the mountains, so even though it is more rigid there is still movement of the solid rock.

The Himalayan Mountains continue to get higher year after year, approx 6.1cm per year. To me a more logical explanation of this would be if a subduction zone exists and the crust is being pushed beneath another forcing the top layer upwards, as there are measurable increases in height.

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 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:46 pm

Strangelove wrote:I hate Myself for liking you Oms.

If there is a God, He can't be happy with Me for liking you...
But see Doc, that's exactly where us rotten atheists have the advantage on you crazy fundies -- I can like you just fine without getting my panties into a theological tangle. Come over to the sensible side, you know you'll like it!

(Besides, the fact that you can like me without turning into a burning bush or some such is conclusive proof that God does not exist, no?)
Welcome, let's make a pact never to mention you-know-who and you-know-wot.
Pinocchio?

Anyway, fine by me. 8-) Bygones and water under the bridge and all that. Now, speaking of well-endowed, do you think you could get Ohdee to give me a hug some time between now and the Apocalypse? :(

User avatar
sagebrush
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 948
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: around the bend

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by sagebrush » Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:58 pm

Strangelove wrote:
sagebrush wrote:If the earth is expanding................does that mean the sky is falling?
Yes, unless you believe in both the Expanding Earth theory AND the Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis.

In which case, of course, it's just the opposite.
It's a good thing it's happening slowly.
Else the pressure to make a decision might overwhelm me with paradigm confliction.
What to build, a bomb shelter or a sundeck?

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 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:38 pm

Aaronp18 wrote: I just don't see it.

Didn't they say that the earth is expanding so slowly that it isn't measurable?

At the rate the earth is supposedly expanding it would allow for flexibility of the outer crust. As we can visually see there are folds in solid rock in the mountains, so even though it is more rigid there is still movement of the solid rock.

The Himalayan Mountains continue to get higher year after year, approx 6.1cm per year. To me a more logical explanation of this would be if a subduction zone exists and the crust is being pushed beneath another forcing the top layer upwards, as there are measurable increases in height.
Really?? How “logical” is it to believe that India broke away from southern Africa and eventually CRASHED into southern Asia with such force that it formed the Himalayas... and to this day causes the Himalayas to grow (crash is continuing even as we cyberspeak).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfgkm0eBGsc

There is no known force of nature that can cause that to happen... and yet you choose to believe it happens/happened in just such a manner!

Think buddy think!

Why is it so easy for you to believe this imagined crash is still happening... but so hard to imagine alleged re-curving is still happening?

Scientific fact: The force which causes the Himalayas to form/grow is an unknown force.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

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 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:46 pm

Sick Bunny wrote: But see Doc, that's exactly where us rotten atheists have the advantage on you crazy fundies -- I can like you just fine without getting my panties into a theological tangle.
Wait... you atheists wear panties?? :look:
Sick Bunny wrote: (Besides, the fact that you can like me without turning into a burning bush or some such is conclusive proof that God does not exist, no?)
I guess that makes sen..... wait..............

Okay, God is telling me not to answer that question at this particular point in time.
Sick Bunny wrote: do you think you could get Ohdee to give me a hug some time between now and the Apocalypse? :(
I’m afraid thou art smitten with Ohdee....
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

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 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:52 pm

sagebrush wrote: It's a good thing it's happening slowly.
Else the pressure to make a decision might overwhelm me with paradigm confliction.
What to build, a bomb shelter or a sundeck?
Well I like to believe we’ve got a good chunk of time between now and The End.

Unfortunately between now and The End comes WWIII.

(call me old-fashioned but I blame the Russkies)

WWIII is just around the corner according to the calculations of some theorists I’ve been reading lately.

So yeah you’re gonna need a bomb shelter big guy.

Personally I went with a bomb shelter that converts into a sundeck! :D

No point in remaining all cooped-up between WWIII and The End! :drink:
____
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 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:41 pm

Alright Doc.

Now the premise behind this expanding earth theory seems to hinge on the belief that there are no subduction zones. But there is apparently measurable evidence that proves otherwise.

Geologist article explaining better than I can how the movement of the tectonic plates is measured.

Here's another entitled debunking this theory "Ten embarrassing questions for advocates of Expanding Earth theory".

And my personal favorite video putting to rest what seems to be one mans crusade:
Expanding earth my ass!

I just like the title of the video but the guy does a pretty good job puncturing holes in the theory.

I'm sure Topper is laughing and could have explained all this himself far better than I could try but it just seems that this is a shot in the dark theory that has been refuted by several geologists who know a hell of a lot more than I on the subject.

People far more versed in this topic seem to believe (because there is evidence to support it) that plate tectonics does exist and an expanding earth is a stretch to say the least. Why would experts support this theory and not support the expanding earth hypothesis?

Is there something to be gained?

Seems to me that they are following the scientific data.

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 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:15 am

Hey Aaron, just a quick response for now as I’ve got a few heads to shrink.

(no I’m not a psychiatrist)

I’m rushing this so please excuse.

Don’t have time to click on your links right now, but I can tell you this....

First link: Both the theories in question BASICALLY claim there are “tectonic plates”. Expanding Earth Theory (EET) doesn’t include the subduction fantasy.

Second Link: I’ll hafta check that out later (possibly tonight).

Third link: I’ve seen that video! The guy IS an ass. Seriously, making fun of some retard who happens to believe in EET. Oh WOT a great debater!! Ummm I would think MOST retards believe in the Plate Tectonics Theory (PTT). Most retards tend to believe wotever they’re told to believe. Should we use videos of every retard-in-the-other-camp we can find to attack our opponents in a debate? Wotever lol! Other than that all he does is point out the main hole in the EET: What forces could possibly cause Earth expansion. Well ALL theories have holes (that’s why they’re called theories). An EET believer could just as easily stand there all day and laugh at the fantasy of subduction.

Now your last question is VERY interesting indeed! Most scientists tend to opt for Occam’s Razor (which theory makes the least assumptions). That is supposedly why they choose one theory over another. NOT necessarily the best way to go (and they tend to forget... all... the assumptions their chosen theory in question is based upon - for example all the assumptions of say the Big Bang theory might be ignored (theory accepted as fact) when counting all the assumptions in a geological-earth-history hypotheses.

Now that I think about it, wouldn’t Occam’s Razor support the theory that the known universe warped into existence fully formed from another dimension?

Hmmm, gotta do some research....
____
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 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:47 pm

Strangelove wrote:Wait... you atheists wear panties?? :look:
Only for religious festivals... you should see the bunny number my wife puts on for Easter. On second thought, perhaps you shouldn't. :twisted:
I’m afraid thou art smitten with Ohdee....
Hey, I understand this is a family-friendly forum, enough with the homo-biblical references. You of all people should know I only love Ohdee for his brain power!

Speaking of which, what's with the irrefutable kink lately? Just because it's irrefutable does not mean it's not utter bollocks (and in fact is a pretty good hint it is...)

Farhan Lalji

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Farhan Lalji » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:53 pm

Sick Bunny wrote:Only for religious festivals... you should see the bunny number my wife puts on for Easter.
Congrats on finding another woman to marry Bunny boy. Hopefully, this one pans out better than your first. ;)

Welcome to the boards.

Are you actually going to post on the hockey forum this time around, or do you still only visit hockey message boards to talk about politics and religion? :P

(p.s._________and by posts on the hockey forum, I actually mean well thought out POSTS on the hockey forum.....not just meaningless responses that are less than 10 words so that your stats don't say, "Bunny's contributions: 100% of posts on Bar and Grill! :D ).

Regardless, it's good to see you on here. 8-)

Farhan Lalji

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by Farhan Lalji » Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:07 pm

Strangelove wrote: I hate Myself for liking you Oms.
My guess is that outside of you and Per.....

[mod edit]

OK - I'm getting tired of reading about all the cliques and feuds that were going on at the other site.

Leave it there. It's done.

If you want to debate who hates who, do it a PM.

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 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:25 pm

Okay Aaron, I see your 10 and raise you 48:

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

8-)
Aaronp18 wrote: it just seems that this is a shot in the dark theory that has been refuted by several geologists who know a hell of a lot more than I on the subject.

People far more versed in this topic seem to believe (because there is evidence to support it) that plate tectonics does exist and an expanding earth is a stretch to say the least. Why would experts support this theory and not support the expanding earth hypothesis?
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!

0.0000001%.

Scientific theories can be fun 'n all.... hey no one loves science fiction more than Strangelove!

But one should be careful not to ever confuse that with reality/truth.

Or if you don't like my answer to your query above, y'gotta love this one:
1 - Omission of spin
2 - House of cards
3 - Zippered plates
4 - Himalayas - push or pull?
5 - The phase-change shimmy
6 - Africa - Europe collision
7 - Hot balloon rising
8 - Africa shrinks!
9 - Cornflakes!
10 - The ringin'-the-bell bottom line
11 - Mountain building by plate collision
12 - Milk cow - Plate Tectonics as Junk science
13 - Subduction - Plate Tectonics' wooden half-a-leg
14 - Plates grow - do not move
15 - Subduction - Convenient assumption
16 - Transform faults are growth fractures
17 - The bodgy consensus of Plate Tectonics
18 - As the continents move apart
19 - Atlantic transform offsets ('King')
20 - Scale - the fatal flaw of plate tectonics
21 - Incompatible stress regimes of the ocean floors
22 - This round rotating Earth
23 - Corpustules - the acne of geological thought
24 - The litany
25 - Sumo wrestlers
26 - Where two plates meet...
27 - Where Plate Tectonics fails (uyeda)
28 - Plate Boundaries and moving plates
29 - Convection cell
30 - Transform faults do not offset spreading ridges
31 - Plates do not move (The House that Jack Built)
32 - Transform faults negate Plate Tectonics
33 - Subduction, the crux of Plate Tectonics
34 - Look Ma, .. No plates!
35 - 'ifs an' 'ans' and pots and pans...
36 - Rubber numbers rule OK.
37- Consensus, the underbelly of science
38 - Flat subduction, a contradiction in terms
39 - The ocean floors as rubble
40 - Nobel prize or massive academic fraud
41 - Mountain building
42 - Subducting subduction
43 - Fold mountain
44 - Crumplecrust
45 - Subduction, the far side of ridge spreading
46 - India adrift
47 - One Plate? ... or several?
48 - Soup
49 - The trouble with Plate Tectonics is...
50 - Hill-buildies
51 - Garden faeries - the central pillar of PT
52 - Who remembers Lemuria?
53 - Subduction and the First Commandment
54 - The Wilson Cycle
55 - Subduction sucks (Unavco)
56 - Subducting slab (1, 2)
57 - Marigolds
58 - Subduction's conundrum

Plate Tectonics is a theory that purports to explain the geological features of the Earth's crust in the context of a number of segments ('plates') that move continuously through geological time, driven by, ..or driving (Plate Tectonics is not very clear on the point) cycling convection in the mantle, and which is based on the assumption that the Earth cannot increase in size.

Despite what's said about the objectivity of science the reality is quite otherwise. This is never more clearly illustrated than when a new idea comes along. For usually the difficult thing is not taking it on board (its logic is often compelling) but giving up the old beliefs that have become entrenched. What's more, the balance usually revolves around something extremely self-evident and simple. So self-evident and simple in fact that in retrospect once the change is made it is almost inconceivable how things could have been seen otherwise. For example in their day concepts such as Flat Earth, Geocentric System and an Earth encapsuled in an inverted bowl-like firmament of stars were the products of the keenest minds, the cutting edge of contemporary thought. Today these ideas are seen as childishly naive and ludicrous, not just by scientists cognitive of facts but also by an uninformed general public. There is a quality of proportion ('ratio'), ...rationality, which demands to be considered, and whose analysis is even within the grasp of a child, given the accepted mores and beliefs of the time.

And so it is with Plate Tectonics in which it is posited that the surface deformation of the planet is driven by what is tantamount to its internal indigestion - convection cells.

The unwarranted presumptions on which Plate Tectonics is based and the many conundrums and contradictions which derive from these render the whole concept of Plate Tectonics ever less tenable, particularly when nowhere in the consensus position is there taken into account the most marked structural configuration of the planet - its spin symmetry: the Earth's rotation has no place in the grand design of Plate Tectonics.

From any rational viewpoint the Earth's rotation is obviously implicated - In terms of geological time the Earth is spinning like a top, and has an oblate first-order shape that reflects it. Of course spin is implicated. It is staring us in the face in the first-order oblateness of the planet! Rationally we would expect nothing less. Why then are the smaller scale geological expressions of it, which are similarly obvious once seen, not similarly regarded? Unfortunately the answer to that one has nothing to do with the veracity of the geological facts or logic, but has everything to do with science as a profession and the priority for hypothetical models over observable fact.

The structures that describe spin are the same structures that describe enlargement; the two are hand-in-glove expressions of the same dynamical behaviour; if we accept the inscription of spin on global geological structure, then the dynamics of enlargement follow axiomatically regardless of any 'final causal explanation' of the relationship. They are, .. empirically, genetically, and logically - tied.

For a time the two models (Plate Tectonics and Earth Expansion) must exist side-by-side. This is not so that there can be a period of proper scientific evaluation and discussion.

Indeed it would be reassuring on the openmindedness of science if it were. But it isn't. The time is literally to allow the old ideas of Plate Tectonics to wither through the imperatives of retiral and death of its adherents, whose interest its political supremacy has for a time served. In the meantime the responsibility on those proponents of the new idea is to 'get it out there' by whatever means possible. The internet is the emerging medium for this. The view that side-stepping peer review renders posting on the net worthless is for the reader to decide, when consensus self-interest has nothing to gain and everything to lose from acknowledging any validity of its nemesis.

The nonsenses 1-10 listed above are conspicuous and reflect the order of their writing. Others have been added but there is as yet no priority of importance, one Plate Tectonic tenet is as nonsensical as the other.

The first nonsense details the omission in regard to the Earth's rotation reflected in the growth of transform faults and spreading ridges, which would not only have prevented Plate Tectonics from ever having been taken up in the first place, but would have pointed it unerringly in the direction of Earth Expansion. The loss to Earth Science of more than half a century in a blind alley in which it is impossible to turn around is inestimable. <Weep Here> The second nonsense draws attention to the unwarranted choice by plate tectonics of one plate being moved under the other (subduction) from its rational alternative, one plate being moved over the other (overriding), when the interfacial dynamics of both are equivalent, and when the implications for the Earth's spin over convection are obvious and absolute. This particular nonsense underscores the Plate Tectonic belief in the doppelgangers of subduction and convection, which with the first nonsense (omission) lays the foundation for plate tectonics as JUNK SCIENCE. The third to ninth nonsenses highlight the gap between the ad hoc theory of plate tectonics and the many facts of its expression.

Many more nonsenses can be added. The tenth nonsense briefly describes the road map, the 'flow-chart', the faulty logic of plate tectonics which derives from the first two nonsenses. Even though clearly faulty, this 'logic' is used to reinforce the fundamental belief underpinning the entire edifice of Plate Tectonics and is the apagos satanos used to brandish in the face of any dissent. Even whilst patently shooting itself in the foot, this 'logic' is the principal tool which has been used to develop a politics of consensus which has prevented any real advance since plate tectonics was first formulated. That a consensus for plate tectonics exists at all in the face of such obvious nonsenses is a severe indictment of Earth scientists. That this consensus is monolithic is an indictment of the way that science is funded. Politics and self-interest have obviously and unashamedly overtaken the science.

It all needs a good shake-up!

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


Hi Toppy! :drink:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

CFP!
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 11:22 pm

Re: Concave Hollow Earth Hypothesis

Post by CFP! » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:36 pm

This is sure a whole lot about nothing.

Nawt.

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 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:50 pm

Strangelove wrote: I’m afraid thou art smitten with Ohdee....
Sick Bunny wrote: Hey, I understand this is a family-friendly forum, enough with the homo-biblical references.
Please note the double entendre.

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... do ya... punk?

:mrgreen:

Sick Bunny wrote: Speaking of which, what's with the irrefutable kink lately? Just because it's irrefutable does not mean it's not utter bollocks (and in fact is a pretty good hint it is...)
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....
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

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 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:52 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote: Atleast when you pretend to be a know-it-all doc, you are amusing and still likeable. :P
I knew that....
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

Post Reply