And I would suggest you not violate the don’t-be-a-jerk rule.
Okay, the person who was talking about this theory told me the following, which I’ve verified:
That Edmund Halley, the English astronomer for whom the comet is named, proposed a hollow-earth theory.
Leonhard Euler, the Swiss mathematician, the dude with the curve, also proposed a hollow earth theory.
Scottish mathematician Sir John Leslie did likewise.
So these names get thrown out as some heavyweights who can’t be dismissed as cranks.
My feeling is that even heavyweight thinkers can have some crank ideas.
When I’m trying to rebut my friend’s ideas, remember that ridicule, while fun, is not proof. And it’s not good enough to say “the answer is obvious,” because for long periods in our history, it was obvious that the sun and stars rotated around Earth.
Well, those guys are all a bit old now. Does she believe that science doesn’t advance?
So, I suggest that you turn the question around. Tell her to explain to you how she can account for the mass of the earth (which, as has been pointed out, is known extremely well from it gravitational attraction…It’s a freakin’ 1st year physics calculation) can be accounted for with a hollow earth…i.e., how thick a shell is she claiming and what density in order to support this and then what materials it could then be made of.
Then have her explain how her theory can account for known geology, especially (as others have pointed out) measurements of seismic waves traveling through the earth.
I mean, anyone can have “a theory” about anything if they don’t have to support it with logic, fact, and evidence. What makes scientific theories different is that they have to be able to explain observations and measurements.
And I would suggest you follow the same rule, as well as the “listen to what the moderators tell you” rule.
Arne Sarknussemm? Is that you?
and the mini-mods, of course.
Nocktober said:
You know, coming in here brand new, you just might want to consider listening to a guy who has “Moderator” under his name, rather than insulting him and trying to tell him what the rules are. Take that as a piece of friendly advice. Next time, it won’t be nearly so friendly.
And coming in here brand new, to a moderate board, I’d hope the quality of moderating wouldn’t be as rude as this.
You’re a moderator?
(checks)
I’ll be darned.
I thought there was some sort of rule that moderators weren’t supposed to act like jerks.
Which you are, and which people have pointed out to you.
Don’t bother banning me, David B. I will not be posting on this board again. “Next time,” eh? Are we supposed to tremble before David Bs power to ban? Well, tremble, tremble, Davey. Take your “next time it won’t be so friendly” insinuations and, well insinuate them.
Jerk.
It’s a shame to see someone with such an inquisitive mind be ejected because he can’t handle a little criticism. A pity.
Plate tectonics would not work with a hollow Earth, unless you start to have a hollow, hardened inner shell, a liquid layer, then the crust, which I don’t think could form or persist naturally.
Anyway the burden of proof rests with the person asserting that the Earth is hollow; it’s not up to us (or anyone) to be expected to accept every crackpot theory until it can be disproven.
A question; Is hollow earth theory state that below the upper crust, their is nothing at all, like a rubber ball?
I would ask a Hollow Earther for evidence first.
You don’t have to rebutt a non-theory. One needs to come up with a coherent construct to explain how the earth could be hollow.
Consider this simple fact. Since it is most likely that the earth began as a molten ball of rock (otherwise you wouldn’t have layers such as the mantle and the crust), how would a lava ball could end up being hollow inside?
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Since the only reason for this thread has left the Board, I’m locking it up.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]