The Hollow Earth
Noah's Dove
The Hollow Earth
How It All Began
by Jan Lamprecht
Author of the Hollow Earth Mailing List
Sections On This Page:
€ How it all Began - How Jan Got Started
€ Jan's Definition of the Hollow Earth
€ Subscribe to the Hollow Earth Mailing List
How it all Began!
From: "Jan Lamprecht"
To: Hollow.Earth.List
Date:Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:42:55 +0200
Subject:How it all began....
Jan,
Please share with the group how you became interested in the Hollow
Earth.
Thanks for doing the group .... I expect to see more contact with our
Brothers and Sisters from the Inner Surface in the real near future.
If you have some files with good information on the Hollow Earth,
please let us know, we can find a spot for it somewhere on our web site
Joshua Shapiro
V J Enterprises
HOLLOW EARTH WEB SITE:
Joshua,
You're welcome to take anything which you think is useful and put it
on the WWW. We've only just started. Is your WWW page about your book
or the Hollow Earth in general or what?
Re: How did I get interested?
My original interest in the Hollow Earth was sparked back in the late
1970's while I was studying the books and prophecies of T Lobsang
Rampa. The main reference is contained in a single chapter in the book
"Twighlight". In it he answers a reader's question and states that as
far as Tibetans are concerned, the Earth is Hollow and there are people
living inside. The outer crust is 800 - 1000 miles thick and there is a
hole at each pole of approximately 1,400 miles in diameter. Inside live
the REMNANTS of Atlantis, Lemuria and a couple of other civilisations.
They are ruled by a man whom the Tibetans call: The King of the World.
According to the Tibetans, the Dalai Lama is the Outer World
representative. The Inside contains more land than sea, and the
population is approximately 800 million. Their flying saucers come out
of the Poles from time to time.
I kinda freaked at the time because it seemed so unbelievable. Later,
in a library I saw that famous composite photo of the hole as seen from
above. I could find no further books on the subject and let the entire
thing rest. Mentally I simply said "There's perhaps a 10% possibility
that the earth is hollow - I'll evaluate it at some later date". And
for well over 10 years I was happy to let it rest. I didn't REALLY
believe that a hole 1,400 miles in diameter could remain hidden for so
long or go unnoticed in some way and was thus somewhat skeptical about
the whole idea of such a huge entrance. Satellite photos gave nothing
away.
My interest was rekindled late in 1993 when I was on Compuserve. I was
chatting to a fellow whom I regarded as one of my very best friends,
and in who's research I had a great deal of faith. His name is Jeff. He
actually kicked the whole subject off and we began talking. True to
form, Jeff had read lots of really OLD stuff about the Hollow Earth,
and brought forth item after item about it. I was very impressed and
that set off an obsession which has still not ended.
What was very sad for me was that in spite of Jeff's great knowledge,
he himself actually ended up rejecting the possibility of the earth
being hollow. But his objections didn't make much sense to me. He also
suggested that I do my own thinking on the matter, but from a
mathematical perspective. He said he'd like to see whether I could
mathematically prove/disprove the theory. I accepted the challenge.
Astronomy had always been a favourite subject of mine so I began
thinking about the things I knew about astronomy. I did some reading.
Then I began to realise that there are some anomalies which would make
sense. For example, back in the 1970's two Soviet scientists from the
Soviet academy of sciences proposed the theory that the moon was a
Hollow Alien Spaceship placed in orbit around the earth.
I must digress at this point: Although Jeff rejected the idea of the
Earth being hollow, he actually accepts the Soviet proposal that the
Moon may be Hollow - even he admits that the edvidence for there being
a Hollow Moon is very strong. I had been aware of that book myself back
in the 70's and my own acceptance of the Soviet theory had somewhat
softened my idea to the fact that perhaps the Earth too was hollow.
There has often been speculation, even amongst Astronomers and
scientists, that Phobos, one of the Moons of Mars may be Hollow. Its
strange orbit is cited as one of the reasons - plus many strange
markings on it and a "huge" crater which covers about 1/4 of its
surface area. I'd like to point out that Sitchin (12th Planet) is quite
comfortable with the idea that Phobos is a hollowed out little moon
(about 20 miles in diameter).
As I looked at the numbers I began to realise that our estimates of
mass are really relative. If all the planets were hollow we wouldn't
really know. It also occurred to me that if Planet X, from which the
asteroid belt had maybe been created, had been Hollow, then its
break-up could be all the more easily explained. For example, if a
planet like the Earth only has a crust and is Hollow Inside, then a big
whack from a large object would cause it to shatter - and pieces would
fly all over the place. If such a planet had been solid then shattering
would not likely occur. Sure a big chunk could be carved out of it, but
it wouldn't SHATTER. I had noticed too, evidence piling up, proving
beyond any doubt, that comets were merely asteroids with ice/gas and
that they were really one and the same thing. Much of the "missing
mass" of Planet X could also be accounted for if it was hollow. Another
Soviet Cometary specialist has stated that all existing comets, are
really no more than 100,000 years old. Comets and asteroids are
becoming less. Of course there may be a few which have great orbital
periods of 10 or 100 thousand years, but the vast majority have been
swallowed up by the Sun, Jupiter, etc.
Another thing worth noting is that there are some flying saucers which
travel directly from the South Pole along S.America northwards. Some of
them move as regularly as clockwork. I also heard somewhere that Canada
had a very great number of sightings per capita.
It had always bothered me too: If Atlantis had ever existed, then
where did the people go? Why would such a simple catastrophe have wiped
EVERYONE out? Surely there must be survivors? Why didn't they just go
and live somewhere else?
I also decided that seismology is a *MUST* to go and have a look at.
And that's what I did. I read up about seismology to see if there was
anything which might have been misinterpretted and which might disclose
that the earth was hollow. I then discovered why it is they say the
Earth's core is a LIQUID. The reason is because certain waves can ONLY
travel through SOLID material. These waves can not travel through:
liquids, gases or a vaccum. However, scientists simply "assume" that
the core is a liquid - they do not explore the possibility that the
core is a gas or even a vaccuum. I also discovered that approximately
7,000 miles from an earthquake you will find a "shadow" area where
certain types of waves never appear. Could the core/hollow be blocking
out these waves? Then at about 10,000 miles or so these waves reappear.
I also realised the complexity of such waves and how they are reflected
and saw that it is quite easy to misinterpret them. Later I acquired a
very good seismic modelling program which runs under windows (and which
I'll upload if anyone wants). It is a most excellent program which
shows how the waves move through the earth PLUS, what the various
monitoring stations will actually see on their print outs. As you look
at this you will see that our methods of watching seismic waves leaves
much to be desired. When waves come up we have no idea where they were
- we really can't tell much. But look too and you will see a great many
waves bouncing off the "mantle" - we are told this is due to a change
in density. Keep in mind that a Hollow object makes the wave movements
many many times more complex because waves bounce back and forth
between the two thin crusts and this will complicate the hell out of
the whole thing. And when you look at the seismic model you will see
that waves are reflected, re-reflected, re-re-reflected and so on. The
earth sometimes "vibrates" for an hour or two after a big quake.
Probably the BIGGEST argument against the hollow earth is a
PSYCHOLOGICAL one. Most people, including myself, just can not believe
that it could possibly have been missed - or was it?
After Jeff kicked the whole thing off, another friend, Chris, managed
to help me locate a number of old books, written in 1908 and 1913 and
1920. Later I was to learn that the Hollow Earth debate has been going
on for about 200 years - but previously, prior to 1908, it was a debate
in which scientists took part. What killed the debate was when Admiral
Robert Peary claimed in 1908 to have discovered the North Pole. That
was really the death knell of the whole idea. In 1914, the Austrians
were going to send an expedition to the North Pole. As part of its
mission they were to check for the Hollow Earth's entrance. They did
this on the strength of a book by an American called: Marshall Gardner.
Gardner wrote one of the best books on the subject ever. It is a 400
page book, of which I have a copy, which contains notes from the
journals of many famous explorers, including Amundsen, Peary, Lt Greely
and many others. Gardner has a patent registered in the USA as the
"discoverer of the Hollow Earth". Gardner pointed out the
inconsistencies in Adm Peary's own log. The fact that only he and an
Eskimo are the only witnesses that this was the North Pole. The fact
that on one occassion he wrote that you struggled like hell to even do
16-20 miles per day through the snow, yet on the last 2 days of his
journey he did a staggering 40+ miles per day.- and so on. How he left
the others of his team behind and they weren't witnesses. Peary had
also made previous claims of discovery on earlier missions and these
had been DISPROVEN. Months before Peary, another American had claimed
to have reached the Pole. His claim was refuted shortly afterwards.
Peary's claim was investigated by the US congress (in 1920 I think) and
TOTALLY REFUTED. Apparently these are public records which can be
obtained. The US Congress held a hearing and refuted Peary's claims.
Yet, to this day Peary is regarded as the discoverer of the North Pole.
Gardner's studies were detailed - but he wasn't the only one. I later
discovered that the Smithsonian Institue was originally formed in 1842
to fund an expedition by Lt Wilkes to find the entrance to the Hollow
Earth. Lt Wilkes failed.
What you must understand is this: The poles are not just flattened,
they curve inwards. Now keep in mind that all navigational methods are
based on the assumption that the earth is a sphere. Nowhere on the face
of the earth, except the poles, does the earth depart from this shape.
Thus navigation works everywhere except there. As you go over the lip
of the entrance and begin the inward descent you think you're on the
other side of the earth - you are totally unaware that you are entering
a huge hole - a hole so big that the Space shuttle on its highest
orbital level of 750 miles could comfortably fly inside. Although you
can not see the other side, there is a new phenomenon known to all
Polar explorers: The Water sky. If you look at the sky, it acts like a
mirror and you see BEYOND the horison. This phenomenon is mentioned by
all Polar explorers. Lt Greely even noticed the shortening of the
horison. He found he could never see very far. Many many abnormalities
were noted by explorers:
- Warm winds from the north<- coloured snow containing huge amounts of
pollens from unknown plants animals moving NORTH for winter polar bears
moving north away from their prey enormous flocks of birds numbering in
the millions (coming from the north) temperatures far warmer than
expected.
I later discovered that a Polish scientist had calculated the
temperature of the earth taking into account latitude as the
determining factor. From 40 degrees north and south the real
temperatures begin to differ from the predicted temperatures. By the
time we get to the poles we find the poles to be a staggering 30
degrees warmer than they should be.
Also, during that initial exercise of mine, I studied geomagnetism. I
had never felt comfortable with the "dynamo-in-the-core" theory. The
idea that currents in the core could create a magnetic field. I have
many reasons for rejecting this idea. For example, in order for there
to be convection currents in the first place, there have to be
temperature differentials of a big enough degree. IOW, some magma in
the core must be a lot hotter than the other. This must also imply some
sort of cooling process or some process which keeps one part warmer
than the other. Without an adequate temperature differential currents
won't arise in the first place. We can rule out cooling, because some
scientists have found that the earth is not cooling. But even if we do
have these currents, I still don't see how magnetism is generated. Heat
is not a friend of magnetism. As a substance is heated, so it loses its
magnetism - of course that's not quite an appropriate argument here.
More appropriate is: Can a liquid/semi-liquid generate a magnetic
field? As far as I know this has never been done. The core is also,
supposedly under great pressure and we are dealing with molten iron -
so I don't think it has much in the way of fluidity or speed. Surely, a
snails-pace movement is not adquate to generate a magnetic field which
stretches beyond the Moon? Also, why should there be a single focal
point for this magnetic field anyway? The core is rotating along with
the rest of the earth - there can't possibly be any friction (in the
same way that the atmosphere rotates with the rest of the earth. If the
atmosphere did not move along with the earth we'd have 1,000 mph winds
blowing at the equator - instead, even a 100 mph wind is a great
rarity). I wondered instead, if a nuclear sun positioned in the core
could be the source of the geomagnetic field. There seemed to be
evidence which could support this. All lava is slightly radioactive.
Scientists speculate that the earth's heat is derived from radium which
decays. But hold on: Radium is the lesser brother of Uranium. Decaying
uranium becomes radium. So if there's radium then it might we have been
uranium to start with. In West Africa there can be found a "natural
nuclear reactor". A place where sufficient uranium occurred naturally
to kick off a nuclear explosion. So I surmised: Wouldn't it be more
logical, during the formation of the earth for heavy substances like
Gold, Uranium, Lead to have been in the core instead of iron? But, you
don't need much Uranium to kick off a nuclear reaction. Also sometimes
these things are self-enriching if enough of it is around. This would
explain why in prehistoric times, huge volcanoes spewed out lava which
filled entire continents. It would explain why there is evidence of the
earth expanding by 20% (continents don't fit perfectly as continental
drift theory would have us believe, but if the earth is shrunk 20% then
there is a PERFECT fit between South America and Africa). I discovered
too that the Aurora baffles science. That particles similar to those
from the Sun are somehow appearing in the upper atmosphere of the Poles
- but there are far too many of these particles to be accounted for by
the Sun alone. So where do they come from? They come from the Inner Sun
- which is also the source of the Aurora and the light. This also
explains why the Aurora is linked to the geomagnetic field. The
geomagnetic field is not stable. In fact, it wobbles A LOT, and at a
high rate. It moves large distances within short periods of time. This
can be explained by having a central Sun wobbling around a central
point. In short, I pose this question: If scientists are willing to
accept that decaying radium causes most of the earth's heat - then does
it take much leap of the imagination to suppose that just a little bit
more radium/uranium in one point deep within the crust could have
kicked off a self-sustaining nuclear reaction? Even a Sun of as little
as 28 miles in diameter would weigh many millions of tons. It would
hollow out the earth easily and all the lava would pour out on to the
surface. Later things would cool down inside.
Gravity is an issue all by itself, but rest assured that Newtonian
gravity works like a DREAM even in the Hollow Earth scenario. I have
tested that idea to its fullest.
Eventually, I decided that the evidence, to my way of thinking, was in
favour of the Earth POSSIBLY being hollow. I could see no great
objections to the idea. It would explain many things which scientists
currently regard as anomalies and which they are HARD PUT TO EXPLAIN.
Since then I have discovered so much more.
Sadly, very very sadly, my friend Jeff just fobbed off the best
arguments I put forth. He countered with his own arguments - which to
me did not make much sense. In a nutshell, the main thrust of his
argument was this: If there's this huge hole, then why don't people end
up wandering into it and seeing the Inner world? How can two teams,
crossing the Antarctic, manage to meet at one point?
Answer to the first question:
The hole is very very big. From the Outer lip to the Inside of the
sphere you are looking at a circle (through the crust) with a diameter
of 800 - 1000 miles. To get even half way, you have to travel about
1200 - 1300 miles in a straight line. If you wander even slightly to
one side or the other the journey will become much longer. Also,
compasses tend to go haywire so you're really in a quandry. If you go
in at a skew angle you could walk into the hole, by several hundred
mile and out again, perhaps crossing a distance of a 1000 or more miles
and never once even know that you were in the hole. This is a feature
of enormous size and larger than most countries. If you do not
consciously go looking for this hole and taking careful bearing using
the stars (until they disappear), etc you can easily miss the mark.
Question 2: The standard procedure when your compass goes haywire is to
move away from the pole in question (north or south). When your compass
behaves normally you then carry on with your journey. The "north/south
pole" is merely 90 degrees latitude - and since we assume the earth is
a sphere we assume therefore that only one spot in each hemisphere can
give us a reading of 90 degrees latitude (by the Sun or any other
heavenly body). The manner in which 2 teams coming from opposite sides
can meet is simply because they will be moving away from the rim
whenever the compass goes crazy. It is not to say that these
expeditions met on a spot marked "X". As they zig-zag around this rim
they will (unknowingly) be moving in a circle and it is easy to see how
they will run into each other. NB: The expeditions in question did not
approach each other directly from 180 degrees, so it is easy to see
that they must meet. If they approached directly from 180 degrees, then
the possibility exists that the one team may go one way round the rim
while the other goes another way round the rim.
Jeff also posed the question: If the US base at McMurdo sound is a
mere 400 miles from the Pole then how come they didn't notice anything?
To me this was a stupid question.
Answer: The US base at the Pole is not "at the Pole". It is on the rim
of the "Area of Inaccessibility". This means that the South Pole base
is on the rim of a hole 1,400 miles in diameter and you are at least
1,200 miles from the 1/2 way mark going inside. So you can wander 1,000
miles on either side of the South Pole Station and see nothing. McMurdo
Sound is 400 miles further away still. There's no way, that at a
distance of 1,200+400 miles that anyone at McMurdo sound will
see/notice a thing.
You get lost at the Poles - be sure of that. Amundsen, discoverer of
the South Pole, got thoroughly lost near the north pole. Amundsen's
diaries showed that he got TOTALLY LOST FOR 6 MONTHS! He tried to go
from Franz Joseph land to Spitsbergen and got totally lost. When he
finally got back to territory he recognised, he was hundreds of miles
from where HE'D CALCULATED HIS POSITION TO BE.
During the BBC documentary "Pole-to-Pole" a number of people including
the BBC crew were on a small plane going across Antarctica. As they
looked out, they made some very telling remarks. One guy said "Gee
isn't it amazing how those old explorers could find their way across
this continent? Just look how flat and featureless it is, no land marks
to go by except the occassional hill. Amazing." He doesn't know how
right he may have been.
And even today its no different. That BBC reporter got his distance
from Tromso, Norway to the North Pole wrong, as did the UPI release for
the distance from Port Barrow to the north pole.
Cartographers also got it wrong. US Navy cartographers were pissed off
with US Army cartographers, because their maps didn't match. Entire
mountain ranges had to be thrown into the dustbin. Explorer after
explorer discovered islands, mountains, seas, which others couldn't
ever find again.
I am convinced though that the US Govt, the Russians and maybe a few
others know what's going on there.
The Hollow Earth thing was sad for me in a way, because Jeff and I
fought about it a great deal, and as far as I was concerned he just
wouldn't listen to reason, to independantly acquired facts or anything
else. He shot it down on the basis of a few arguments which
underestimated the navigational problems. He said, yeah, but the earth
is flattened at the Poles. Well, that just doesn't match the facts. Go
and look in any book. The earth's polar diameter is only given as a
mere 26 miles less than the equatorial diameter. 26 miles in a distance
of 7926.5 is nothing. If I were to draw a scale drawing of the earth
you wouldn't even notice that it wasn't a circle. Anyway, scientists of
old debated the existence of a POLAR BASIN - that the entire Polar
region was DEPRESSED. Some thought it was depressed and others thought
it lead to a hole inside. But that does not explain it all. Amundsen,
while in his ship, The Fram, found himself viewing a red SUN - the
"mock sun" at a time when the Sun wasn't supposed to be above the
horizon. Many explorers have had a glimpse of the Inner sun - the "mock
sun" - because it appeared in places where the Sun could not possibly
be.
In the end, this whole interest of mine probably broke up my
friendship with this guy - which to me was quite a blow.
I had another interesting episode which also harmed another close
friendship. Another guy I know, who once worked for the NSA, and who
loved photography responded when I told him about the Hollow Earth. He
said he had a photo which he'd obtained at Goddard Space flight centre
in the 1970's. This photo was of the earth. He'd borrowed some
negatives and made copies one weekend. When I remarked that I was
wondering if the earth was Hollow, he of course turned to his big
colour photo. And there on it he saw the hole - a side view- with
clouds flowing into it. He scanned part of it in black and white and
e-mailed it to me. He'd always been friendly, but warned me not to talk
too much because the NSA monitors all computer communications. He'd
always said that making a copy and mailing it to me would be no
problem. As soon as he had a chance (he was the CEO of a company) he
would mail me a copy. But suddenly he began acting weird when I pressed
him on the issue. Later he more or less disappeared and only resurfaced
at odd times. He behaved in a weird manner which others noticed too.
Some of us wondered whether he'd been "silenced".
Later, Dennis Crenshaw also told me that a similar thing had happened
to a buddy of his who was making progress with Hollow Earth research.
Dr Laslo Spengler, another researcher I recently met has warned me too
of the subversion of UFO organisations and of the BENEFITS of going it
alone - doing your research without others peeking over your shoulders.
As I will later show, the same happened to Al Bender back in the 1950's
- and you will see how Al was silenced.
I have long held the opinion, and many will hate me for saying this,
but UFOlogy IS GOING NOWHERE. People are rushing down the wrong path,
watching Area 51, chasing reptilians, looking at crop circles and
trying to catch cattle mutes. No big coverup is needed because people
are already looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing. Back in the
early days, the researchers were on even ground with the US Govt, but
once the Govt's silencing campaign, in the form of MIBs had succeeded,
the need for silencing became less and less and today they only silence
the VERY FEW who DARE go against the grain and who dare postulate that
the Earth is hollow and that an advanced civilisation may be on our
doorstep. These few are the only people who actually stand a chance of
upsetting the cart. I have no doubt that as one gets closer to the
truth, the US Govt will begin to play rough.
Finally, I have only spoken about The Hollow Earth so far. To me,
there are other issues:
1. Subteranean civilisations.
2. Hollow Planets/Moons.
(2) If the Earth is hollow naturally, then we no longer have to buy
into the theory that the Moon is hollow artificially - it could easily
be a hollow construct naturally. It opens up a whole new field: Where
are all the Aliens who claimed to come from Venus, Mars, etc? Was
Adamski a liar? Were all the others liars? Maybe NOT! Maybe they were
telling the truth, but because we believe the planets to be devoid of
life we think that the Aliens are lying. Perhaps it is that the Aliens
are telling the truth and it is we who are being lied to by our side.
Let me prioritise some Planets/Moons in order of evidence that they may
be hollow:
1. Moon.
2. Earth.
3. Phobos.
4. Mars.
5. Mercury.
6. Callisto(?) (Moon of Saturn)
7. Venus.
8. Neptune/Uranus.
If other planets are inhabited, in this Solar System, then many things
in UFOlogy (which didn't make sense before) now begin making A LOT OF
SENSE. For example, you can easily see why Hollow Earthers would get
mighty upset at the thought of 3 superpowers near the poles having a
vast number of nuclear weapons. At the ease with which nuclear attack
submarines like "Scorpion" and "Thresher" can easily sail into their
world underneath through the pack ice and sneak around underwater being
able to instantly launch nuclear missiles which can blow up their
cities.
You can see why Aliens might take a dislike to Russian and American
probes near the planet Mars. You can begin to understand WHY THE US
GOVT MUST ENGAGE IN THIS ENORMOUS COVER-UP.
It opens up a line of thinking and questioning which people have been
ignoring for DECADES.
Re: Subteranean civilisations....
I see Subteranean civilisations as a whole different kettle of fish,
and as a much more difficult subject. It is a subject which does not
sit comfortably with me. I have read of Richard Shavers, Teros(?) and
Deros and I do not take it seriously at all. Legends of Leprechauns,
etc may be based on truth, but no real accounts exist of these things
(that I know of).
If you'd asked me about subteranean civilisations 3 months ago I'd
have basically told you to go to hell. As far as I was concerned there
was no evidence whatsoever of even the faintest kind, that such a group
of people could exist. The problems are even worse for them. No sun, no
water - what do you eat, drink, etc? I just couldn't see it as a viable
option. The Hollow Earth is a different concept. There's sunlight,
equatorial temperatures globally, safe from comets, etc. Great stuff.
Its the ideal place to live. Subteranean civilisation - bah humbug.
However, I acquired a very old book: The Coming Race, written in 1871,
by the Rt Hon Lord Lytton. Lytton's story is so amazing that I can't
believe that UFOlogists haven't dug into it in detail. Here is a man
describing something akin to nuclear power; and giving commentaries on
a wipe out of the surface civilisations - and all this happened back in
1871. There is just so much in that book. But, worse still, while
combing through anomalies I *DO* find evidence that indeed Lord Lytton
may well be telling the truth.
And so I am prepared to consider that some races do have little
underground villages in which they live and come out from - from time
to time. The people Lord Lytton met are known to us today as "The
Mothmen". He predicted that they would come out and begin looking
around - and they did. The earliest Mothmen sightings I could find were
in 1877 - and they have been seen even in the 1960's.
Lytton's book is another which I'd like to discuss and go through with
all of you. I regard Richard Shaver type stuff as rubbish. Lord
Lytton's book is something else altogether!
Page Index
Jan's Definition of the Hollow Earth
From: "Jan Lamprecht"
To: Subteranean.List
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 23:24:44 +0200
Subject: 1# What do I mean by "Hollow Earth?"
Reply-to: p...@iafrica.com
Hey Jan.
BTW, could you very briefly tell just what you mean by "hollow Earth"?
I'm not too familiar with the concept and having hard time getting the
over all picture. Personally, I think it's very possible that there is
a subteranean civilization (probably Atlantis-related)... but, are you
basically saying that all planets are literally hollow?
GORO
Hi Goro,
Yes, I'm basically thinking along the lines of ALL/MOST planets/moons
actually being hollow - like a tennis ball. You could say that I'm
"testing" this hypothesis by looking around at literature, anomalies,
doing some thinking, etc.
I'm still examining the evidence, thinking about the various aspects
and just pondering the whole issue. I like to take my time and think
things through. Sometimes I dawdle on like this for years. Don't be
fooled into thinking that I haven't had a look at seismology or geology
or gravity or other issues. I have.
The basic postulate is simply that the entire Earth is hollowed out.
That most of what we see resembles a tennis ball. There's a
hard/flexible outer shell which can take meteor impacts - up to a
certain size. But at the Poles there are 2 gigantic holes somewhere
from 800 - 1200 miles in diameter (at their widest point). These huge
holes can be entered and you can sail or fly or walk all the way into
the interior. Gravity still works as normal, but it holds you "up" the
other way. The holes are so big, that you don't even know they're there
(except from space).
Thus a ship would sail as normal. Winds would blow and so on. The
atmosphere flows in as well. The atmosphere isn't very thick. 99% of
the atmosphere is contained in the first 30 miles. So if you will
consider a hole perhaps 1200 miles wide, curving gently inside, through
a crust of 900 miles in thickness, then at the NARROWEST part you will
have a gap of about 300 miles or so. It is quite possible therefore
that in the middle of this hole is a pure vacuum. That "space" as we
know it, exists in the middle of this hole and that as this hole once
again widens on to the inside, that we find ourselves in a vaccuum in
the centre of the earth. Inside the earth, like on the outside, will be
oceans, mountains, rivers, continents and atmosphere. But that
atmosphere, like on the outside will be 30 miles high. Now if the
Earth's crust is say 900 miles thick, then we find that beyond the
inner atmosphere is a vaccuum of:
7900 - 900 - 900 - 30 - 30 = 6040 miles in diameter. That would be big
enough to fit the Moon into it. The Moon being only 2160 miles in
diameter. But no, there's no moon inside. Although a fellow by the name
of Symmes, postulated that inside the Earth was another Earth and
another (5 or 8 levels within each other). But Symmes was somewhat
different. What I'm talking about is much simpler - the same thing that
Olaf Jansen says he saw and the same thing the Tibetans talk of. That
inside we have a world which is exactly the same as on the outside. In
this Inner vaccuum, is a little Sun. A small nuclear powered sun -
possibly powered by nuclear fission rather than fusion as stars are. A
tiny sun about 30 - 300 miles in diameter (a guess) would weight many
millions of tons and would give forth light. This little Sun would
wobble around in the centre of this vaccuum. Being nuclear in nature it
would generate a magnetic field - as does our Sun. This magnetic field
would flow out of the Earth through its holes. As this little Sun
wobbled around, so would the magnetic field. This magnetic current
would flow out of say the South pole across the surface of the earth
and in through the North pole. A compass on a ship on the outside would
point towards the North. As you get closer to the hole, the compass
would begin pointing DOWN. If you don't physically adjust your compass
down then it might begin spinning around. As you go deeper into the
hole and reach the inner surface you would find your compass returning
to normal again. It would still point "north" but that would now be
south.
The Earth's motion through space is not perfectly constant. In fact
the Earth speeds up and slows down in its motion. Thus our little inner
sun would wobble around (like a passenger in a bus).
But how would the Inner sun stay in the centre and not crash to the
side? Well, this is where I can point to a most "bizarre" connection
with that book "My contact with Flying Saucers". (Its not about the
Hollow Earth, but its about physics - Alien style). The Alien Captain
tells us about the repulsion of light. What is interesting is that the
theory of gravity alone would be unable to account for a central sun
holding its position. The central sun would move - inevitably - because
of the earth changing its speed and direction. Gravity as we know it
would cause the central Sun to crash into the side of the Earth. The
moment the central Sun moved even a little to one side, gravity from
the closest side would draw it to the wall and the central Sun would
crash into the side. But, the Alien Captain explained a great deal
about the pressure of light. Since this central Sun emits light, the
light would of course push against the Earth. So let's say the Earth
slows down a little. The central Sun should come crashing into the
side. Well, in this case as it comes closer to one side, the pressure
of light - due to its nearness, would push harder on the earth and
impart a bit more momentum to it. This is negligible really. More
importantly, the light of the Sun would be reflected back onto the Sun
itself thereby pushing it back. The central Sun would thus wobble back
and forth and move around in sympathy to changes in the speed and
direction of the motion of the Earth.
Light from the Inner earth would shine out through the holes. But
since the holes are really very tiny, it would not happen often. Note
the Maedler phenomenon I mentioned with regard to Venus? That only on 2
occassions so far: 1686 and 1833, have astronomers observered light
shining out of both Venus's poles. At other times, the light shining
out would be indirect light and it would form the Aurora.
The Aurora chops and changes and to a certain extent moves and behaves
in sympathy with the Earth's magnetic field and the emissions from the
central Sun. Science knows very well that there's a link between the
Aurora and the Magnetic field. The problem is, that they reckon it is
due to emissions from the Sun. The Alien Captain tells us some other
things about "Alien Physics" - like, the fact that Stars only shine
when in a magnetic field. In this case therefore we can arrive at
another explanation for the apparent link between the Aurora, magnetic
field and the central sun. It goes thus:
When the Sun begins acting up and generating more emissions (at all
wave lengths), it may also be generating a stronger magnetic field.
This in turn causes the central Sun to shine more brightly and to emit
more light.
While digging through texts on the Aurora, I came across mention of
calculations done by scientists. The problem they found was that the
Sun could NOT be the cause of the Aurora. The problem being that we do
not receive enough particles from the Sun in the upper atmosphere of
the Earth to cause the Aurora. Their calculations show that there are
more "sun-like" particles up there in the atmosphere at the Poles than
there should be by the action of the Sun alone. So they are stumped.
But, if you look at Hollow Earth theory, you'll have no problem
accounting for this. There will be enough reflected light and emissions
coming out from the hole (depending on the position of the central
Sun). These particles are ALSO sun-like and they, plus the particles
from the Sun cause the aurora.
One could ask oneself many questions about conventional Aurora theory.
Like: Why are auroras only around the poles? Surely there should be
MORE particles arriving from the sun at other places on the Earth than
at the poles - which are so oblique. Why aren't there more auroras all
over the place? Why only the poles? (Proximity to the magnetic poles is
the current explanation).
The Earth's magnetic field - IMHO - could be caused entirely by the
central Sun. I have come to wonder whether perhaps magnetic fields are
ONLY caused by "Suns" - and NEVER by normal matter as we know it -
except when specially magnetised. If so, then any planetary body with a
magnetic field must therefore have a central Sun. Now this is an
interesting conjecture because time and again we find magnetic fields
on "cold bodies" where our scientists have calculated that that body
can not have a heated central core.
That central Sun also produces heat. And if we have winds blowing in
and out from the Inner earth to the Outer earth, then we should have
some sort of heat exchange. The same is true of water. Note those
Antarctic pollyanas I spoke about.
In the early days of Arctic exploration scientists calculated the
expected temperatures for the latitudes as explorers moved north.
Invariably they found that northern latitudes were far warmer than they
should be if heat from the Sun alone was the source. I have come across
calculations done a few decades ago by a Polish scientist in this
regard. His calculations of the Earth's temperature show that the
temperatures at the poles are 30 degrees warmer than they should be. So
our scientists then say that it is warm equatorial air warming the
poles. But does that really make sense? Is there really enough
equatorial air going far enough to the poles and retaining its heat
long enough to keep them 30 degrees warmer?
I often wonder if air exchange may cause havoc with all those
super-computers which are calculating next week's weather!
Where on the earth would you expect to find the most fish? Believe it
or not, the Polar regions have a greater density of fish life than the
equator and warmer areas. Fish have a type of anti-freeze in their
blood. But that does not explain why they should thrive more in such
regions. Or is it that fish from the Inner earth - where the people do
not fish as much as we do - spill over and swim out of the holes?
The same is true of bird life. There are accounts too of bears and
other creatures in the Arctic going NORTH for winter.
There really are a lot of issues to look at. But there are enough
strange things which makes one wonder. The pattern which I have
stumbled across - and only really appreciated fully recently - is that
most types of Fortean phenomenon are related to the Hollow
Earth/planets or Subteranean issues in one way or another. It seems to
me that Forteana - if nothing else - is pointing the way. I never
expected this.
One thing which I found interesting was that scientists have attempted
to find the "centre" of the Earth's magnetic field. They found it was
82 miles off centre. But that's not the whole story. The Earth's
magnetic field does not just gradually move westwards as we are told.
From what I've read, the Earth's magnetic field actually moves in a
jagged orbit of approximately 30 miles PER DAY. IOW, as the Earth
rotates daily, and the Inner sun wobbles, this wobble is traced out as
a jagged ellipse DAILY. This - if nothing else - should clearly show
that this could not possibly be caused by currents. It shows that at
any one moment, the position of the centre of the magnetic field is at
a certain spot INDEPENDANT of the Earth's physical position. I have
many problems with ALL convection current theories in the earth. I do
not believe any of them. I have a particular argument dealing with
convection currents in the core, plus the fact that gravity will grow
less and less as you get closer to the centre of the earth (assuming
its solid).
I have tried to get more data regarding the motion of the Earth's
magnetic field. But, because I'm not in the USA I do not have access to
the USGS magnetic data BBS. However I think it is worth studying.
If one could study the correlation between the movement of the earth
in space, its rotation and that magnetic centre - you might just be
able to prove that the Earth's magnetic field is being generated by a
specific body.
Did you know that when atom bombs are exploded - that there is an
aurora in that area for several days afterwards? That proves two
things:
(a) An aurora can be produced in latitudes other than the poles.
(b) Nuclear FISSION can produce the particles which create an aurora.
This brings us to the formation of the Earth. Geologists have
discovered that the Earth is not really cooling down, but that it
generates its own heat. This is attributed to the decay of radium. But
all radium is merely decayed URANIUM. Is it not possible therefore that
when the Earth originally formed, that the heavier elements (as
expected) would descend to the centre. Since the very heavy elements
are unstable - all we would need is somewhere down there to be enough
uranium to reach critical mass, and then we have a self-igniting
naturally occuring nuclear reaction (like happened in Gabon in West
Africa). Immediately it would melt the surrounding rock, produce
enormous temperatures and soon immense quakes would shake the earth and
enormous volcanoes would spew forth lava. Huge amounts which would form
the first continents. As it melts everything around it, eventually,
this wobbling nuclear reaction would hollow out the earth. Perhaps more
than one such reaction begins and eventually all the nuclear reactions
would end up in the middle of this space and amalgamate and form the
central Sun. This would leave the entire Earth's crust honeycombed with
large caverns and tunnels - in which subteranean life could exist at a
future time. Later when things cool down, and a vaccum forms inside,
water and air could be sucked inside. This is all very hypothetical and
scanty. I can not for example think of a good reason why two holes
should form. Perhaps weaker material will exist in those areas, or
perhaps some north-south motion will cause the Inner Sun to wobble
greatly between two points. Of course, those holes need not always be
at the poles.
It is truly a fascinating subject, and the mere thought of Hollow
worlds is quite exciting.
Was the "Garden of Eden" inside the Earth? Well, Olaf Jansen - who
claims to have gone there emphatically says Yes!
Could it be that "normal" life is actually intended INSIDE worlds.
Could we be the "abnormal?" I say this because if one overcomes the
idea of a central Sun - then you immediately see many advantages in
that sort of idea. I have done some basic calculations and a central
Sun of 28 miles in diameter would present the same size in the sky as
our Sun does. If its luminosity is in similar proportion, then that
would be enough to light up and warm up such a world. Even such a tiny
sun would weigh many millions of tons. Or, it could be bigger, but not
so bright - in which case it would weigh many many more millions of
tons.
Now think about this: Comets and meteors can destroy life. But, they
can not harm any life at all which exists below the crust. The impact
of even a small object 100 miles across could probably destroy all life
on Earth. And an object 100 miles across - in space - is nothing - its
like a spec of dust. Yet, even such an impact would have almost no
effect on life on the Inside. It might produce an earthquake at best.
Think too of climate. Here we live on the outside.
Latitude=temperature. Go a little north and you get cold. Go to the
equator and you get warm. Then you have day and night too. But, inside
a globe, ALL POINTS are equidistant from that Sun. You could have an
entire world with all of it having a tropical climate. Isn't this more
sensible? Isn't this more conducive to life perhaps?
There is an interesting idea which the Buddhists have. They believe in
cycles. In regular Earth changes, quakes - the ends of Ages. They
believe that the Earth is a special place, a school.
Just a few weeks ago I mentioned that other book about UFO contact
from Under the sea. There, Aliens also spoke of regular pole shifts and
Alien peoples coming from far and wide to watch, study and help us
through this catastrophic thing. But wait a minute! What about THEM? If
they live as we do, then surely it should be happening to them too
(since many of them are human and live under similar conditions). Why
don't THEY have Pole shifts? Why aren't they afflicted by Earth
changes? WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT US THAT EVERYONE SEES US AS A SORT OF
EXCEPTION?
I have an idea - its a bizarre idea - but could it be that WE are
among the very few who live on the OUTSIDE of our world? That our world
is special - not because it has life - but because it has life on the
Inside AND the Outside. Could that be the secret?
Have a look around. Whether you read about spiritulism, reincarnation,
buddhism, UFOs...whatever. There is ONE THEME that keeps coming back to
us over and over. It goes thus:
(a) There is life on many many planets. Many are Earth like.
(b) Earth is a SCHOOL, Earth is DIFFERENT from other planets.
(c) Life on Earth gets wiped out regularly.
(d) Why are there so many civilisations out there which do NOT seem to
be wiped out regularly?
The question I keep asking is: Why? What should make Earth different
from other places? This bizarre answer is most intruiging. Could it be
that *WE* have our entire point of view REVERSED from the NORM in the
Universe, because we live on the Outside? Thus when we go searching for
life, we look only on the outside. So we see bare worlds - deserts and
we say to ourselves that *WE* are the only life. YET, perhaps these
same desert worlds have great civilisations inside their hollowed out
interiors. But we just don't recognise it?
I want to point you to a bizarre coincidence which occurred in our
group (the UFO/Prophecy group) many weeks ago. The significance of it
will not have struck either you or Lew or most of the others at that
time. So let me refresh your memory.
Remember "Tarabich" the Serbian prophet? Remember what Sever Jura told
us about Tarabich's prophecies? Well, Tarabich had predicted (over 100
years ago) that we would go into space and all we would find were
DESERT WORLDS. We would search but find no life. Then, much later, we
would FIND LIFE on those same worlds, because we would understand
something which we didn't understand before.
I didn't know about Tarabich. It was Lew who came across the guy and
then we looked at his prophecies. But aren't those just the darndest
statements? Was Tarabich predicting HOLLOW WORLDS?
It's worth thinking about.
BTW, Goro - I'm wondering if I ever sent you my original postings like
the one "How it all began" and such like.
I welcome questions if there are any aspects which trouble you. It is
truly a most difficult and most bizarre subject - the entire concept.
Oh yes, I nearly forgot something. You mentioned "remnants of
Atlantis" living underground. This brings me to another interesting
point. Imagine a continent/island of very advanced people with space
ships, etc. Quakes rock the place. Now what's stopping them from
evacuating and going to live ELSEWHERE on the Earth? Why should most of
those people die from something as innocuous as some quakes? Why can't
there be enough SURVIVORS? Why shouldn't there have been enough
survivors to start new cities elsewhere? Not even in a nuclear war will
you find EVERYONE dying.
Apart from them flying to another planet (which would seem pretty much
an OVERREACTION wouldn't you say to something as simple as some quakes)
- wouldn't it seem more likely that they found a much nicer place to
live? Why live in underground tunnels and caverns when you can live on
the surface in the sunshine? Why didn't they pick out the most
beautiful place on the rest of the Earth and MOVE THERE? There must
have been plenty of places to go. Or is it, that they knew of a place
which IS nicer than anywhere on the surface and that they DID go there?
And that may be where they are living today - in the Inner Earth -
along with survivors from Lemuria, Mu and all the other civilisation?
Life on Earth thus works like this:
(a) New colonies of humans/beings are seeded on the surface after a
Pole shift.
(b) If they develop enough and survive long enough to see it through to
the next pole shift and all their cities are destroyed, then they move
inside the Earth where things are much safer. If they have figured out
that the Earth is hollow and they have the technology to move.
(c) Go back to (a) for the next Class.
This is a "conspiracy" on the part of higher beings/Gods and this is
what "graduation" from the School of Planet Earth is all about. We get
stuck here on the Outer Earth and we have to figure things out for
ourselves. We begin as barbarians and savages and see if we can make it
to eventually qualify for membership of a greater order in the
Universe.
Kinda weird eh?
There's something which I think you might not have come across and
that is the series of books written by Don Wilson. He wrote a book
about a theory postulated by Soviet Scientists in the mid 1970's
wherein they reckoned that our Moon was hollowed out - a spaceship in
fact. There's actually tons of evidence for that. The Moon is a very
strange place. It was not always there. The Soviets showed that the
Moon has a very tough outer skin and all craters are very shallow
REGARDLESS of the width of the meteor which struck and formed them. The
*ONLY* exception is this newly photographed crater at the Moon's South
Pole. It is much deeper than any of the other craters. The average
density of the Moon is the same as aluminium and you know how light
that is. There are all sorts of funny things which have happened on the
Moon. Clouds of water vapour have been seen and measured by
astronomers. All sorts of funny clouds have come out from the Moon.
Many of the anomalies on the Moon have been documented by astronomers
and are known as TLPs. I found the arguments for the Hollow Moon to be
extremely strong. I can't see how anyone can think otherwise once
you've gone through the data. The seismic data is extremely impressive
too because it had scientists literally falling off their chairs when
the first seismic information was in. There was also an analysis done
by a scientist at NASA in 1962 wherein he concluded that the Moon must
be hollow.
What is interesting - and you should keep this in mind - is that if
one object is hollow, then it is likely that most everything else might
be too. In Astronomy, MASS is dealt with on the basis of RELATIVE
masses. So if the Moon is Hollow, then so could the Earth and
everything else be - because GRAVITY (our gravity) is based on masses -
relative masses and distances. If only one object was Hollow, then it
would stand out like a sore thumb. But what if they all were?
Did you see my e-mail about Polar anomalies on different planets in
the Solar System? Did you see that ZIP file of photos?
Cheers,
Jan
Page Index
How to Subscribe to Hollow Earth List
From: "Jan Lamprecht"
To: rjo...@sprintmail.com (Richard L. Shapiro)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:42:50 +0200
Subject: Re: subscribe hollow
Reply-to: p...@iafrica.com
Hi,
Thank you for joining my Hollow Earth List Service!
I hope you enjoy it. You are encouraged to talk to the others and to
chat. No flaming will be tolerated. Just good old chit chat about the
Hollow Earth and any other related phenomenon.
If you don't like it - or you think *I* should have my head examined,
then just unsubscribe!
PLEASE NOTE:
When you want to send a message to the group you MUST put the word:
HOLL:
- or -
holl:
somewhere in the BODY of the message so that my mail reader can
reroute it to the necessary group of people. If you don't do this then
it will assume it to be a private message meant for me only.
To unsubscribe, simply send a blank message with the Subject being:
unsubscribe hollow (the words must be in lower case)
If you later want to rejoin, the simply subscribe again by sending the
message:
subscribe hollow
Cheers,
Jan.
* Hell was full so I came back...
* In the beginning there was nothing...then it exploded...
(The Big Bang Theory)
* A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client
* Happiness is the planet Earth in your rear view mirror...
Page Index
chris
Noah's Dove wrote:
>
> I also decided that seismology is a *MUST* to go and have a look at.
> And that's what I did. I read up about seismology to see if there was
> anything which might have been misinterpretted and which might disclose
> that the earth was hollow. I then discovered why it is they say the
> Earth's core is a LIQUID. The reason is because certain waves can ONLY
> travel through SOLID material. These waves can not travel through:
> liquids, gases or a vaccum. However, scientists simply "assume" that
> the core is a liquid - they do not explore the possibility that the
> core is a gas or even a vaccuum.
Apparently you didn't read all that much about seismology.
Here's what you have right:
S-waves (that is Secondary waves or shear waves, -back and forth
waves like the cracking of a whip) can only travel
through solids.
P-waves (that is, primary waves, pressure waves, compression
waves or longitudinal waves - bunching together and
spreading apart waves like sound) can travel through
solids, liquids and gas.
Here's what you missed:
P-waves can't travel through vacuum.
P-waves change their speed, direction, and intensity when they
travel from solid to liquid or to gas.
Our seismic data is consistent with P-waves hitting a liquid
outer core at around a depth of 2900 km of a density
around 10 g/cm^3
Somewhat more recently, but by much, we found that our seismic
data is consistent with the P-waves hitting a solid
inner core at around a depth of 5150 km, i.e. the
center 1200 km radius sphere, with a density around 12.8
g/cm^3.
There are earthquakes all the time. We have copious data that
fit with these models. At the same time they could not fit with
a hollow Earth. They rule it out. Jules Verne and Edgar Rice
Burroughs notwithstanding.
> I also discovered that approximately
> 7,000 miles from an earthquake you will find a "shadow" area where
> certain types of waves never appear. Could the core/hollow be blocking
> out these waves? Then at about 10,000 miles or so these waves reappear.
> I also realised the complexity of such waves and how they are reflected
> and saw that it is quite easy to misinterpret them.
The hollow doesn't block the waves, rather, the changing density
of the Earth, bends the seismic waves in a similar way to which
different densities of fluid - say a layered water, oil, alcohol
drink - bends light waves to a different degree. The Earth acts
like a lens to the seismic waves.
Later I acquired a
> very good seismic modelling program which runs under windows (and which
> I'll upload if anyone wants). It is a most excellent program which
> shows how the waves move through the earth PLUS, what the various
> monitoring stations will actually see on their print outs. As you look
> at this you will see that our methods of watching seismic waves leaves
> much to be desired. When waves come up we have no idea where they were
> - we really can't tell much.
Actually, we can tell a great deal, especially when we compare
data from the thousands of seismic stations world wide. It
does, however, take a bit of training to interpret the data,
including learning about the physics of waves in general, and
mathematics including Fourier transforms. But it's the same
basic science that lets us get high quality ultrasound pictures
of a developing fetus.
> But look too and you will see a great many
> waves bouncing off the "mantle" - we are told this is due to a change
> in density. Keep in mind that a Hollow object makes the wave movements
> many many times more complex because waves bounce back and forth
> between the two thin crusts and this will complicate the hell out of
> the whole thing. And when you look at the seismic model you will see
> that waves are reflected, re-reflected, re-re-reflected and so on. The
> earth sometimes "vibrates" for an hour or two after a big quake.
Ya... but that happens at the interfaces between two different
media as well, when density changes, regardless of whether that
change is to zero or not. You'd be well served by taking a
physics class on vibrations and waves.
> Probably the BIGGEST argument against the hollow earth is a
> PSYCHOLOGICAL one. Most people, including myself, just can not believe
> that it could possibly have been missed - or was it?
>stuff about early 20th century explorers omitted.
Of course, now we have satellites and a global positioning system which
easily confirm that our permanent stations on the poles actually are at
90 degrees north and south latitude respectively, not to mention that
the earlier explorers could easily confirm this by the positions of the
stars, regardless of the local topography.
> Also, during that initial exercise of mine, I studied geomagnetism. I
> had never felt comfortable with the "dynamo-in-the-core" theory. The
> idea that currents in the core could create a magnetic field. I have
> many reasons for rejecting this idea. For example, in order for there
> to be convection currents in the first place, there have to be
> temperature differentials of a big enough degree. IOW, some magma in
> the core must be a lot hotter than the other. This must also imply some
> sort of cooling process or some process which keeps one part warmer
> than the other.
That would be the surface of the Earth being in contact with
the atmosphere, which is in contact with space... we radiate
heat out into the -270 degree void of outer space. The heat
is supplied by radioactive decay of a variety of isotopes
within the Earth. The core, in turn loses heat to the mantle,
which loses heat to the crust. Each layer has a larger surface
area than the other, further aiding in its cooling, yet energy
continues to be supplied by radioactive decay.
> Without an adequate temperature differential currents
> won't arise in the first place. We can rule out cooling, because some
> scientists have found that the earth is not cooling.
um.. no.
> But even if we do
> have these currents, I still don't see how magnetism is generated. Heat
> is not a friend of magnetism. As a substance is heated, so it loses its
> magnetism - of course that's not quite an appropriate argument here.
What you have right:
as a magnetic material is heated past a certain
temperature - the Curie point - it loses its magnetic
alignment.
What you're missing:
That's not the only way magnetism works. Electricity
and magnetism are intimately related, which is a good
thing as otherwise we'd not have electric power plants.
Just as a spinning bar magnet can create the electric
current you might see in a power plant, moving
electrical charges generate magnetic fields.
Metals - including the iron and nickel in our core
have freely flowing electrons within their
structures. As the metals move, the
electrons move along.
If you get a net flow of outer electrons
relative to the nuclei and inner electrons of
the metals, then you'll have a current.
If you have a current then you have a magnetic
field.
If you have a circular current, then you have
a magnetic field pointed along its axis.
> More appropriate is: Can a liquid/semi-liquid generate a magnetic
> field? As far as I know this has never been done. The core is also,
> supposedly under great pressure and we are dealing with molten iron -
> so I don't think it has much in the way of fluidity or speed. Surely, a
> snails-pace movement is not adquate to generate a magnetic field which
> stretches beyond the Moon?
Hotter magma is less viscous. You're looking at temperatures
and pressures that are beyond the normal range of human
experience, so gut feelings aren't enough to go on here, you
have to look at experiments. Below you mention the Sun's
magnetic field. It too is believed to have its enormous field
generated by the motion of an even more tenuous phase of matter
than liquid - plasma. Liquids do generate magnetic fields.
A sensitive enough instrument could probably detect a magnetic
field change from the charged ions in your tap water flowing
from your faucet.
> Also, why should there be a single focal
> point for this magnetic field anyway?
There isn't. While we have definite magnetic poles, any
geophysics text will show you large magnetic field anomallies
around different parts of the world. These are no where near
as strong as the field intensities at the poles, but they exist,
Much like the Sun has regions of magnetic field anomallies
(sunspots & facullae).
> The core is rotating along with
> the rest of the earth - there can't possibly be any friction (in the
> same way that the atmosphere rotates with the rest of the earth. If the
> atmosphere did not move along with the earth we'd have 1,000 mph winds
> blowing at the equator - instead, even a 100 mph wind is a great
> rarity).
a - it's the charge flow, not the whole core that makes
the field
b - the core is more massive & more viscous than the atmosphere,
so it's mass could allow it to rotate more independently
though it's viscosity & fluid friction would couple it's
motion to the mantle more easily.
c - it's not lack of friction between the atmosphere and the
surface of the Earth that keeps them together - it's
inertia and the force of gravity.
> I wondered instead, if a nuclear sun positioned in the core
> could be the source of the geomagnetic field.
Fusion doesn't cause magnetic fields. While charged particles
could be emitted through fusion, their direction of motion would
be too random. The Sun's magnetic field is most likely from
a magnetic dynamo of moving plasma.
> There seemed to be
> evidence which could support this. All lava is slightly radioactive.
> Scientists speculate that the earth's heat is derived from radium which
> decays. But hold on: Radium is the lesser brother of Uranium. Decaying
> uranium becomes radium. So if there's radium then it might we have been
> uranium to start with. In West Africa there can be found a "natural
> nuclear reactor". A place where sufficient uranium occurred naturally
> to kick off a nuclear explosion. So I surmised: Wouldn't it be more
> logical, during the formation of the earth for heavy substances like
> Gold, Uranium, Lead to have been in the core instead of iron?
Not instead of... In addition to. And they're still there -
just not much of them compared to iron. If you look at how
radioactive materials decay, many of them wind up stablizing
at iron. When you have nuclear fission, as you get in the
uranium reactions you were talking about, things can break
into smaller and smaller elements, releasing energy all the
while -- until you reach iron. Then it takes more energy
to break them apart than such a reaction releases. While
there could have been nuclear chain reactions in the core
in the past, most of them would likely have completely run
their course by now. Enough material remains in more
isolated places to keep things hot down there through decay
but the distance of each remaining nuclear source to each
other is too large for chain reactions to occur. Past chain
reactions explain why most of the core _should_ be iron. That
the core has the right density range for iron for the
temperatures and pressures it is under is a nice confirmation.
> But, you
> don't need much Uranium to kick off a nuclear reaction. Also sometimes
> these things are self-enriching if enough of it is around. This would
> explain why in prehistoric times, huge volcanoes spewed out lava which
> filled entire continents. It would explain why there is evidence of the
> earth expanding by 20% (continents don't fit perfectly as continental
> drift theory would have us believe, but if the earth is shrunk 20% then
> there is a PERFECT fit between South America and Africa).
Continental drift theory was superceded by plate-techtonic
theory in the late '60s. The South American and African plates
fit pretty well if brought to the mid-Atlantic ridge. Shrink
the oceanic crust 20% and you'd have a worse fit, not a better
one.
> I discovered
> too that the Aurora baffles science. That particles similar to those
> from the Sun are somehow appearing in the upper atmosphere of the Poles
> - but there are far too many of these particles to be accounted for by
> the Sun alone. So where do they come from?
The Earth, mostly -- and the occasional cosmic ray.
> They come from the Inner Sun
> - which is also the source of the Aurora and the light. This also
> explains why the Aurora is linked to the geomagnetic field. The
> geomagnetic field is not stable. In fact, it wobbles A LOT, and at a
> high rate. It moves large distances within short periods of time. This
> can be explained by having a central Sun wobbling around a central
> point.
Not as well as it can be explained by the charge flow of
particles that is the solar wind beating against the
Earth's magnetic field like a drumhead. A class in
Ionospheres, plasma physics, or space science would help
here.
> In short, I pose this question: If scientists are willing to
> accept that decaying radium causes most of the earth's heat
Uranium, Potassium, Radon. I'm not sure that radium
is that big a factor compared to the others.
> - then does
> it take much leap of the imagination to suppose that just a little bit
> more radium/uranium in one point deep within the crust could have
> kicked off a self-sustaining nuclear reaction? Even a Sun of as little
> as 28 miles in diameter would weigh many millions of tons.
Aside from the seismic data, we can tell from how much things
weigh here, that there's not a star inside the Earth. It would
need to be too massive & would make us have a stronger
gravitational field than we experience. Having small regions
where nuclear chain reactions occur inside the Earth isn't
a problem -- but they'd likely be smaller than the one you
mention and most of them would likely have played out much
earlier in the Earth's history (first 50 million yrs or so).
> It would
> hollow out the earth easily and all the lava would pour out on to the
> surface. Later things would cool down inside.
> Gravity is an issue all by itself, but rest assured that Newtonian
> gravity works like a DREAM even in the Hollow Earth scenario. I have
> tested that idea to its fullest.
Really?
If we did have a star inside the Earth, and it hollowed out
the interior, then the star would have the same gravitational
pull as everything it had formed from and consumed. So, things
would still be pulled towards the center of that star and the
remaining outer shell of the Earth would need an extrodinarily
strong support system to not break apart and fall into the star.
This is the sort of problem a 1st semester Newtonian mechanics
class usually covers.
And that's enough comentary for a Friday afternoon.
Chris Siren http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/
Myths and Legends http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/myth.html
B.S. Earth Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences
M.S. Physics M.A.T. Secondary Science