[allplanets-hollow] Etidorhpa

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
1

Dean,

Just an FYI comment. This is a perspective which has, at least, some
investigative scientific evidence for the physical support of the findings, (
although I strongly disagree with the conclusions of these scientists).

Seismographic and cat-scan readings give an approximation of the outer mantle
thickness of the earth to be 1800 miles. The central core, (which science
proposes to be a Titanium ball), reads as some 600 miles in diameter. The
inner layer, (which science tells us is molten lead), would then be some 1900
miles from the inside surface of the mantle to the surface of the inner core.
This could be, in a Hollow World, the distance from the inner surface of
terra firma to the central sun, or the amount of interior sky or atmosphere.

This 1900 miles may not seem like very much, or even enough, but when you
consider that the main bulk of our surface atmosphere is only ten miles
thick, then maybe 1900 miles isn't all that little after all. Also, if that
1900 miles is composed of all atmosphere, then it would provide 190 times the
screening protection from the rays of the central sun than our surface
atmosphere does with our external sun. Just some points to consider.

The scientific world claims there is positive mathematical proof that a
central sun concept is impossible. Isaac Asimov has written a brilliant book
on the physics necessary for fission stars to exist, requiring a certain size
or mass for stars to be able to function as we know them. A central star,
only 600 miles in diameter, could not exist within these parameters. Thus,
according to Asimov's calculations, a different type of "sun," or star, would
be necessary if it were to exist within our planet. A plasmic, or soft
particle accumulation, or such, might be the very answer to this dilemma.

Cater may have the perfect answer to this apparent conflict.

It is at this 1800 mile depth, the point where the outer mantle and the inner
molten sea of lead meet, that there appears to be this dual continental
reading, which the MIT physicists interpret as a cooling of the surface of
the molten lead sea, which causes this appearance of a continental apparition
on their Cat-Scan of the earth.

This Cat-Scan dispels the 800 mile proposal of the thickness of the earth's
mantle, but, unbeknownst to these investigators, it also provides a much more
valuable support to the inner continental nature of the earth's interior.

Especially when the follow-up readings have shown that there is no variation
to this "cooling film" on the surface of their molten lead from the first
readings they took. Rather than being in a constant state of flux, as their
interpretation would suggest, much to their surprise and astonishment, these
two inner continents are constant and unchanging!

Gosh, just like a real continent would appear. Hmmm.

Anyway, just something to consider while we are tossing around the
guesstimates of the thickness of the earth's mantle. I just feel that if we
have a scientific reading which gives us the approximate measurement of the
thickness of the mantle, then let's deal with it. It doesn't change
anything, it just gives us a basis for the parameters of our speculations.

Who knows, it might even make our arguments more accurate, if not only more
reasonable and acceptable to opposing views.

Norlan

2

Norlan,

Very interesting comments. Info like this is useful, and its usefulness builds up.

I would be interested in finding a strata map of the solid planet model. Maybe Scott's software could produce that. ( Hint, hint ).

Dharma/Dean

···

Dean,
Just an FYI comment. This is a perspective which has, at least, some
investigative scientific evidence for the physical support of the findings, (
although I strongly disagree with the conclusions of these scientists).

Seismographic and cat-scan readings give an approximation of the outer mantle
thickness of the earth to be 1800 miles. The central core, (which science
proposes to be a Titanium ball), reads as some 600 miles in diameter. The
inner layer, (which science tells us is molten lead), would then be some 1900
miles from the inside surface of the mantle to the surface of the inner core.
This could be, in a Hollow World, the distance from the inner surface of
terra firma to the central sun, or the amount of interior sky or atmosphere.

This 1900 miles may not seem like very much, or even enough, but when you
consider that the main bulk of our surface atmosphere is only ten miles
thick, then maybe 1900 miles isn't all that little after all. Also, if that
1900 miles is composed of all atmosphere, then it would provide 190 times the
screening protection from the rays of the central sun than our surface
atmosphere does with our external sun. Just some points to consider.

The scientific world claims there is positive mathematical proof that a
central sun concept is impossible. Isaac Asimov has written a brilliant book
on the physics necessary for fission stars to exist, requiring a certain size
or mass for stars to be able to function as we know them. A central star,
only 600 miles in diameter, could not exist within these parameters. Thus,
according to Asimov's calculations, a different type of "sun," or star, would
be necessary if it were to exist within our planet. A plasmic, or soft
particle accumulation, or such, might be the very answer to this dilemma.
Cater may have the perfect answer to this apparent conflict.

It is at this 1800 mile depth, the point where the outer mantle and the inner
molten sea of lead meet, that there appears to be this dual continental
reading, which the MIT physicists interpret as a cooling of the surface of
the molten lead sea, which causes this appearance of a continental apparition
on their Cat-Scan of the earth.

This Cat-Scan dispels the 800 mile proposal of the thickness of the earth's
mantle, but, unbeknownst to these investigators, it also provides a much more
valuable support to the inner continental nature of the earth's interior.
Especially when the follow-up readings have shown that there is no variation
to this "cooling film" on the surface of their molten lead from the first
readings they took. Rather than being in a constant state of flux, as their
interpretation would suggest, much to their surprise and astonishment, these
two inner continents are constant and unchanging!

Gosh, just like a real continent would appear. Hmmm.

Anyway, just something to consider while we are tossing around the
guesstimates of the thickness of the earth's mantle. I just feel that if we
have a scientific reading which gives us the approximate measurement of the
thickness of the mantle, then let's deal with it. It doesn't change
anything, it just gives us a basis for the parameters of our speculations.
Who knows, it might even make our arguments more accurate, if not only more
reasonable and acceptable to opposing views.

Norlan

` 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/).

3

Don't forget this site, it's real nice.

http://www.inconstantmoon.com/inconstant.htm

Dharma/Dean

4

Norlan writes-

···

Dean,
Just an FYI comment. This is a perspective which has, at least, some
investigative scientific evidence for the physical support of the findings, (
although I strongly disagree with the conclusions of these scientists).

Seismographic and cat-scan readings give an approximation of the outer mantle
thickness of the earth to be 1800 miles. The central core, (which science
proposes to be a Titanium ball), reads as some 600 miles in diameter. The
inner layer, (which science tells us is molten lead), would then be some 1900
miles from the inside surface of the mantle to the surface of the inner core.
This could be, in a Hollow World, the distance from the inner surface of
terra firma to the central sun, or the amount of interior sky or atmosphere.

This 1900 miles may not seem like very much, or even enough, but when you
consider that the main bulk of our surface atmosphere is only ten miles
thick, then maybe 1900 miles isn't all that little after all. Also, if that
1900 miles is composed of all atmosphere, then it would provide 190 times the
screening protection from the rays of the central sun than our surface
atmosphere does with our external sun. Just some points to consider.

Dean wriites-

Could be. But I think that one of the main motives for accepting an inner cavity of 1,900 miles of diamter is Newtonian grvity. It necessitates a thick shell so that it doesn't collapse in on itself.

1,900 miles could be enough inner atmosphere to shield from an inner sun. It depends on the nature of an inner sun. Actually, in defense of the idea of a small cavity of only 1,900 miles, the inner sun doesn't seem to be of the nature of the sun of our universe because there are no symptoms of it, no visible rays. You could say that the lack of visibility could be due to a narrow opening or a crooked one, and that the inner sun could be nuke, but then you still have two problems to deal with: no tell-tale symptoms on the outside and the fact that any radiations would be absorbed by an inner sun and then build up within.

But truthfully, I have no iron-clad measurements in my mind of the outer shell's thickness.

Some of the seismic results could be indicating strata in tems of gravity layers or better said layers of frequency.

We still have to do the redistribution of frequency test which Cater outlines. Redistribution of frequency opens up a lot of conceptual doors.

Norlan writes-

The scientific world claims there is positive mathematical proof that a
central sun concept is impossible. Isaac Asimov has written a brilliant book
on the physics necessary for fission stars to exist, requiring a certain size
or mass for stars to be able to function as we know them. A central star,
only 600 miles in diameter, could not exist within these parameters. Thus,
according to Asimov's calculations, a different type of "sun," or star, would
be necessary if it were to exist within our planet. A plasmic, or soft
particle accumulation, or such, might be the very answer to this dilemma.
Cater may have the perfect answer to this apparent conflict.

It is at this 1800 mile depth, the point where the outer mantle and the inner
molten sea of lead meet, that there appears to be this dual continental
reading, which the MIT physicists interpret as a cooling of the surface of
the molten lead sea, which causes this appearance of a continental apparition
on their Cat-Scan of the earth. > Dean Writes-

Yes, the nature of Cater's soft particle sun would do the trick. And the redistribution of frequency would feed the sun through the shell without having to resort to any influx through holes.

Norlan writes-

This Cat-Scan dispels the 800 mile proposal of the thickness of the earth's
mantle, but, unbeknownst to these investigators, it also provides a much more
valuable support to the inner continental nature of the earth's interior.
Especially when the follow-up readings have shown that there is no variation
to this "cooling film" on the surface of their molten lead from the first
readings they took. Rather than being in a constant state of flux, as their
interpretation would suggest, much to their surprise and astonishment, these
two inner continents are constant and unchanging!

Gosh, just like a real continent would appear. Hmmm.

Dean writes-

About the thickness- Again, stratas of varying frequencies would have to be taken into consideration in the interpretation of seismic scans.

This reading of a " continental nature "- where does it place the continents? Under our own, or under our oceans? This point is interesting to me.

Norlan writes:

Anyway, just something to consider while we are tossing around the
guesstimates of the thickness of the earth's mantle. I just feel that if we
have a scientific reading which gives us the approximate measurement of the
thickness of the mantle, then let's deal with it. It doesn't change
anything, it just gives us a basis for the parameters of our speculations.
Who knows, it might even make our arguments more accurate, if not only more
reasonable and acceptable to opposing views.

Dean writes:

Yes, let's talk about all these considerations, otherwise, our understandings will be inbred.

Dharma/Dean