Submitted by LOGOS - Overseer on
History of the Hollow Earth Theory
The Hollow Earth Theory has been around for a long time. While the first concepts were crude, this 'crazy' idea has slowly developed into a viable alternative to the solid Earth model. In light from today's technology, many of our findings point towards a hollow structure as the only method to explain many of today's scientific findings.
There are four main hollow Earth models. Lets briefly discuss each one.
Hollow Earth Models
- The Concentric Spheres Hollow Earth Model
- The Polar Holes Hollow Earth Model
- The Inverted Earth Hollow Earth Model
- The Complete Shell Hollow Earth Model
The Concentric Spheres Hollow Earth Model
Perhaps the earliest hollow Earth concept was proposed by Edmund Halley in 1692. His ideas were developed while trying to understand the Earth's magnetic field. In order to explain the complex movements of the field, Halley concluded that there must be at least 4 concentric shells each with their own magnetic properties. The movement of each shell relative to the others allowed distinctive areas of the field to wander around the globe.
The Polar Holes Hollow Earth Model
The most famous hollow Earth model includes huge polar holes between 2000 and 4000 kilometres across that open to the interior of the planet. Many hollow Earth investigators have gone looking for these holes but nothing has ever been found. Today's satellite technology has proven that such holes are a total myth. In this theory the centre of the planet harbours a central sun that provides light and heat to the world within.
The Inverted Earth Hollow Earth Model
This little known concept is the most bizarre of hollow Earth ideas. It works on the principle that we are actually living inside a hollow planet right now and the centre of the planet is a point infinitely far away. All the other planets, the moon, satellites and the sun revolve around this central point.
The Complete Shell Hollow Earth Model
Developed by us, this is the most advanced hollow Earth model today. Based on a combination of the hollow Earth and expanding Earth theories, it provides an alternate explanation for the drifting continents phenomenon thus making the tired Plate Tectonics theory obsolete.
Based on our current understanding of gravity The Land of No Horizon shows how the accumulation of matter during the planet forming process naturally produces a planet structured differently to what is currently theorised. It is also shown how a planet hollows out and expands under its own gravitational power.
The hollow planet structure can explain many mysteries that have plagued us for centuries such as unusual impact crater characteristics on terrestrial planets, the mysterious Red Spot on Jupiter and seismic wave data from earthquakes here on Earth. Understanding outgassing and atmosphere formation on a hollow planet model helps us explain past mysteries such as the great flood on Earth and the floods on Mars.
An expanding Earth provides the driving force behind the drifting continents, mountain building and earthquakes and is also accountable for changing the value of gravity over time. In the past when the Earth was smaller centrifugal force from a much faster speed of rotation reduced the affects of gravity in equatorial regions. This reduction of gravity is what allowed the great dinosaurs and all past life to grow to much larger sizes.
Impact crater evidence indicates hollow planet structure
Craters on planets present a new intriguing mystery. Geological imprints left from medium to large impacts are at odds with our current understanding of inner planetary structure.
All terrestrial (rocky) planets within the Solar System bear the scars of past celestial impacts. Craters of all sizes pinpoint locations where meteorite and asteroid debris impacted with unimaginable force. None of the planets or moons escaped the era of the 'Great Bombardment'. Falling material originates from the remains of the galactic cloud which condensed to form the planetary bodies of the Solar System. Impacts were generally larger and more frequent in the past, an indication of the gradual diminishing of potential impact material left in space.
The structure of impact craters
A crater consists of two primary regions, the excavation zone and the deposition zone.
The excavation zone is geologically concave. It is the region carved out by the force of the impact. Here, original surface material has been thrown out in all directions.
The deposition zone is convex. It surrounds the impact excavation. In this region, ejected material has been deposited creating familiar crater walls. Often, lines of debris extend for distances across the planet's surface radiating from the impact site.
Impact crater sizes
Craters exist in sizes from those no bigger than a human hand right up to massive impacts thousands of kilometres across. The size of a crater governs its format. By analysing this size relationship it is possible to determine the planetary structure beneath.
This is where some amazing facts come to light.
Small craters
Craters up to 25 Kilometres in diameter have a typical deep bowl structure. Surface material has been thrown out from the impact site leaving this classic deep hole shape surrounded by a wall of loose debris.
This is the classic crater format where a body impacts a solid surface with stable foundation. When we examine crater structures from larger impacts, the classic format begins to change. Larger crater shapes show planetary surfaces reacting differently.
Medium craters
Craters between 25 kilometres and 130 kilometres in diameter are structured differently to small craters. They usually have a central peak. And in proportion to diameter, the excavation zone is much shallower.
What causes the shallow structure of medium craters?
The shallow structure of medium sized craters indicates another factor has come into play. Instead of excavating a proportional amount of material as in smaller craters, here some of the impact force has been absorbed.
But what is responsible?
The existence of a central peak is the vital clue. It is now considered this feature, unique to medium size craters, is the result of matter thrust upward immediately after the impact. Scientific theories relate it to the planet's surface effectively rebounding or springing back after such an impact. It is likened to a droplet thrown up when a marble is dropped into water.
This challenges all conventional ideas of an impact being an excavation event. A part of the force has reacted in the opposite direction.
If the planet's surface deflects inwards under the weight of an impact, then it must be assumed at the precise moment of impact, the crater would have been deeper. After the event, the depth reduced as the surface rebounded.
But what about the central peaks? The energy required to thrust matter upward into these mountainous shapes is enormous. Such energy could not be sourced from a gradual returning or reforming of the planet's surface. Rebounding must have been rapid. This action catapulted central matter upward.
However, rapid surface rebounding presents certain difficulties that challenge our current understanding of inner planetary structure.
When one considers the sheer size of many of these craters, how does a planet's already super compressed solid structure deflect inward and further compress to the extent required? And, what causes the rapid rebounding? If planets are indeed solid and compressed as we believe, then a normal concave crater should be excavated.
As we investigate further, the larger the crater the more perplexing the mystery becomes.
Large craters
raters over 130 kilometres in diameter are different again. Their inner regions are terraced by concentric rings. The floors are very shallow. And, instead of being concave as would be expected, they are convex following the planet's natural surface curvature.
Two typical examples are; the Coloris Basin on Mercury which is 1,300 kilometres in diameter and the Mare Orientale crater on the Moon with a diameter of 900 kilometres. The floors of both craters are convex following the surface curvature of Mercury and the Moon. In the case of the Coloris Basin, Mercury's original surface crust, now extensively cracked, is seen still on the surface within the crater remaining aligned with planet's outer surface curvature.
Mare Orientale Crater on the Moon
As is clearly seen in the above photo, the floor of the Mare Orientale Crater is convex. It is aligned with the normal surface curvature of the Moon. The 'crater rim' reveals the outer boundary of the impact 'excavation zone' (900 km diameter). 'Concentric rings' are seen within the crater rim.
Coloris Basin Crater on Mercury
Again, the floor of the Coloris basin on Mercury is convex, following normal planetary curvature. Here, the 'crater rim' indicates a diameter of 1300 km. As is normal with impact craters of this size, concentric rings are seen within the 'crater rim'.
The convex crater floor structure of large impacts
How does the crater floor from a celestial impact of this size end up convex? An impacting asteroid would excavate considerable material dispersing it in all directions form the site. An obvious large depression or excavation should be left behind in the surface of the planet. But, contrary to observable facts, this does not happen. The crater walls are over the horizon from the centre of these large impacts!
This is an amazing situation particularly when one considers the following. The excavation Zone (crater) must have been concave at the moment of impact otherwise deposition would have occurred closer to the centre (see diagram). With the Coloris Basin, any assumed excavation hole has not been filled by volcanism. The original planetary surface is still present on the surface, aligned with planetary curvature.
This can only be caused by planetary surface rebounding.
Crustal rebounding during crater impacts
If we are to accept the convex formation of the Coloris Basin on Mercury and the Mare Orientale on the Moon are the result of surface rebounding after impact, one has to consider the sheer scale of rebounding taken place. Both involved a large portion of the planet's (or Moon's) mass.
The above diagram shows the extent of deflection and rebounding required to produce the visible features found on Mercury. A conservative estimated depth of 200 kilometres or more would have occurred. How is it possible to achieve such a deflection depth followed by subsequent rebounding to original surface level in such a short period of time? This is inconceivable on our solid and compressed planetary model! The Mare Orientale on the moon shows a similar result of 150km required rebounding.
Our current concepts cannot explain medium to large crater characteristics. On a solid planet we would expect craters of all sizes to be excavated into concave structures. But this is contrary to observable facts.
Science cannot explain these anomalies using the solid and compressed planet theory because it is flawed.
Medium to large impacts react as they do because inner planetary structure is not solid. It is hollow. A hollow planet model successfully explains all observable crater features.
Large crater impacts on a hollow planet explain crustal rebounding
Hollow planets do not require massive compression to deflect inward at the point of celestial impact. Decompression is not required for surfaces to rebound. Larger impacts simply push the planetary wall inward over a large area. This deflects the surface away from natural gravitational balance. Deflection dampens the excavating power of the impact force. After the impact, the planetary wall 'falls' back out into gravitational balance. This happens rapidly, providing the reason for peaks in medium craters. Peaks do not remain in large craters because the volume of matter involved is large enough to fall back and level out with the floor of the crater. The surface within a major impact may rise and fall several times before coming to rest at gravitational balance. This can be compared to ripples on water after a stone is thrown in. This action produces the concentric rings and cracked surfaces seen inside large craters.
Central peaks are found in medium craters because the area rebounding is smaller. Surfaces do not rebound several times. This allows the peaks to remain intact. Small craters have a classic shape because there is insufficient force to deflect the planetary wall.