Again, I must point out that the mention of an aperture that is X miles wide is not descriptive.
In the Multi program in my 2D and 3D section, I define not only the longitude and latitude of the
opening, but, the depth of the shell and the eccentricity of the cross section. I take it that you are
considering the widest portion of the hole. You have to realize that a hole that is only 2 or 3
hundred miles across at it widest part will over the course of a minimum of an 800 mile thick
shell be extremely eccentric in its cross section. This language is ambiguous and it makes me
frown each time I see such terms which are so open to multiple interpretations. Accuracy is
important because a hole that was 300 miles apart at its narrowest cross section would be not
possible in my opinion and others might dismiss HE notions that are so far beyond the scope of
possibility. I, for one, don't believe that the hole is as wide as the one that Gardner first implied
in his book on the subject.
Scott
···
On Sat, 26 May 2001 10:06:44 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected] writes:
Leslee/JanJM,
That Artic map was a very simple one. Maybe that's why it jumped out to me how there is so much area on the other side of the Pole, there is nothing which clutters up the map. Actually, you can see it on the map which I use on the Arctic site, at the very bottom: http://www.skywebsite.com/hollow/arctic/
There is just a lot of space on the other side, a lot of space to hide an opening in, even one a few hundred miles wide.
DD
` To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected]
`
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).
I understand your point. My underdstanding of the size and location of the opening is rather rule of thumb. Better to be exact and descriptive. I would be, except that I am not sure, personally, about the width. I do feel rather strongly about the location being 85* North and 141* West, as Rod M. Cluff has previously pointed out in his article The Size and Location of the Polar Opening: http://www.ourhollowearth.com/PolarOpn.htm And I personally feel that the opening stretches, from that point, towards Elizabeth Island where the North magnetic Pole is.
Mr. Cater feels that the width at the neck is 600 miles, and he presents a whole logic to support this, although I would have to look for it ( it's a big book ).
Gardner said 1,400 miles wide. I don't think that he explained much, he didn't openly distinguish between width at the neck of the opening and width as defined as being from outer rim to outer rim. I doubt his figure as being the width at the neck.
In the past I felt uncomfortable about a wide opening because I could never satisfactorily explain the fact that we don't typically see any light beams shooting through, Arctic night or whenever. But the idea of an inner atmosphere largely characterized by soft particles would account for this. Since soft particles reflect light, the bottleneck at the opening would tend to supress the light back downwards.
On the list I do speak in general terms, although I admit that we have to be prepared to define width.
DD
···
Dean,
Again, I must point out that the mention of an aperture that is X miles wide is not descriptive.
In the Multi program in my 2D and 3D section, I define not only the longitude and latitude of the
opening, but, the depth of the shell and the eccentricity of the cross section. I take it that you are
considering the widest portion of the hole. You have to realize that a hole that is only 2 or 3
hundred miles across at it widest part will over the course of a minimum of an 800 mile thick
shell be extremely eccentric in its cross section. This language is ambiguous and it makes me
frown each time I see such terms which are so open to multiple interpretations. Accuracy is
important because a hole that was 300 miles apart at its narrowest cross section would be not
possible in my opinion and others might dismiss HE notions that are so far beyond the scope of
possibility. I, for one, don't believe that the hole is as wide as the one that Gardner first implied