|
|
"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fj34029j33t8bhe9d7bl7v6sghcg60hs7g@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 04:04:53 +1100, in sci.geo.earthquakes, "Carole"
> <hubbca2003@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:575fv19al43irtc7fingp2dcvnqkp4gc61@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:36:09 +1100, in sci.geo.earthquakes, "Carole"
> >> <hubbca2003@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Skywise" <into@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >news:11vavtdh8bapq55@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> "Carole" <hubbca2003@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >news:43f5635d$0$17080$5a62ac22
> >> >> @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> >> >>
> >> >> > There is a patent which probably proves scientifically that the
earth
> >is
> >> >> > hollow.
> >> >> > US Patent 1096102: The Hollow Earth Theory
> >> >>
> >> >> I just downloaded the patent, which was granted in 1914.
> >> >>
> >> >> That patent is for a globe of a hollow earth designed and decorated
> >> >> "according to the theory of the inventor" that opens up on hinges
> >> >> and has a light bulb in the center.
> >> >>
> >> >> Since you cannot patent a theory, he patented the physical design
> >> >> of a globe with a light bulb in it and the ornamental design of said
> >> >> globe.
> >> >>
> >> >> This patent probably would never be granted today. It likely could
> >> >> be contested in a court of law to be false and unenforceable. I
> >> >> would argue the device is not useful. What use is a hollow globe
> >> >> with a light bulb inside? Besides, it is obvious the design is
> >> >> meant to circumvent patent laws against patenting a theory.
> >> >>
> >> >> Most assuredly, the patent contains NOTHING to describe nor support
> >> >> any thoery of any kind, whatsoever.
> >> >>
> >> >> Brian
> >> >> --
> >> >> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy,
Skepticism
> >> >> Seismic FAQ: www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html">http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> >> >> Quake "predictions":
www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html">http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
> >> >> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
> >> >
> >> >According to the article, the hollow earth theory is "highly
classified".
> >> >So you either didn't download it, or it has been sanitised or edited
to
> >take
> >> >out any meaningful information.
> >> >
> >> >United States Patent 1096102:
> >> >The Hollow Earth Theory
> >> >by Mark Harp
> >> > www.davidicke.net/mysteries/hollow/patent.html">http://www.davidicke.net/mysteries/hollow/patent.html
> >>
> >> Icke is not a reliable source...
> >
> >Icke didn't write the article. The article talks about a couple of books,
> >one covers the topic more comprehensively than the other.
>
> Nothing from Icke seems to be reliable. Nothing from him has been
> peer reviewed. Icke is a sensationalist. he makes money from selling
> sensational stories to rubes (galahs) like you.
As I've posted before, the article "Who reviews peer review?"
The process of peer review doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is anything but
scientific.
Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
by David F. Horrobin
www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm">http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm
"The core system by which the scientific community allots prestige (in terms
of oral presentations at major meetings and publication in major journals)
and funding, is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results
little better than does chance."
>
> >>
> >> > www.hiddenmysteries.com">http://www.hiddenmysteries.com
> >> >"For reasons which even Mr. Gardner could not have fully anticipated
in
> >the
> >> >early 1900s, and which are now abundantly clear, his discovery soon
> >became
> >> >the most highly classified military secret of all time."
> >> >
> >> >Do you know what "highly classified" means?
> >>
> >> I do.
> >>
> >> <One of my many jobs while in the service of governments military was
> >> to track and keep up to date the various and many classified pubs and
> >> daily handling of Classified materials. I was also trained into how
> >> to dispose of said documents and publications, and classified
> >> materials and equipment. Training with thermite and its many related
> >> exothermic products is so much fun to play with and even more so
> >> inside a metal hull.>
> >>
> >> Do you?
> >> it means nothing in this case... classified material didn't exist
> >> until the start or middle of WW1. If it was classified no patent
> >> would have been issued...
> >
> >I wondered about that.
>
> Duh?
>
> >It also matches up with something I read from a book called 'Pentagon
> >Aliens" by William Lyne, who says -
> >
> >"Patent applications are like ripe plums to the elite, all for the
picking.
> >Any significant energy, transportation or manufacturing breakthrough
> >automatically becomes a national security secret, which allows the
> >government to remove all evidence of a patent application, to confiscate
the
> >invention, and to prohibit disclosures to the public under the secrecy
acts.
> >After confiscation, the work is then turned over to the usual
> >corporate-state companies, so they can manufacture secret equipment to be
> >sold to the government at huge profit."
>
> Not true however... many things are listed in patents. This is
> something said to a galah once, and it just seems to have grown out
> of proportion.
So what are you saying ...which bit isn't true according to you?
>
> >>
> >> >You do realise that the government for various reasons, classifies
> >> >everything and anything that they don't want people to know about, and
> >> >whether the people have a right to know is irrelevant?
> >>
> >> I don't know that. The government has no control over private
> >> industry research. If the government had such control, they wouldn't
> >> allow private research by any US corporation. and then there is the
> >> problem of Multinational Corporations.
> >>
> >> Most all research done today is segmented. No one except a few people
> >> at the top actually know where the pure research projects are going.
> >>
> >> As a Geology student... I know there earth isn't hollow... the Data
> >> from P-waves from Earthquakes show it isn't... Also the data from
> >> orbital satellites, The gravity <mass attractions> measurements have
> >> figured the mass of the earth very closely.
> >>
> >> Data in existence doesn't support the concept of a Hollow Earth.
> >
> >OK but on the other hand, I don't really think a lot of scientific
> >calculations are very reliable.
>
> your evidence for this is what? our Scientific calculations are fair
> enough to move satellites and probes between planets... WE can land
> drones on other planets. have you watched the information coming from
> Cassini? how about the images from the Mars probes?
I was thinking more about measurements of the earth's mass, and how they
locate oil and if the earth is hollow.
www.gasresources.net">http://www.gasresources.net
Mysteries of the Inner Earth
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DP5/inner1.htm">http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DP5/inner1.htm
1. The standard earth model
Our direct knowledge of the earth's interior is minuscule. The earth has a
radius of about 6370 km, but the deepest scientific borehole ever drilled is
only 12 km. To put this in perspective: if the earth were reduced to a
tabletop globe 50 centimetres (20 inches) in diameter, the portion
accessible to direct observation through the deepest borehole would be the
equivalent of a very thin skin less than 1 millimetre (0.04 inch) thick. In
other words, scientists have barely scratched the surface of our globe.
Raypaths are immensely complex; waves may undergo multiple reflections and
refractions, and their paths are further complicated by the fact that
lateral heterogeneity exists at every depth in the earth. This is directly
indicated by the scatter in seismic-wave arrival times at all distances from
the source. Seismic tomography, which seeks to image the three-dimensional
structure of the earth, provides indirect evidence of lateral variations of
up to 10% in seismic velocity through the crust and mantle.
Scientists cannot even begin to interpret the hundreds of thousands of
seismic records without making certain basic assumptions about the earth's
interior. The main assumptions are that the earth's interior consists
entirely of solid or liquid physical matter, and that temperature, pressure,
and density increase with depth. These assumptions are generally believed to
be self-evident.
2. Deep drilling springs surprises
How much faith can be put in the theories concerning the composition and
density of rocks at different depths? The only place where the accuracy of
scientific models can be tested directly is in the uppermost few kilometres
of the crust. Although oil companies have drilled as deep as 8 km on land,
they drill in sedimentary basins. The igneous and metamorphic basement,
which averages 40 km thick and makes up most of the continental crust, has
rarely been sampled deeper than 2 or 3 km.
The deepest borehole drilled for scientific purposes is located on the
Kola Peninsula near Murmansk, Russia, in the northwestern part of the Baltic
Shield. The drilling of the main borehole began in 1970, and a final depth
of 12,262 metres was reached in 1994. The drilling of this and other deep
and superdeep wells has produced one surprise after another, and the
findings have been extremely embarrassing for earth scientists [1]. One
scientist commented: 'Every time we drill a hole we find the unexpected.
That's exciting, but disturbing.' And a science reporter remarked: 'Kola
revealed how far from truth scientific theory can roam.'
>
>
> >I just don't believe that the sciences are all they're cracked up to be.
eg,
> >There is a website called
> >
> >The scandal of general relativity and quantum mechanics
> >Roger Anderton
> > www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk/articlefour/a9.htm">http://www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk/articlefour/a9.htm
>
> <Snort...> I would guess if you don't trust our Scientific
> Calculations would wouldn't begin to understand Einstein or any of
> his work.
< snear > I guess not ...that is if I wanted to learn a whole heap of
disinformation.
The scandal of general relativity and quantum mechanics
Roger Anderton
www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk/">http://www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk/
The conspiracy against Einstein has evolved into the conspiracy that exists
in science in the present day. It takes a great leap in mind-set to realise
that what we believed was Einstein's theory is not the original theory as
which he was advocating, and that we have been subjected to a very clever
advertising campaign to accept a revised theory as the original. Becker
explains how the conspiracy in science works in the present day:Experimental
research is suppressed which has national security implications. This is
easily achieved by controlling the funding of research. If a scientist finds
results that do not agree with the orthodoxy he is subjected to ridicule.
The experts that the establishment want are essentially 'yes men' who do as
they are told and have lost their sense of originality, if they had any,
i.e. 'dummies'. So, the system that is set up in the public science research
sector is anti- "true scientific method" of free enterprise, and creates a
deep prejudicial atmosphere against anyone of true original ideas. In other
words it is an "anti- genius" atmosphere, which seeks to promote people of
lesser intellect, who then masquerade and pretend to be clever.
>
> >which goes into some anomalies and inconsistencies in the theories that
> >shows physics up as a farce.
>
> I usually like looking at these Kook web sites but:
>
> HTTP Error 404
>
> 404 Not Found
www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk/">http://www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk/
Ever occur to you to go back to the home webpage.
The guy has obviously reorganised his website and forgot to tell the world.
Just shows how "up to scratch" your research skills really are ...moron.
Carole
www.conspiracee.com">http://www.conspiracee.com
|
|