Dean,
We thought the dark letters meant you were yelling at us because you felt
very passionate about this topic. Anyway, it got my attention, so I guess it
worked.
Good points, all.
Isn't it interesting how the scientific world will come up with some of the
most preposterous concepts and explanations to wriggle out of an embarrassing
result of an experiment. It's like they're real good in the thinking process
of postulating theories and setting up the experiments that they feel will
prove out those theories, but, they are really lacking in their thinking
process which allows them to improvise and come up with a spur of the moment
explanations.
Unfortunately, there seems to be this universal compassion built into the
psyche of scientists, that when one, or a group of them, get caught in one of
these embarrassing moments, they allow any explanation that their colleagues
can come up with on the spur of the moment to pass unchallenged. They all
turn into the Stepford Wives and respond with comments like, "Oh, of course,
that makes perfect sense. We understand now why your experiment didn't turn
out the way you thought it was supposed to turn out. But, now that you've
explained what went wrong, or, now that you've drawn this totally unrelated
conclusion, we're completely satisfied."
They always seem to hold onto the factors of these premises as if they were
absolutes, and would rather come up with ridiculous conclusions that preserve
the factors, instead of challenging the validity of the factors.
Example: Factor 1 - The Earth is flat. Factor 2 - The Earth has an edge.
Premise: If you sail off the edge of the Earth, you will
fall off into space.
Test: Christopher Columbus sails west.
Results: He doesn't fall off the earth as expected.
Conclusion: He must not have sailed off the edge of the
Earth.
Explanation: Columbus must have not been traveling due west.
Because
Columbus was left-handed and the helm was
designed for a
right-handed helmsman, he must have
gotten turned
somehow and had actually been traveling
in a spiral pattern
away from the central core of Europe. In
this spiral pattern,
Columbus could have gone on spiraling for
years without
ever actually reaching the edge, since he
was actually
traveling parallel to the edge for the
most part.
Reaction: Oh, of course, I understand now. The Earth is
still flat, there is
still an edge to it, and someday when someone
actually sails
off the edge of it, we'll be able to say we
told you so.
So, everyone is happy. No one checks to see if Columbus was, in fact,
left-handed, or, if helms can actually be designed for right-handers. They
disregard the fact that Columbus used other instruments quite efficiently to
maintain accurate bearings, and that all of his physical observations
supported his claims.
Thanks for bearing with this little melodramatic example, but, it does
exemplify my point. There is a pattern in this process. Scientists will go
to great lengths, and will propose rediculous conclusions to preserve their
tenets.
Such a tenet is contained in Newtonian Law. Now I'm not debunking Newton
here, Scott. Newton was a brilliant individual who came up with some
wonderful formulas. Most of these formulas seem to be perfectly viable. But
one of these laws seems to be flawed. Newton was extremely limited in his
resources to check out his work. But, we, the enlightened generation, should
be willing to adjust the formulas to correct these slight inaccuracies.
Instead, the scientific community chooses to ignore all the inconsistancies
this incorredt formula has generated. They choose to come up with
preposterous conclusions which support the mathematics of the flawed formula,
rather than correcting the flaws.
Such is the case with the explanation of the cosmogony of the earth, and our
layer of molten lead and Titanium core. These riduculous suggestions came as
a result of needing to explain the mass of the earth and its influence on
other celestial bodies according to Newtonian Law. At the same time, they
had to satisfy the Siesmegraphic readings which indicated a liquid inner
layer and solid inner core. The earth had to weigh a great deal more than
the 5.5 grams per cubic centimeter that the outer crust represented. The
liquid state of the inner layer would have to weigh at least as much as lead
and have a low enough melting point to be feasibly liquid. Even this wasn't
enough weight to satisfy Newton's formula, thus, the super dense and heavy
Titanium core was birthed. It was impervious to the 4000+ degrees necessary
to liquify lead, and also wiegh enough to finally satisfy Newton's formula.
Everyone is happy. The tenet is safe. The contradiction has been explained
away. The numbers work now, and no one will ever know the difference. It
doesn't matter how preposterous the explanation is. It doesn't matter that
it's contrary to most observed phenomena.
**THE WHOLE CONCEPT WAS DERIVED IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE NUMBERS OF A FLAWED
FORMULA!!!
THERE IS NO PROOF OR SUPPORT OF THIS IDEA IN ANY PHYSICAL SIMILARITY IN OTHER
PLANETS, OR IN ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!!!
IN FACT, QUITE THE CONTRARY!!! IT IS ILLOGICAL, IMPROBABLE, AND TOTALLY
WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR MERIT!!! **(I'm not yelling, by the way, I'm only
emphasizing).
I could go on and on about this topic, pointing out all of the illogical
aspects of this
concept, but, not right now. Suffice it to say, as Scott would put it, the
whole idea is hogwash!
Now, briefly, in response to your question, Dean, the two continents,
according to the available cat-scan information, are located underneath the
two main land masses of the surface world. There is area where these
continents do not show up, which we could interpret as ocean, but the land
mass would actually be greater than the land mass we have on the surface.
The center of the larger continent shows an open area, a depth, or a huge
lake (or spring, perhaps), which is located approximately underneith
Missouri. The whole of this larger inner continent dwarfs North and South
America combined, but pretty much underlies most of it. This larger
continent also has open area at the top of it, near our North Polar area,
whereas the mass of it appears to continue right down to underly Antarctica
and such. The smaller continental reading appears to be about the same size
as the eastern hemisphere land mass including Australia. This mass appears
to be surrounded by open area. The two continental masses appear to be
unattached to each other, even though they come close to each other in places.
Hope this information helps.
Norlan