But also there other factor generating heat. "A natural source of ionizing radiation is radon, a radioactive material found underground." - Howstuffworks
Even uranium or other radioactive material is mined from below. So what if part of the heat came from radiation source?

In order to find out about the inner sun or effect by theory. We should look into Olaf Jensen story.. he did make a journal of this. Heres the link..

http://www.ourhollowearth.com/SGContents.htm

---

Added on September 15, 2010, 8:18 amYes, its phake and phail. Simple as that to you. Dont worry, they are others like you who like a simple "see it to believed it type".

This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 15 2010, 08:18 AM

Columbus time... "The misconception that educated people at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth". - Wiki:

I would say ..

1.) he didnt even know he would go to the inner earth. ( unplan trips )
2.) He is not a science person, hes a fisherman.. You know our folklore about creatures in the sea. They saw it , they tell it. Expect them to take sample while in their mind is full of fear? i doubt it.
3.) If you crash a ship in the icey cold water. Would you look for your bag of proof? Either your story lives or it dont.
4.) Weird part is, he mention "communicate by air", in those days there is no such thing as radiowave until 1878. His story is at 1829.

---

Added on September 15, 2010, 10:28 amQuestion would be ..

1. How much hydrogen and oxygen to make an explosion?
2. "The resulting fireball will consume all available oxygen molecules". If you look at the Sun, its still burning .. Without Oxygen.
3. What if .. like earth, there is an ozone layer on the inner sun. Earth have magnetic poles and ozone layer. What if.. ozone in the inner world are much higher?

This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 15 2010, 10:29 AM

Adding link ..

http://www.hollowearththeory.com/articles/impactCraters.asp

And still they keep making new discoverys under the deep sea... the deeper they go, new fishes can be found.

They have explanation regarding this.. By our records, people on those ancient days have said to live about hundred of years.

Wiki - "Life expectancy is the expected (in the statistical sense)". Sound like a theory. But my Great grandmother is 105 years old.. where would that put her?

If it were to hit, surely it would be smash into little pieces. Ground earth take the vibration away like pillow and gravity maintain its (meteor) weight.
Not unless the meteor is a big rubber ball..

---

Added on September 15, 2010, 2:06 pm Statisticly taken is most commonly life expected in our time. We all know there are some people living above hundred nowadays but in the past it could be longer than that, no one is there to document how long they can live, its not like us today.
And i do say "Hundred of years" not "HundredS of years".

---

Added on September 15, 2010, 2:13 pm+2 = 3

This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 15 2010, 02:13 PM

In Past time era, there is no pollution so the body is much heathy. What-not chemical in the air, water and ground is obselete.
Today however, chemicals are everywhere.. in food, water, air and ground. Turn your water tap you get clorinated water. Go outside you get air pollution. Body is trying to resist to all these unnessasary stuff. So our lifespan fall short.

---

Added on September 15, 2010, 3:26 pmAdding ...

HOLLOW PLANET HISTORY


Sir Edmund Halley (1656-1742, Halley’s Comet) – Halley’s most controversial theory originated from his study of magnetism. Halley realized that the magnetic poles were constantly moving. He believed this could be explained by having two fixed magnetic poles (north and south) in the crust of a hollow earth, and two more inside which were moving. He envisaged hollow spheres, one inside the other, rotating at slightly different speeds. One of these inner shells would contain the other set of magnetic poles. If that shell rotated slightly slower than the outermost shell, then that might account for the apparent motion of two of the magnetic poles while the other two stood still.



Halley speculated on whether there might be life inside these shells. Since God had created “animate beings” which inhabited every part of the Earth as we know it, why should He not therefore have also caused the interior of these shells to be habited? He suggested that the atmosphere might be luminous, or the inner sides of the spheres might emit light, or there might even be small Suns inside the Earth which he referred to as: “peculiar Luminaries below, of which we have no sort of Idea.” Many of the core features of the Hollow Earth theory were born out of Halley’s speculations.

Could there be any logical reason for thinking that a planet might be hollow? The only possibility which comes to mind is that a spinning sphere might become hollow naturally. This was originally suggested to me by John Flora, who joined my Internet list. His argument is as follows: Scientists believe stars and planets formed from huge clouds of dust in space. Gravity caused them to condense. Then they started spinning and eventually became spheres. If this is the case then, like an ice skater, these stars and planets would have spun ever faster as they contracted. This would be dictated by the law of conservation of angular momentum. However, the solar system tells a different story.



It is not the smallest planets which spin the fastest, but the largest ones. The Earth rotates om 24 hours, and many of the planets smaller than it rotate even slower. Jupiter, the largest planet, which has a diameter more than ten times that of the Earth spins about its axis in a mere 10 hours. This is not what one would expect from condensed, solid planets. John pointed out that this is also true of the different types of stars. The larger ones spin faster than the smaller ones. He believes that it can be shown mathematically that a high rate of rotation would cause a spherical body to expand until it reaches a point of maximum inertial stability.



In an e-mail dated 15 Feb 1998, he explained in part,

“As I said earlier, the maximum moment of inertia for a rotating sphere to spin stably is that of a hollow sphere. . .”

He suggested that the planets and stars be regarded as “tornadoes in space.” He explained:

“This smaller size – slower rotation, bigger size – faster rotation relationship of planets and stars rotations is exactly what you would think if the planets and stars were created hollow however!"

Because, according to spherical shell dynamic theory, the planets and stars were created out of convection currents between warm and cool regions of space, swirling the particles into whirling, twirling tornadoes of particles. In the zero-gravity of space these tornadoes took on the shape of spheres with open poles, and the faster they were rotating, the larger they became! John’s logic also suggests that Hollow Planets must have Polar Holes of some kind. He pointed out that there was a point at which centrifugal force and gravity balance. Gravity, (as we shall see later, is zero at the centre of the Earth (or any hollow sphere). All mathematical exercises show that if one could suspend an object at the centre of the Earth, then it would be weightless. So when a forming planet rotates, the matter at its core will be flung away from the centre. Gravity however, increases as one moves away from the centre of a planet because there is more matter “below” it. So a point is reached whereupon gravity is stronger than the centrifugal force, and the expansion then stops. One thus ends up with a hollow spinning sphere.



This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 15 2010, 03:26 PM

What are the odds of that ?

We are all still here. Since thousand and thousandsS of year, when the Dinosaurs rule the earth, the Ice Age and when the great flood.

BUT, to a point where nature can balance it out. Ecological system require to recycle bad content that was very very abudent at that time and pollution of simple basic smoke, feces and pee water.
Today its chemical A to Z type plus less the LARGE amount of forest.

So hawking stated in his book,
there are 3 possibilities for discovering the complete unified theory:

1. There really is a complete unified theory, which we will discover someday if we are smart enough.
2. There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately
3. There is no theory of the universe; events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in random and arbitrary manner.

1. Now.. How random does a molten core get to be a planet? Scientices always say that planet are constently being bombarded by meteor. But only theorize the melted earth?
2. " events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent ".. to an extent that no one have ever seen how earth was born.

"yup at the early age we regard those tiny particles as dust.
comet is a dust ball, so are the asteroids. and the sun too.
dust clumps together due to gravitational pull, as every body that has mass exert this property.
the sun's gravitational pull is highest, as it is in the centre of the solar system, where most dust will spiral towards it and concentrate."

So where is the fusion reaction to start a sun? If its from dustball, wouldnt the sun be just a big dustball?
the thing that is different with sun it that, it shines, it burns.

"dust clumps together due to gravitational pull, as every body that has mass exert this property.
the sun's gravitational pull is highest, as it is in the centre of the solar system, where most dust will spiral towards it and concentrate."

But What if.. there is a mini sun doing the same thing as the Sun would have done but clump it around is gravitational field until it form a crust around it? It would be the same as other planet that spin around collecting space dust. Because of the Big Bang Theory, shape and size of the stars or sun is unknown and at random. Same as meteorite, it could come in a small scale or a big scale or an earth size scale.

"READ FROM RELIABLE AND CORRECT SOURCE"
Where is the correct and reliable source? The Goverment? The Paid Goverment 3rd party? That would be like asking Najib about 1Malaysia Concept.

"Hawkling prefers another possibility: that there are other forms of intelligent life out there, but that we have been overlooked. If we should pick up signals from alien civilizations, Hawking warns,"we should have be wary of answering back, until we have evolved" a bit further. Meeting a more advanced civilization, at our present stage,' Hawking says "might be a bit like the original inhabitants of America meeting Columbus. I don't think they were better off for it." - Coming from Stephen Hawking

As the well reknown theorist say this and people will and must believed him.
ALIEN DO EXCIST.
Reject The Hollow earth theory and believed in Aliens, or until he acknowledge it.

---

Added on September 15, 2010, 7:16 pmI laugh at you Giant Impact Hypothesis. Wouldnt it knock earth out of orbit?

This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 15 2010, 07:16 PM

If Hawking already believed there is Alien among the stars and could already travel to the earth due to technology advancement, means that the Hollow Earth Theory still yet to be proven.
Alien, UFO and Hollow earth are link, well as for 2012, this one i dont know.. .. For him to say Alien lifeform is a posibility, Posibility of an another exsistance that have been denied can still be question until proven so. US have been covering seceret operation for years, it is proven. Eg: The Afghan war where WikiLeaks expose mostly all of the confidential misson to the world.

So if everyone thinks there is no hole at the north pole, find an untouch picture of earth north pole by satelite. Reference should be before our advancement eg. Photoshop or any other graphic altering were develop ... somewhere 1977 - 1995 ? and paste it here.


This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 16 2010, 07:56 AM

I should not bother by it cause a lot of theads going around this and other forum are also garbage. So why dont you little kids run along and open your quantum mechanics shop theads and explain repeated science to all of the people in this forum, i guess theres no one or a little people care going in to your theads. Like i said, There is a lot of people who are like you who prefer logical explanation or "I believed it when i see it" type. But all scientice made theory but when prove otherwise they research and re-study it again.

Why do i need a spell checker for ? Do i need to attend spelling exam? Do i get point for spelling it right? Other TS have bad grammar and wrong spelling, that doesnt bother anyone.
Seriously, you should get a life. Looks like you need more attention.

Angry? Dont assume to much and judge by the word and say "oh ! your angry" I may feel happy, sad or boring. Statement is discuss at first post.. are you dicussing or just you like to troll around? How can theory fall apart if there is just only theory to contadict it? No one knows the earth is solid and no one know the earth is hollow. Everthing is just by theory, hence the Hollow Earth Theory.

If you dont understand than feel free to modify it.

Ok .. im going to sleep now

Oh and here the old news...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1,53420,00.html

Adding ..

http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/

This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 16 2010, 12:37 PM

Why do they need restriction at the polar ice?

http://www.usap.gov/usapgov/scienceSupport...%20Behavior.pdf

adding ..

Adding ..

Adding ...

Gravitation Inside A Uniform Hollow Sphere
The gravitational force inside a hollow sphere shell of uniform areal mass density is everywhere equal to zero, and may be proved by the following argument:

Let the sphere have a radius a. Place a point P inside the sphere at a distance r from the center where r < a; i.e., r is strictly less than a. Draw a line through P to intersect the sphere at two opposite points. Call these points and. Let the distance from P to be r1, and the distance from P to be r2.

Now place a differential area dA at , and project straight lines through P to acquire its image dA at . These two areas subtend a solid angle d at P. Let the sphere have areal mass density (kg/m2). Then the net differential attraction dF of dA and dA at P directed toward is just

dF = ( dA /r12 - dA/r22).

But dA = r12 d, and dA = r22 d by definition of the solid angle. Thus,

dF = ((r12 d)/r12 - (r22 d)/r22) = 0.

This result is true for all choices of dA and dA. The gravitational force within the sphere is everywhere equal to zero.