QUOTE(robertngo @ Sep 14 2010, 02:26 PM)
what does cave have to do with hallow earth, you are saying there is a massive hole in the center of the earth, all the cave in the world are nothing compare with a hole that big.
how does someone came up with this hollow earth model, how does gravity work in the crust? how does some one know there is a star in the the center, where does the valcano magma come? the inner sun must be the smaller star ever found, even white dwarf are on average the size of the earth, and how does you account for the missing mass and the effect on gravity?
Adding ..
NEWTONIAN GRAVITY REVISITED
“Newton’s Law of Gravity of one of the most useful mathematical formulae ever devised. This little formula has made space travel and the exploration of the Solar System possible. It made satellites possible.... Scientists use this little formula to gain an understanding of galaxies far away, and indeed the behavior of the universe as a whole. It is now more than 300 years since Newton devised this little formula and we still do now know what causes gravity.”
With this introduction the author then goes into a long, detailed, technical discussion of gravity. He contrasts the theories of “attraction” and “pressure”.
Euler and other scientists believed that the universe was filled with low density material called “ether” (among other things) which exert pressure on bodies of higher density, and that the attraction observed between these bodies could be caused by shielding of this pressure in the space between the bodies. Many inconsistencies with the accepted Newtonian laws are noted.
The mass of the Earth was determined by experiments by Cavendish which have been verified by others. Based on this and assuming that the Earth is a solid sphere, many scientists argue that other planets must be solid also. Dr. Tom Van Flandern, a contemporary scientist who believes in the “pressure” theory exposes contradictions between two dearly-held theories in science. Newtonian Gravity – and indeed any gravity seems to defy Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Newtonian gravity is accurately measured and proven with the bounds of the solar system. However, Newtonian gravity remains untested in other areas. All we have is a formula. This formula has been used to determine the mass of the Earth. This is based on the concept that for each mass of M inside the Earth, it exerts and attractive force of F. We do not know the valid range for Newtonian gravity.
Inside Newton’s formula is G. G is the “universal gravitational constant”. It is assumed – and assumed is the correct word here – that each mass of M exerts the same force of F regardless of where in the universe it may be placed. It is also assumed that each mass of M exerts the same force F whether it lies on the surface of the Earth or whether it be deep inside the Earth. When using the Cavendish balance to determine the mass of the Earth, it is assumed that each particle exerts a fixed force upon all others. But if Van Flandern’s ideas turn out to be right, then particles near the surface of a planet might exert a force greater than those deep down. The key to all of our gravity is the mass of the Earth. If the mass of the Earth is wrong, then so are our estimates for those of other bodies. If the mass of the Earth has been overstated, then it follows that the masses of all other bodies in the solar system have also been overstated. If the Earth is hollow, then so too is every other planet in the solar system.
Other anomalies are discussed such as,
strange gravity noted by pendulum experiments during solar eclipses
Saturn’s gravity-defying rings, gravity-defying galaxies
“inverse square break downs”
There are four basic forces which are believed to represent all physical interaction in nature. They are:
1. Electromagnetism
2. The Weak force of Particle Physics
3. The Strong force of Particle Physics
4. Gravity
A. H. Cook from the Cavendish Laboratory in England admits that gravitational experiments, even in laboratories, are fraught with danger:
“Experiments on gravitation do indeed present the experimenter with a considerable challenge. First, the forces are very small: The gravitational force between two protons is 10 to the negative 40th power of the electrical force, hence in many laboratory systems the forces are not very large compared with fundamental quantum fluctuations and mechanical disturbances... The forces of gravitation are very small... When the difficulties of determining the mass of a body weighing more than a few kilograms, and the position of its centre of mass, are considered, they effectively limit experimental studies to masses of a few kilograms and distances of about 0.5 m."
How can we be sure that the Earth really has the mass accorded it by Newtonian gravity? Is an experiment, using two lead balls really representative of the entire Earth? How can we be sure that gravity behaves 1,000 miles down in the Earth the same as it does 10 cm down in a lead ball? Scientists are convinced that electric currents flow inside the Earth. These currents almost certainly flow in the same direction. It therefore follows that they will be attractive. Does it not then follow that each mass of M deep inside the Earth might produce a greater force of F than previously considered? If so, then the Earth’s density may be much less than it has been thought of until now. Over and above this theorizing, we still have the excellent mine, borehole, ice-cap and sea bed experiments which definitely show that something is amiss. Regardless of where G was determined, the value of G increased, even at very shallow depths. All this indicates that less mass produced increased attraction. These could be the initial indications that Earth really is hollow.
Added on September 14, 2010, 3:34 pmadding ...
SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY
What do we really know about the Earth’s interior? And how trustworthy is our knowledge of it? Many people (mistakenly) think that the lava which pours out of volcanoes comes from a large reservoir of molten material which makes up the greater part of the Earth. Scientists have discovered that lava comes from within the Earth’s crust. The lava comes from approximately 20 miles down. The existence of lava does not affect the passage of earthquake (seismic) waves. This indicates to scientists that the crust is largely solid. So where does the heat come from which melts the rock locally? Scientists have advanced two theories.
Some say that the melting is due to high concentrations of radioactive elements in a particular area. These decaying radioactive elements generate enough heat to melt rock. Much lava is slightly radioactive and that lends support to this theory.
Other geologists have argued that shearing and faulting are adequate heat generating mechanisms.
The evidence supports both theories. Lava cannot possibly be rising from the centre of the Earth as some may be tempted to think. It would cool down and become solid on its long, slow journey upwards. Lava is therefore a surface phenomenon and does not in any way reflect what the Earth is like 50 or 100 or more miles down.
The Earth’s temperature is relatively constant. Where does this heat come from? Most scientists believe it comes from decaying radioactive materials deep inside the Earth. The Earth does not seem to be cooling down any further and this should alert us to the fact that the Earth is simply not a ball of molten material which is slowly cooling down and solidifying – as many people believe.
Since the temperatures seem to rise steadily as one goes deeper and deeper, scientists have extrapolated the temperatures and attempted to estimate the temperature of the Earth hundreds of miles beneath the surface. One has to ask oneself whether this extrapolation of temperatures is really logically justified. The extremely deep mines are still nothing but a pin-prick into the surface of the Earth. The centre of the Earth lies some 3,963 miles away. A mine 6 miles deep really does not represent a valid statistical portion of the Earth. No one has discovered a way of determining the temperature deep down. Our best estimates are that lava comes from 20-30 miles down. But what will temperatures be like 100 or 1000 miles down? It’s all guesswork – most of it derived indirectly from Newtonian gravity.
The only “reliable” method we have of knowing what goes on in the Earth beneath our feet comes from the science of Seismology. However, there are many examples of actual findings being different from what was predicted. The science of seismology contains two very broad assumptions which no one has ever been able to verify:
1. The speed of seismic waves beneath the Earth is ultimately inferred from our understanding of the structure of the Earth based on Newtonian Gravity. We have no way of being certain that these waves really are reaching these depths or traveling at these speeds.
2. We cannot be sure that speed changes are due to the changing constitution of the Earth. Our view of the inner Earth might be very skewed.
Since most of our knowledge of the Earth is obtained from those searching for gold, minerals and oil, one can’t help wondering if this skews our view of what the inner Earth may be like. We only search for these minerals in specific regions and this may be misleading us further. These holes seem to prove that much of the predicted structure changes have never turned out to be real. If we find such errors at depths of just a few kilometers, how much less can we trust our ideas when dealing with rock which is hundreds and perhaps thousands of miles beneath the surface?
The Earth is a flattened sphere. This is due to the rotation of the Earth, and the Earth being somewhat plastic. One would therefore expect the inside of the Earth to be similarly shaped. Yet there is some evidence that the Inner core may be shaped like a rugby ball. Instead of being flattened, it may be pointed at the top and bottom. The claim that the inner core is actually prolate in shape is by no means universally accepted. Even less certain than the claims of a prolate core are those for inner-core heterogeneity and, even more remarkably, hexagonal symmetry. These conflicting results in recent times, and the disputes surrounding them make one wonder just how reliable seismology is at those depths.
Slow Earthquakes
Earthquakes are caused when stresses build up and the rock then gives way catastrophically. And earthquake is an explosive event. It therefore cam as a surprise that there are some earthquakes which have unusually long source duration. The seismologists Professor Thorne Lay and Terry Wallace write:
“the mechanism for the slow rupture process is unknown, but in the extreme it could produce a ‘silent’ earthquake devoid of short-period body and surface waves.”
They go on to mention that G. Beroza and T. Jordan surmise the existence of “slow earthquakes": which are virtually undetectable – and that several of these may be occurring each year. These slow earthquakes suggest to me that the Earth might not be as tightly packed in some areas as we presume. Are there enormous cavities inside the Earth, perhaps caused by erosion and other forces deep, deep down? What would happen if these cavities were to be crushed? Could the forces down there be operating a lot more slowly and weakly? Could horizontal or vertical forces be operating as well? What if “slow” events prevent us from ascertaining the stranger aspects of deep seismology? Even more mysteriously, could “silent” quakes be occurring which our instruments are incapable of measuring? Could events be occurring down there which are not violent enough to be detected and we therefore have an inaccurate impression of what really is happening down there?
Deep Focus Quakes
Among the strongest evidence that the Earth is rigid all the way down to the “outer core” (where a hollow cavity exists?) comes by way of deep-focus earthquakes. Thousands of deep-focus earthquakes, making up to 22% of all earthquakes, have been recorded. Theoretically earthquakes cannot occur below 70 kilometers because the temperatures and pressures there are such that rock will flow rather than break catastrophically. The mechanism for ordinary quakes cannot therefore exist below 70 kilometers because the stresses are always relieved. Scientists hope that a suitable explanation for deep-focus quakes will be found without bending the laws of physics and chemistry, but that might not be possible. Professor Lay et al., writes:
“Deep earthquakes have long posed a problem for seismologists. Laboratory experiments indicate that the pressures at a few hundred kilometers depth should prohibit brittle fracture and frictional sliding processes. Yet earthquakes as large as (magnitude) 8.2 have occurred at 650 km. The deep seismicity has many characteristics that are similar to those of shallow earthquakes. Most important, the deep earthquakes have radiation patterns consistent with double couples, which implies shear faulting.”
(Several other observations which defy accepted scientific theory are given by the author along with attempts to explain them.) The search for deep focus quake mechanisms therefore seems to be far from over. The problem may be more fundamental than scientists have appreciated so far.
Let us now consider deep focus quakes within the Hollow Earth paradigm. The key to understanding it might lie in combining some simple concepts:
(a) A rigid hollow shell
(b) The different behavior of gravity deep beneath the Earth’s surface
© Gravity might be more variable and dynamic than science currently believes (e.g. electric currents might affect it)
If gravity varies inside the Earth, then pressure and temperature would not increase as science expects. It therefore follows that the Earth down there would be cooler and more brittle than theory currently allows for and that shear can indeed occur. It also follows that G will indeed be very different to what is currently expected at various depths. There is no reason why some of the rock might even be in a state of almost weightlessness. Density need not keep on increasing with depth. Nor would there be any reason to expect pressure to close all cavities. At these cooler temperatures we could expect water to flow and to erode deep into the Earth. This water could be one of multiple causes of deep quakes. What about dynamic gravity as a possible source of deep seismicity? What if varying electric currents inside the Earth cause gravity to increase and decrease at various times at various depths? Could this be cause of the random three dimensional distribution of after shocks which has been observed?
Hollow Planet Structure
The solid Earth, conceptually, is made up of three parts. Imagine three spheres, one within each other.
The outer sphere is the Mantle. This region is relatively solid. In it is molten material under great pressure.
Within it lies the Outer Core. The Outer Core is a liquid.
Within the Outer Core lies the Inner Core which is again solid. The Inner Core lies right at the centre of the Earth.
The author presents a technical analysis of seismic waves with several figures illustrating how waves are supposedly reflected within the Earth. He then presents his theory of seismic wave action in a Hollow Earth and says: In doing my own analysis and thinking about Hollow Planets, there was only one Hollow Planet model which could give the same results as the current scientific models. It seemed logical to me that if there was a hollow crust that somewhere in the middle, perhaps more towards the inner side, there would be an area of maximum density. The density of the crust would increase from the outer surface of the Earth to this point of maximum density. From there the density would decrease toward the inner surface of the Earth. This very simple model exhibits all the characteristics which we have learned from a century of global seismology. The P (primary) and S (secondary) waves which emanate from the epicenter of an earthquake descend into the Earth. Those which strike the hollow cavity’s surface will be refracted back to the surface of the Earth exactly in accordance with what we saw in Figure 3.9 (from “Modern Global Seismology”).
But what really interests us is the “shadow zone”.
(In a nutshell, one can characterize the general behavior of seismic waves as follows:
1. At a distance of between 7,000 miles to 10,000 miles from the epicenter of an earthquake, one finds a “shadow zone”. In this shadow zone there are very few P waves.
2. Beyond the 10,000 mile mark, there is a concentration of P waves and virtually no S waves. What S waves there are, are those which are thought to possibly have passed through the core. But this is open to dispute and most scientists think there are no S waves in this region.)
The shadow zone is now easily explained. The shadow zone is caused by the belt of maximum density in the Earth’s crust. Suppose we go down into the Earth at the epicenter. As we go deeper, the density gradually increases. It reaches a maximum at point M1. But from M1 downwards, the density decreases again until we strike the hollow cavity. Thus P waves which penetrate beyond the belt of maximum density will find themselves refracted and bent and bent downwards – so that they then travel and curve along the inside of the Hollow Planet. These waves will continue to travel like this until they again manage to penetrate and escape through the belt of maximum density. The shadow zone is thus caused by the change in density in this M-belt which naturally separates the P waves. It also explains why there are some P waves in the shadow region. All that is happening is that the waves are being bent around the Earth and being refocused on the other side.
It can be seen that the waves which are thought to be penetrating both the Outer and Inner cores may be doing nothing of the kind. These waves would simply be those which are caught by the decreasing density and bent around the hollow cavity. Note that since density decreases with depth beyond point M1, that any refraction which takes place is inwards – hugging the contours of the Inner Earth. The rest of the seismic waves bounce between the Inner and Outer surfaces as they make their progress around the Earth.
Once one is freed from Newtonian gravity, and one merely studies the seismic waves alone – not sure what path they are taking – the study of the Inner Earth becomes extremely complex and filled with all manner of unknowns. Have scientists already discovered the hollow cavity inside the Earth – in the form of the Outer liquid core? I think so. The fact that S waves don’t pass through it, and that the P wave speeds are abnormally slow makes me think that this “liquid” core is really the cavity which scientists deny the existence of . After going through this exercise I find myself wondering even more if perhaps seismologists are studying a Hollow Planet without ever having realized it was so. What do you think?
Added on September 14, 2010, 3:37 pmQUOTE(fifi85 @ Sep 14 2010, 03:32 PM)
yes it sounds like a story from a fantasy book. But if give the idea proposer the benefit of doubt maybe the idea sounds cool. COuld be our hope for 2012
Sound like a fantasy.. Yes i agreed BUT if you read your friends BLOGS in the internet. It sound like a story also, how you present it make it sound like a story. Agree?
Added on September 14, 2010, 3:40 pmQUOTE(robertngo @ Sep 14 2010, 10:37 AM)
where is the hole with sun light shining out of it in the south pole?
South pole? You read that they mention the hole at the south is cover by ice and opened at certian times. Wheres the north pole?
Added on September 14, 2010, 3:43 pmAdding ..
THE INNER SUN
As I set out to test these old Hollow Earth theories, I wondered how one would know if there was a Sun inside the Earth. So I did a bit of reading and thinking about geophysics. Various facts led me to entertain thoughts of a nuclear fission Sun. My train of thought was originally triggered when I discovered that a few high level nuclear explosions could knock out all the electronics across the USA (in a nuclear war scenario, for example).
This is because a nuclear explosion creates a powerful EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) shock wave. It can knock out the sensitive electronics in computers as well as the electrical systems of almost all motor vehicles. It occurred to me that a naturally occurring nuclear reaction inside the Earth might perhaps be responsible for the Earth’s magnetic field. The strange behavior of the magnetic field seemed to confirm that it couldn’t be caused by a sluggish liquid circulating about the outer core.
In the early days of space exploration H. A. Bomke detected magnetohydrodynamic waves (electromagnetic waves) in the Earth’s outer atmosphere which were generated by high-altitude nuclear explosions. Masahisa Sugiura discovered similar waves which were generated by natural causes in the outer atmosphere of the Earth and transmitted along the lines of magnetic force to the Earth in the northern and southern auroral zones. There are also electric (telluric) currents which flow in the surface layer of the Earth’s crust. The ground is electrically conducting and its resistivity varies markedly with depth. It has been found that these currents come from the polar regions. These currents change in sympathy with magnetic disturbances and auroras.
The next realization was that matter arranged itself according to density when the Earth formed – that’s what scientists expect to happen. Denser matter at the centre of the Earth and less dense material as one moves further away from the centre and so on up through the atmosphere until one reached the edge of space. Why shouldn’t heavy metals, such as uranium for example, exist in the Earth’s core? Scientists say that uranium is a trace metal which does not occur naturally. They do not expect it to reside inside the Earth. It also decays. Let us assume that a solid Earth formed originally – that it was compact and tightly packed in the same way that scientists these days expect it to be.
No one knows what happens to matter under those conditions. I have wondered, in my own simplistic way, whether some sort of natural enriching process is kicked off automatically when matter is that tightly packed. There might be natural processes which kick in under such conditions, processes which we don’t know about yet. And we also must not forget the possibility of cold fusion either. A small amount of uranium or plutonium would be enough to start a nuclear reaction. One by one these simple facts and possibilities made me think that a naturally occurring nuclear reaction inside the Earth might be a workable proposition.
Scientists have long realized that the lava which pours from volcanoes is naturally radioactive. This is how scientists are able to date rocks – because the lava from which these rocks form is slightly radioactive. Decayed uranium turns into radium. Scientists thus theorize that radium is probably to blame. The evidence suggests that lava forms no more than 20 miles beneath the Earth’s surface due to the accumulated heat from decaying radium and uranium. There are lots of volcanically active areas on the Earth. It seems as if there is quite a lot of radium in the Earth’s crust.
The crust is of course only a small part of the Earth. Remember that this is far away from the centre of the Earth. If there is still some radium left here near the surface after some 4 billion years of Earth history, then surely, deep down in the Earth there was much much more when the Earth originally formed? Remember too, our volcanoes are probably driven by what is left after billions of years of radioactive decay. So how much do you suppose there was to begin with?
Uranium has a half-life of 710 million years under current conditions. That means that 710 million years ago there was twice as much uranium in the Earth’s crust as there is now. It seems to me that there must have been enough uranium around originally to kick off at least one natural nuclear reaction inside the Earth.
The Earth’s Heat
Richard Milton writes:
“Although it was once believed that the Earth was cooling as its molten interior lost hear, it is now known that the Earth’s overall temperature is roughly constant, since heat loss from the surface is balanced by heat generated with the crust by radioactive decay.”
But is the Earth’s temperature constant only because of the decay of radioactive materials or does the Inner Sun help in other ways to keep the climate warm?
Natural Fission Reactors
The main evidence for the past presence of natural fission reactors comes in the form of uranium ores that are depleted in uranium-235. The main site lies at Oklo in Gabon. In June 1972 a team was working under the direction of Dr. H. V. Bouzigues at the CEA service laboratory in France. They noticed an anomaly in the abundance of the uranium-235 isotope. Some time later, much larger depletions of this isotope were discovered in uranium samples from this source. They traced this back to the Oklo deposit. This was the first positive proof of the hypothesis that a natural chain reaction was responsible for the depletion. A report in “Nature” about an international symposium held in Gabon in 1975 states:
“It was pointed out that at the time of the reaction the natural abundance of the relatively fast-decaying uranium-235 isotope was more than 3%. This natural ‘enrichment’, helped by the moderation of the fission neutrons by the water content of the soil which enhanced their fission efficiency, and possibly by the relative absence of neutron-absorbing elements in the surroundings, allowed a nuclear chain reaction to develop…”
To summarize, our interest lies in the feasibility of there being natural nuclear reactors – even here on the surface of the Earth. Add to this the possibility of there having existed far more uranium-235 concentrations in the past. All of this taken together should clearly indicate that the idea of the Earth (and other planets) having been hollowed out by enormous nuclear reactions might not be that far fetched. Even such a small site as Oklo is estimated to have sustained a nuclear reaction which lasted anything 500,000 years to several million years.
The loss of 5 tons of uranium-235 attests to the power of this reaction. What puzzled the scientists was how low grade uranium ore naturally enriched and started a fission process? Yet the evidence shows that it did indeed happen – right here on the surface. That this little nuclear reaction could produce temperatures of 400 degrees C. and run for several million years would seem to support the idea of a natural nuclear process occurring in nature right here on or in the Earth.
Inner Sun: Cold Fusion?
The subject of cold fusion doesn’t seem to enjoy much credibility in the USA. Some scientists regard cold fusion as a pseudo-science. Yet many countries in the world are pouring enormous sums of money into hard scientific research on the matter. Some scientists have already discussed the possibility of cold fusion occurring inside the Earth. P. Palmer, a geophysicist has already suggested this. Helium-3 emanating from inside the Earth has been regarded by some as an indication that cold fusion might be taking place deep down inside the Earth.
Inner Earth Nuclear Processes
When physicists installed nuclear particle detectors deep in a mine in the Kolar Gold Fields in India, they hoped to measure particle created by highly penetrating neutrinos arriving from the cosmos. They found instead immense showers of nuclear particles coming, not from above as expected, but from the sides and even below! These huge showers of 1,000 or more different particles are called ‘anomalous cascades’. Neutrinos are the only known particles capable of penetrating the entire Earth to create the upwardly directed showers, but ordinary neutrinos do not seem to have enough energy to give birth to the anomalous cascades. The Sun creates neutrinos.
But most neutrinos are not expected to have enough energy to move through a solid Earth. Yet here were neutrinos passing through the Earth from all sides – and even from below. These scientists found these anomalous cascades to be too energetic to be caused by normal neutrinos. This raises two possibilities about the structure of the Earth:
1) What if the Earth’s crust is thinner than scientists expect with their current solid Earth models? If the Earth is hollow, then neutrinos would be able to penetrate the Earth more easily and therefore produce the results which the scientists found.
2) Could the Inner Sun also be a producer of some of the neutrinos which are rising from the core of the Earth.
Since those experiments scientists have made plans to build ‘telescopes’ which are pointed downwards and which detect these particles coming from below. Many European nations as well as the USA have been building such ‘telescopes’ which are located in the Mediterranean. The largest however will be located deep in the ice of the Antarctic continent. These neutrinos point to some kind of radioactive/nuclear process going on inside the Earth. Could it be an Inner Sun?
When The Inner Sun Shines
Sometimes the Earth crosses directly between the Moon and the Sun. At such times the Earth cuts off the light going to the Moon. The Earth’s atmosphere however refracts the Sun’s light thereby ensuring that the Moon rarely disappears from view. If the Earth did not have an atmosphere, then the Moon would disappear completely. At the time of these eclipses the Earth’s night side is in full view, and apart from the light streaming around the edges of the Earth, there is no other light shining on the Moon. It is at this point that a mystery surfaces.
Astronomers have noted that these eclipses of the Moon are variable in brightness. Sometimes they are dark. At other times they are extremely bright. If the Earth’s atmosphere is dust laden, then the eclipses of the Moon are very dark – sometimes the Moon disappears totally. But then there are times when the Moon is exceedingly bright. Far too bright. Can the aurora (which can only produce a shadow on the Earth under exceptional conditions) really light up an object the size of the Moon 238,000 miles away? Or are there times when light from inside the Earth is refracted and bent through the cold polar air so that direct inner sunlight can fall on the surface of the Moon?
The condensed testimony of several European observers for an event on 19th March, 1848:
“I wish to call your attention to the fact, which I have clearly ascertained, that during the whole of the late lunar eclipse of March 19, the shaded surface presented a luminosity quite unusual, probably about three times the intensity of the mean illumination of an eclipsed lunar disc. The light was of a deep-red color. During the totality of the eclipse the light and dark places on the face of the Moon could be almost as well made out as in an ordinary dull moonlight night; and the deep-red color, where the sky was clearest, was very remarkable from the contrasted whiteness of the stars. The Consul at Ghent, who did not know that there was an eclipse, wrote to me for an explanation of the deep red color of the Moon at 9 o’clock.”
An observation from Ireland notes that before the eclipse ended, the light had stopped lighting up the Moon. It is as if we have a ‘search-light’ effect. Could it be that refracted light from the Inner Sun lit up the Moon for a short while and then left the Moon in total darkness again? Sunsets are red. This is because the red light can travel longer distances through the atmosphere whereas other wavelengths of light cannot. The deep red color in the above observations is therefore of extreme interest. It implies that the light traveled a great distance through the atmosphere before falling on the Moon. Could this light have traveled all the way out of the Inner Earth to be refracted and to then fall upon the Moon?
There is a mysterious brightening of the Jovian moon Io sometimes when Io has been behind Jupiter – in its shadow. Scientists have picked up that Io is sometimes anomalously bright when it comes out from behind Jupiter. Scientists have never thought of correlating this with a time when Io is above the Great Red Spot! I have wondered if some anomalous radiation from the Great Red Spot is the cause of the mysterious brightening of Io? The Earth’s Moon is therefore not the only object in the solar system which undergoes such an effect. Io is the closes of the Galilean moons to Jupiter. On Saturn a bright spot appears on the ring systems. This extremely bright spot is the cause of many a Saturnian mystery. These three different phenomena may all have a very similar origin – in that light emanates from inside planets.
Direct Light on the Moon?
Could an Inner Sun really shine direct light on to the Moon? One wouldn’t expect that to be the case. However, there are many factors involved in this, and it’s quite a complex issue. The following ingredients affect this issue:
1) The Moon’s orbit takes it approximately 27 degrees north and south of the equator
2) The Earth is inclined by 23.5 degrees
3) The width of a possible polar entrance
4) The position of the Inner Sun inside the Earth at the time. Perhaps an Inner Sun wobbles around inside the Earth?
5) The temperature of the atmosphere inside the Earth
6) The refractivity of the Earth’s atmosphere in the Arctic. The most favorable conditions will therefore be when the Moon is 27 degrees north of the equator during the northern winter (when the Arctic is inclined towards the Full Moon)
Light could never fall directly on the Moon’s surface if it originates from inside the Earth, traveling out via the polar regions. The main factor which might make this possible is the refractivity of the atmosphere in the arctic. Since we do not know the temperature inside the Earth, it is hard to say how the light would behave. But assuming it to be warmer than the polar regions, perhaps light could be refracted enough to fall on the Moon. Since the light from inside the Earth would be traveling a considerable distance through the inner atmosphere and then into the outer atmosphere, it is possible that considerable bending of light might just take place.
I would suspect that if such an event would take place, it would probably be extremely rare. I have only found one possible example of this occurring. I feel it is important to mention the vague possibility that light from the Inner Sun might light up the Moon either at Full Moon or at New Moon – for the simple reason that perhaps someone might one day be in a position to study these possibilities. I have found one fascinating eclipse which might satisfy the criteria I have mentioned above.
Captain G. Brown was in charge of the S.S. Pacific Importer which was sailing from Cristobal to London. The following report was made by Mr. T. M. Sims, 3rd Officer, on during the night of 29-30 January 1953:
“2305 to 0140 G.M.T. The commencement of the eclipse was not observed owing to almost stationary Cu(mulus) covering the Moon. During totality a small white patch of light of low brilliancy moved round the North Pole of the Moon until that phase came to an end at 0030. From that time the white patch increased in area until the end of the eclipse at 0140. During the total phase the face of the Moon appeared to be colored in bands of blue, green, yellow and orange as in the sketch, and stars were visible with the unaided eye within 2 or 3 degrees of the Moon.”
What is particularly interesting about this account is that the light which is shining on the Moon appears to be refracted and split into the different components of white light. Furthermore, the light around the Moon’s North Pole seems to be direct light. This event, seen by observers on 6 different ships, suggests that a cone of pure white light was shining somewhere north of the Moon’s North Pole. Some of this light just barely managed to fall upon the Moon’s North Pole. The remaining colors falling on the rest of the Moon suggest that this highly refracted light.
This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 14 2010, 03:43 PM 
Hollow Earth, Our earth is hollow ! 
Sep 14 2010, 10:15 AM, updated 14y ago
Quote
0.0411sec
0.34
6 queries
GZIP Disabled