Hollow planets

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Phil: "So long as the hollow sphere is intact and uniform, I believe gravity and centrifugal forces would act the same as for a solid sphere."
And quote Michael: "In that case we're back to square one (or sphere one for that matter)...."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What part of "intact and uniform" did you not understand, Michael? Does Earth not have plate boundaries and earthquakes? Does it not show scars of major meteor impacts? Is every part of Earth's crust exactly the same density?

This is definitely, absolutely, without a doubt, my last response to this trivial, infantile, thread. Start a thread on the Flat Earth Theory; then maybe we can have a serious discussion.

I feel we have the same view on the subject, Phil.
Sorry for the confusion and for waking you up again.
.

Michiel, The fact that the Earth rings like a bell is a new bit of data to me. Is there any measurments of this effect you know of? It seems logical since the crust is solid and the mantle is liquid data about this effect would reveal something about the planet. I don't buy into the model of the Earth's interior or any other so called scientific models. They are interesting in some ways but to conclude they are based on how nature is makes no sense. Models are tools not reflections of nature.

[PhilJ] "I've wasted far too much time debunking this idiotic theory. It is not worthy the attention it is getting. So don't hold your breath waiting for me post to this thread again."

You might want to reconsider this position. For each person that is active on this board there are several dozen that are lurking in the background. Many of them are looking for just the sort of material that you have presented here to help them understand why a theory like hollow planets is so unlikely to be viable.

I submit that you have not wasted your time. Without input like yours some of the lurkers might eventually be seduced by the dark side of the farce.

Regards,
LB

My problem with seismology is the use of low frequency. Any well trained audio tech knows full well that bass is omnidirectional. So how can seismologists believe that what they're "hearing" isn't completely bent and distorted? Without the use of high frequencies there is NO directional component to the incoming wave. At least none that could accurately point to interior details. That's why sonograms work! They use ULTRASOUND&gt; An earthquake typically produces waves between 0.003- 3.0 HERTZ. At these frequencies the waves could probably bend around something the size of Pennsylvania before completing a single cycle. Therefore, how can anyone say with certainty that they're seeing a wave travel directly through a solid core, when it may be that the wave is being refracted AROUND a hollow cavity. This would give nearly the same result as measured by a surface seismonitor. There is evedince to support this in the very process that is currently used to determine earth's inner structure. Namely, the waves which are believed to travel DIRECTLY through the core, seem to arrive later then they're supposed to. How could this be possible if the core is many times more dense. The wave should arrive SOONER because it should travel faster through the denser core material.. but it doesn't. Why?... The wave in question is not traveling through a solid core. It is being refracted around a cavity (or at least a severe boundary). This would account for the delay in the wave's arrival. Simply because, the wave has to travel many times further to reach around the core than it would if were to travel directly through the core. The bending wave would also create the infamous shadow zone.

The bottom line is, that even geologists admit they what their science promotes are only theories. Heck, most geology websites even throw in a disclaimer or two. I find that amusing. And it is for that simple reason that I look to other theories and better methods.

[kao] "Any well trained audio tech knows full well that bass is omnidirectional."

This is true under some circumstances, but not in general. If the distance from the source is more than about 10 or so wave lengths you will be able to measure direction for low frequency waves. And as you move to less than about 5 or so wave lengths of the source you lose directional information even for high frequency waves. (The exact distances vary with media parameters, measurement technique, etc.)

[kao] "An earthquake typically produces waves between 0.003- 3.0 HERTZ. At these frequencies the waves could probably bend around something the size of Pennsylvania before completing a single cycle."

All this means is that there is a lower limit to the resolution of our sonic "telescopes". Radio and optical telescopes also have resolution limits. Knowing this, we look for things larger than these limits. And worry about what we might be missing.

LB