Mother Earth |
The Interior Of The Earth
Interior Of Earth When asked about what are the most explored planets, we usually get the answer that it is the Earth, yet what do we really know about the interior of the Earth? Sure we see all sorts of charts showing the core and surrounding mass with the crust on top, but do we REALLY know if this is correct? To be exact, here is what we are told the inside of the Earth contains:
Photo Taken By ESSA-7 In 1968 Seems To Show Way Into Earth. An For those of you that have been around this site for awhile, you know that I have talked from time to time about another theory. That theory states that inside the center of the Earth is a tiny star. This would account for the heat generated by the interior of the Earth just as a swirling molten metal mass would. If this theory was correct, then the same might be true for other planets. Indeed there is a small faction of people that believe that the planets are hollow and a star sits at the center. Some have even said that light has been seen coming out of fissures that extend to the center of Venus. Then there are those that have almost the same theory, but instead of a star at the center, they believe that there is a tiny black hole at the center of the Earth. I have a hard time believing this theory, because black holes are hungry and tend to consume the things around them. Given the age of the Earth, if that is even correct, the black hole would have eaten the planet by now. On the other hand, if a body the size of the Earth collapsed into a black hole, that black hole would be only 0.4 inches in diameter, leaving plenty of room around it in a hollow Earth and could be even smaller and floating thousands of miles away from anything. Scientists figure that even if the sun collapsed, the resulting black hole would only be 1.9 miles in diameter. The question is can a small enough black hole exist inside the Earth to heat it, yet not tear it apart? This brings up another point, do all black holes operate the same way? The few that we have observed by second hand observations seem to, but what we see is material heading into something that can not be seen. We can observe the disk of material swirling around an attraction force, but we can not actually observe the black hole. What if there are several different types of what we call black holes and we are not aware of this? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that science was unaware of the particulars of something. Scientists used to think that tsunamis were caused only by earthquakes and volcanic action. Later they learned that they can also be cause by huge masses of land or ice sliding into the ocean. When we talk about the density of the interior of the Earth we still use an estimate made by Isaac Newton hundreds of years ago. He calculated that the interior of the Earth was twice as dense as the rocks on the surface. You would think that with all the scientific instruments we have, we could finally get a more accurate picture.
Black Hole We are told that the Earth formed out of a swirling gas as did the other planets in our solar system and this certainly could be true, but how do we know that in our particular case we weren't just captured as we were drifting past the sun? Why is it that Earth is the only planet that is habitable in the solar system? Could it be that the others were formed from that gas and we were not? What if we are a modified planet? Maybe we were like the other planets and something hit us that deposited seeds of some nature that were able to grow and generate an atmosphere? Is that so far fetched, after all we have a long history of being bombarded from space? Then there is the other idea that has been put forward. It states that life started on Mars and when they saw that their planet could be in danger, they helped the Earth evolve so that they would have some place to go to escape the future catastrophe Must we actually try and drill into the center of the Earth to get an idea of what it is made of? If all the planets were created from the same gaseous mass, why aren't they all the same density? I suppose that we would be told that the nearer a forming planet was to the sun and its gravity, the more it would have been affected, because the sun supposedly formed first. Let us say that is true for now and that the closest planets became the smallest. Then why aren't the outer planets progressively larger? Was there less material out by Uranus and Neptune? I know that I could get quite a scientific explanation if I pursued this train of thought, but would it actually be correct? Speaking about drilling to the center of the Earth, that center is the inner core and is supposed to begin 3160 down and extend to 3954 miles. Before we ever got to that point our problems would be with the asthenosphere which is thought to begin at about 62 miles deep. It is so hot that this area is said to be in a plastic state. There goes our drill bit, it just melted. Maybe it is no good to be so suspicious of what we are told by science, but so many times throughout history we were told the incorrect thing. I can't help but find the fact that some scientists are so sure of themselves and their theories, that they dismiss any other thought on the subject. We have seen this time and again in almost every field. If we didn't rebel against some of this stuff, we would still believe that the Earth was flat and the stars and planets revolved around the Earth. We also live in an age where science has suppressed some discoveries, because they don't FIT IN with accepted theories of how things work. Human skeletons were found in soil that was over 5 million years old and some were even found that were suspected to be over 55 million years old, or older and these discoveries were just poo pooed and forgotten about. The danger here is not keeping an open mind. Just because we are told something is so, we have to examine it and determine if the person or scientist that made the statement could have been in possession of all the facts. I believe that since we have never seen the interior of this or any other planet, it is entirely possible that we are wrong on at least parts of its makeup. |
|
 |