laklak wrote:Good idea, but I still don't know if there are dinosaurs inside the hollow earth.

The earth is hollow and this is inconsistent with the travel times of body (P) seismic waves through the volume of the planet. Those dinosaurs must be peeing on the P waves. S-waves don't make it through the outer core. This must be the hollow part where the dinos are peeing on the P-waves to make them go through the hollow part.

Hollow earth theory is a lot like peeing in the ocean, making everything a little saltier, I guess. Hollow earthers seem like the sorts who would drink their first piss of the morning as a homeopathic remedy.

laklak wrote:Hey Newstein, are there dinosaurs inside the hollow earth? I mean, is it more Pellucidar, or Morlocks? Or maybe secret Nazi bases and Robot Hitler? Can you get me a backstage pass?

I've studied the Ica Stones. I guess there are yes. Highly likely. They are safe from meteorite impacts.

laklak wrote:Hey Newstein, are there dinosaurs inside the hollow earth? I mean, is it more Pellucidar, or Morlocks? Or maybe secret Nazi bases and Robot Hitler? Can you get me a backstage pass?

Jump in the U-530, they will show you the way to the inner Earth.

felltoearth wrote:

Newstein wrote:I can tell you WHY people of the government, freemasons, etc are present at ALL the major scientific forums around the World. In this case particularly, they want to hide the truth about the Earth: it is HOLLOW. How do I know this? I just know.
Expanding Earth is one of that parts that proves Earth is hollow. That's why this important knowledge is kept 'secret'.
Just like Ufos, aliens and 9/11. Do your research. Probably I will be blocked because I posted this information so this post is proof they are hiding the truth and that this forum is poisoned by freemasonry and false prophets.

Newstein

Don’t worry. People don’t get blocked for posting batshit crazy assertions here.

Oct 23, 2012 8:56 pm
Cito di Pense :
"It could even mean that an invisible pink unicorn is controlling the climate. But not likely."

Tell me what people say things like that. You know I'm right.

theropod wrote:This thread should be locked. Do we need another 8 years of this trolling bullshit? I can’t see what good can come from furthering this charade.

RS

Afraid to know the truth? Now you know that THERE IS NO EXTRA MASS NEEDED TO EXPLAIN THE EXPANDING EARTH
Don't forget that.

Newstein.

How could I ever forget the balloon theory of gelogy? The pretty pictures were epic the first few times I saw them, but became wearisome I after that. I know that.

RS

theropod wrote:How could I ever forget the balloon theory of gelogy? The pretty pictures were epic the first few times I saw them, but became wearisome I after that. I know that.

RS

"Hot Air Theory," surely.

Expanding gases are involved. Whether one could reasonably refer to it as air...

RS

Newstein wrote:

theropod wrote:This thread should be locked. Do we need another 8 years of this trolling bullshit? I can’t see what good can come from furthering this charade.

RS

Afraid to know the truth? Now you know that THERE IS NO EXTRA MASS NEEDED TO EXPLAIN THE EXPANDING EARTH
Don't forget that.

Newstein.

So the average density is decreasing, I'm sure we'll notice that pretty soon.

Of course even if the earth were expanding even without extra mass the gravity experienced on the surface would change. Unless y’all are willing to take on Relatively on top of all the other fields of science at work against you? We’ve been over this same bullshit too. Not one shred of evidence shows any such change over the last 3.8 BILLION years. None. Stop with the fundamentalist tactics already. PRATTS. That’s all you folks have. The entertainment value of this has faded.

RS

Here's an ESA live event of relevance:

Live from the Azores, follow the opening session of an event where world-class scientists meet to discuss the latest developments in our understanding of Earth’s surface variations observed by altimetry. Radar altimeters record the surface topography along the satellite’s ground track. They precisely measure a satellite’s height above water, land or ice by timing the interval between the transmission and reception of very short radar pulses.

ESA source - includes video link.

Evidence of the hollow eath theory :



it says :

Whoever will take the sword from the stone
Will radically change the world

Why don't we see a ocean age map like this?
Remember: If plate tectonics already existed 180 million years ago when Pangea broke up, or even when it didn't exist, the Pre Pacific Ocean (Panthallassa) had also its age. So now, we would see oceanic lithosphere OLDER than 180 million years.
Or does the spreading ridge in the Pacific has a fantastic brain and intelligence that it can calculate the spreading rate to subduct the right amount of oceanic lithosphere so that it is max 180 million years?

Does anybody has the guts to answer this question?

Newstein

Newstein wrote:
Does anybody has the guts to answer this question?

I always wondered why only people defending crackpot "theories" use these kind of questions.

aban57 wrote:

Newstein wrote:
Does anybody has the guts to answer this question?

I always wondered why only people defending crackpot "theories" use these kind of questions.

I 'm sorry. Does anybody have the balls to answer my question?
I'm not defending plate tectonics, so no, I do not defend crackpot theories.
Subcrustal lavastreams that move continents thousands of miles

Newstein

Troll better.

RS

Newstein wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Newstein wrote:
Does anybody has the guts to answer this question?

I always wondered why only people defending crackpot "theories" use these kind of questions.

I 'm sorry. Does anybody have the balls to answer my question?
I'm not defending plate tectonics, so no, I do not defend crackpot theories.
Subcrustal lavastreams that move continents thousands of miles

Newstein

The answer is subduction as has been pointed out numerous previous times in this very thread.

QE fucking D.

theropod wrote:Troll better.

RS

To theropod.

Please humble my approach to you .. but could you please if once use your expertise from your time in paleontology to describe how the data describe by Mr Stephen Hurrel has its source of errors ?

As the problem to me is his calculations seem to reasonable given his simple yet clear meta analysis of previous studies in his field. Where it appears he picks his numbers as the normal range of the data spread. And not just for one class of species, but birds also.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312687943_A_NEW_METHOD_TO_CALCULATE_PALAEOGRAVITY_USING_FOSSIL_FEATHERS


However regarding Brachiosaurus.. Can you provide more insight into his errors, specified towards the new 2018 data
“Abstract
There is great interest in calculating accurate values for Earth’s palaeogravity since the results have
profound implications for many sciences. One fundamental technique to quantify palaeogravity is to
compute weight against mass estimates of ancient animals. In this paper this technique is applied to
Giraffatitan (=Brachiosaurus) brancai (MB.R.2181, formerly HMN S II), one of the most complete sauropod
dinosaur skeletons known. The results indicate that a palaeogravity of 0.54g (5.3 m/s2) ±20% is a reliable
estimate for 152 Ma.”




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329586654_A_palaeogravity_calculation_based_on_weight_and_mass_estimates_of_Giraffatitan_Brachiosaurus_brancai

of course for our patience this is your consideration, much interest in your breakdown of his rationale

Hardcoreathiest wrote:
Please humble my approach to you

No need to do that HCA. NCGT Journal is a vanity press, and not a legitimate peer-reviewed publication. You've just mistaken a properly typeset document of obscure provenance for a real scientific paper.

http://www.ncgtjournal.com/

That's a link to the homepage of the "journal" where Hurrel "published" his "results".

At a minimum, to evaluate any feedback you get on the validity of the document you cite, you need to be able to make careful distinctions between the peer-reviewed literature, the "gray" literature (like conference proceedings) and the utter bullshit that gets published in a vanity press using reviewers who are paid to lend their credentials to a crooked enterprise.

the NCGT Journal has been a beacon of light for researchers needing a voice and platform to publish their research and offer new concepts that pushed boundaries and challenged established thinking.

This is an encoding of some fairly sleazy foundations, but you have to understand the hierarchy of scientific publication in order to make sense of what I've told you.

You wrote this elsewhere:

Hardcoreathiest wrote:This the crux of the matter here. If the proponents are denying that minds tend towards self deception, they are denying their ability to be self aware of theirs and others self deception. They may not be in total denial, for example thinking that only a certain fraction of minds self deceive.

But overall it always a same story, for they declare always.. that they understand how to unravel this web of what is truth and what is not.

THEIR perception is good enough, THEIR methods of unraveling truth are good enough. Always theirs.

Never referring to the real experts who have many layers of complicated methods which help remove the interference of deception ?

This self deception about what they can and cannot know about others .. this explains their beliefs. If they believe in others without rigor, then they can believe in themselves without rigor.

Heed your own advice. An anonymous web chatroom is not the place to sort this out for yourself. Study more, and spend less time writing circular syllogisms about self-deception.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hardcoreathiest wrote:
Please humble my approach to you

No need to do that HCA. NCGT Journal is a vanity press, and not a legitimate peer-reviewed publication. You've just mistaken a properly typeset document of obscure provenance for a real scientific paper.

http://www.ncgtjournal.com/

That's a link to the homepage of the "journal" where Hurrel "published" his "results".

At a minimum, to evaluate any feedback you get on the validity of the document you cite, you need to be able to make careful distinctions between the peer-reviewed literature, the "gray" literature (like conference proceedings) and the utter bullshit that gets published in a vanity press using reviewers who are paid to lend their credentials to a crooked enterprise.

the NCGT Journal has been a beacon of light for researchers needing a voice and platform to publish their research and offer new concepts that pushed boundaries and challenged established thinking.

This is an encoding of some fairly sleazy foundations, but you have to understand the hierarchy of scientific publication in order to make sense of what I've told you.

You wrote this elsewhere:

Hardcoreathiest wrote:This the crux of the matter here. If the proponents are denying that minds tend towards self deception, they are denying their ability to be self aware of theirs and others self deception. They may not be in total denial, for example thinking that only a certain fraction of minds self deceive.

But overall it always a same story, for they declare always.. that they understand how to unravel this web of what is truth and what is not.

THEIR perception is good enough, THEIR methods of unraveling truth are good enough. Always theirs.

Never referring to the real experts who have many layers of complicated methods which help remove the interference of deception ?

This self deception about what they can and cannot know about others .. this explains their beliefs. If they believe in others without rigor, then they can believe in themselves without rigor.

Heed your own advice. An anonymous web chatroom is not the place to sort this out for yourself. Study more, and spend less time writing circular syllogisms about self-deception.

Thank you.. it is indeed a beacon of light you mention, we have to make such distinctions. After all Geological proceedings are different to homework. And may I just say in his defense Mr Hurrell states during his website for many years he has been unsuccessful obtaining peer review. Some things are silent revolution and indeed so I tried to solicit what are counterpoint to the many details bound within his interesting endevour.