Pour ceux
que cela intéresse :
http://www.jacquesfortier.com/Zweb/JF/TerreCreuse/TerreCreusePreuveScientifique.html
************************
Contents
Part 1: The Solid Earth Hypothesis
1. The standard earth model
2. Deep drilling springs surprises
3. Mass, density, and seismic
velocity (09/05)
4. Deep earthquakes
5. Geomagnetism
References
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner2.htm
Part 2: The Hollow Earth Hypothesis
1. Early theories
2. Modern theories
3. Hollow moons
4. Feasibility -- I (06/04)
5. Feasibility -- II (08/05)
References
***********************************************************
********* TerreTrouPôleNord.jpg
*****************************
*************** TrouPole.gif
***************************************
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner3.htm
Part 3: Polar Puzzles
1.
The open polar sea
2.
The north pole controversy
3.
Polar land coverup?
4.
Flights of fancy
5.
Auroras and the poles
References
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner4.htm
Part 4: Mythology, Paradise, and the Inner World
1. The Imperishable Sacred
Land
2. Shambhala
3. A northern paradise
4. Inner kingdoms
References
3. Density and seismic velocity
If the earth's interior were
homogeneous, consisting of materials with the same properties
throughout, seismic waves
would travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. In reality, waves
reach distant seismometers
sooner than they would if the earth were homogeneous, and the
greater the distance, the
greater the acceleration. This implies that the waves arriving at the
more distant stations have
been travelling faster. Since seismic waves travel not only along the
surface but also through the
body of the earth, the earth's curvature will clearly result in
stations more distant from
an earthquake focus receiving waves that have passed through
greater depths in the earth.
From this it is inferred that the velocity of seismic waves increases
with depth, due to changes
in the properties of the earth's matter.
According
to the relevant equations,* the velocity of seismic waves becomes slower,
the
denser the rocks through which
they pass. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this
would imply that density decreases.
However, scientists are convinced that the density of the
rocks composing the earth's
interior increases with depth. To explain this discrepancy, they
simply assume that the elastic
properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the
increase in density. As one
textbook puts it:
Since
the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves
to
slow
down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up
as
they
go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity
of
the
Earth increase faster with depth than density increases. [1]
Thus geophysicists simply adjust
the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their
preconceptions regarding density
and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their
arguments are circular.
*P-wave velocity = square root of [(incompressibility + 4/3rigidity) divided by density]. S-wave velocity = square root of [rigidity divided by density]. In a fluid, rigidity vanishes and S waves cannot propagate at all.
A comparison
of the velocity of sound in various media shows that there is no correlation
between sound-wave velocity
and density in the case of solids and liquids [2]. Here are some
examples involving metals:
Substance Density (g/cm³)
Velocity of longitudinal waves (km/s)
aluminiu
2.7
6.42
zinc
7.1
4.21
iron
7.9
5.95
copper
8.9
4.76
nickel
8.9
6.04
gold
19.7
3.24
There is a correlation between
density and seismic velocity in the case of gases; however, the
velocity decreases rather
than increases with density due to the increased number of collisions.
Drilling
results at the Kola borehole revealed significant heterogeneity in rock
composition
and density, seismic velocities,
and other properties. Overall, rock porosity and pressure
increased with depth, while
density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend
[3]. In the Oberpfälz
pilot hole, too, density and seismic velocity showed no distinct trend
with
increasing depth [4]. Many
scientists believe that at greater depths, the presumed increase in
pressures and temperatures
will lead to greater homogeneity and that reality will approximate
more closely to current models.
But this is no more than a declaration of faith.
4. Mass and gravity
Scientists' conviction that
density increases with depth is based on their belief that, due to the
accumulating weight of the
overlying rock, pressure must increase all the way to the earth's
centre where it is believed
to reach 3.5 million atmospheres (on the earth's surface the pressure
is one atmosphere). They also
believe that they know by how much rock density increases
towards the earth's centre.
This is because they think they have accurately determined the
earth's mass (5.98 x 1024
kg) and therefore its average density (5.52 g/cm³). Since the
outermost crustal rocks --
the only ones that can be sampled directly -- have a density of only
2.75 g/cm³, it follows
that deeper layers of rock must be much denser. At the centre of the
earth, density allegedly reaches
13.5 g/cm³. All these beliefs are based on the assumption that
the newtonian theory of gravity
is correct. But there are good reasons for doubting this.
Newton's
universal law of gravitation states that the gravitational force between
two bodies
is proportional to the product
of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the
distance between them. To
calculate the gravitational force (F), their two masses (m1m2) and
the gravitational constant
(G) are multiplied together, and the result is divided by the square of
the distance (r) between them:
F = Gm1m2/r². The newtonian theory is accepted by most
scientists today without question.
However,
it involves a contradiction. On the one hand it states that the gravitational
force
between two or more bodies
is dependent on their masses, and on the other it admits that the
gravitational acceleration
of an attracted body is not dependent on its mass: if dropped
simultaneously from a tower,
and if air resistance is ignored, a tennis ball and a cannonball will
hit the ground simultaneously.
Furthermore, although gravitational force and gravitational
acceleration are the same
phenomenon, and force is proportional to acceleration,* no symbol
for the earth's surface gravity
(g) or a term for acceleration appears in the gravitational
equation.
In
the conventional approach, the above contradiction is overcome by invoking
Newton's
second law of motion, which
states that the force applied to a body equals the mass of the
body multiplied by its acceleration
(F = ma); this implies that gravity pulls harder on larger
masses. However, as several
physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers have pointed out,
this law is not based on experiment;
it is an arbitrary definition -- a convention. Experiments
cited in its support involve
the identification of weight and force; they prove only that the
weight of a body is equal
to its mass times the acceleration (W = ma), and do not measure or
define force per se [1].
Pari
Spolter has drawn attention to the fact that to deduce that gravity obeys
an
inverse-square law (i.e. that
its strength diminishes by the square of the distance from the
attracting body), Newton did
not need to know the mass of the earth or moon; he needed to
know only the acceleration
due to gravity at the earth's surface, the radius of the earth, the
orbital speed of the moon,
and the distance between earth and moon. Spolter concludes that
'there is no basis for inclusion
of the term "product of the two masses (m1m2)", or for that
matter, for inclusion of any
term for mass in the equation of the gravitational force' [2].
Spolter
presents a new and simpler formula for gravitational force: F = a.A , where
a is the
acceleration and A is the
area of a circle with a radius (r) equal to the semimajor axis of
revolution of the planet,
moon, etc. in question (i.e. its average distance from the body it
orbits).* Since A = (pi)r²,
this equation naturally implies that the acceleration due to gravity
declines by the square of
the distance. Using this equation, Spolter shows that, contrary to what
is implied by newtonian mechanics,
the gravitational force of the sun is constant for all planets,
asteroids, and artificial
satellites orbiting the sun, and is independent of the mass of the attracted
body. Likewise, the gravitational
force of each planet is constant for any objects orbiting them
or in free fall, regardless
of their mass. The contradiction at the heart of the newtonian theory
of gravity is therefore eliminated
by Spolter's approach, since it means that neither gravitational
force nor gravitational acceleration
depends on the mass of the bodies concerned.
*Spolter
argues that force is always independent of mass [3]. It is not force that
is equal to mass times acceleration, but weight. Her equation for linear
force is F
=
a.d (acceleration times distance). Her equation for circular force is the
one given above: F = a.A.
The
gravitational constant (G) is assigned the dimensions m³/kg.s²
(volume divided by mass
x time squared) -- a rather
weird combination! Spolter believes that there is actually no such
thing as a gravitational constant.
Its value was first measured directly by the Cavendish torsion
balance experiment in 1798.
However, a Cavendish-type experiment is not a proof of Newton's
equation: on the contrary,
such experiments assume that the equation is correct. In Spolter's
view, it has not yet been
ruled out that the very small angle of deflection of the torsion balance
used in these experiments
(or the very small change in its period of oscillation) is due to
electrostatic attraction of
the metallic spheres used; in one experiment in which the small mass
of platinum was coated with
a thin layer of lacquer, consistently lower values of G were
obtained. Spolter has written
to several mainstream journals proposing further experiments to
test this possibility, but
her letters have been rejected.
On
the assumption that gravity is proportional to inert mass, the value of
G can be used to
estimate the earth's mass
and average density. Spolter writes:
About
71% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans at an average depth of
3795
m
and mean density of 1.02 g cm-3. The average thickness of the crust is
19 km and
the
mean crustal density is 2.75 g cm-3. From studies of seismic wave travel
time,
geophysicists
have outlined a layered structure in the interior of the earth. There is
no
accurate way currently known of estimating the density distribution from
seismic
data
alone. To come up with a mean density of 5.5, earth models assuming
progressively
higher density values for the inner zones of the earth have been
devised.
. . .
Except for the ocean and the crust, direct measurements of the density
of the
inner
layers of the earth are not available. This currently accepted Earth Model
is
inconsistent
with the law of sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been
rotating
for some 4.5 billion years. When it was first formed, the earth was in
a
molten
state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density of matter
should
have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the inner core, which houses
the
engine, powered by a nuclear reaction and which keeps our planet rotating,
the
density
of the other layers of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
Also, heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much of materials
with
such low stellar abundances have concentrated in the earth's interior?
[4]
In
short, the mass and average density of the earth and all other celestial
bodies are
unknown.
Experiments
conducted over the past hundred years have contradicted important elements
of
the orthodox theory of gravity
by showing that gravity can be shielded and does not have
unlimited penetrability; that
antigravity exists; and that gravity is closely coupled with electric
and magnetic forces [5]. Rather
than being a direct function of inert mass, the strength of the
gravitational force appears
to depend on the electrical and other properties of matter. The local
gravity field on earth may
vary due to the capacity of different types of rock to emit and absorb
radiation and the ability
of negatively charged particles and ions to screen out or counteract the
attractive force of gravity.
5. Deep earthquakes
Most earthquakes are shallow,
no deeper than 20-25 km, and occur when rocks snap and
fracture under increasing
stress. Earthquakes at much greater depths pose a major challenge to
the standard earth model because
below about 60 km, the rocks should be so hot and tightly
compacted that they become
ductile; instead of breaking catastrophically under stress, they
should deform or flow plastically.
Yet 30% of earthquakes occur at depths exceeding 70 km,
and some have been recorded
as far down as 700 km. Most deep-focus earthquakes occur in
Benioff zones; in plate-tectonic
theory these deep-rooted fault zones are labelled 'subduction
zones', where slabs of ocean
lithosphere supposedly plunge into the earth's mantle (though
there is abundant evidence
contradicting this hypothesis [1]). However, some deep earthquakes
have shaken Romania and the
Hindu Kush where there are no 'subduction zones'. A variety of
mechanisms for deep earthquakes
have been proposed, but they are all controversial [2].
The
seismic radiation of deep earthquakes is similar to that of shallow earthquakes.
It used
to be said that deep-focus
earthquakes were followed by fewer aftershocks than shallow ones,
but there are indications
that many of the aftershocks are simply difficult to detect, and that
there is much more activity
at such depths than is currently believed. The fact that deep
earthquakes share many characteristics
with shallow earthquakes suggests that they may be
caused by similar mechanisms.
However, most earth scientists are incapable of entertaining the
notion that the earth could
be rigid at such depths. One exception is E.A. Skobelin, who draws
that logical conclusion that
since deep-focus earthquakes cannot originate in plastic material but
must be linked to some kind
of stress in solid rock, the solid, rigid lithosphere must extend to
depths of up to 700 km [3].
On
8 June 1994, one of the largest deep earthquakes of the 20th century, with
a magnitude
of 8.3 on the Richter scale,
exploded 640 km beneath Bolivia. It caused the whole earth to ring
like a bell for months on
end; every 20 minutes or so, the entire planet expanded and
contracted by a minute amount.
A significant feature of the Bolivian earthquake was that it
extended horizontally across
a 30- by 50-km plane within the 'subducting slab'. This
undermines the hypothesis
that such quakes are caused by olivine within the 'cold' centre of a
slab suddenly being transformed
into spinel in a runaway reaction when the temperature rises
above 600°C. It also undermines
the theory that gravity increases with depth; if this were true,
the motion of earthquakes
at such depths should be nearly vertical [4]. There appears to be
something very wrong with
scientific theories about what exists and what is happening deep
within the earth.
The
acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s² at the earth's surface and
the prevailing view is
that it rises to a maximum
of 10.4 m/s² at the core-mantle boundary (2900 km), before falling
to zero at the earth's centre.
But not all earth scientists agree. Skobelin argues that the normal,
downwardly-directed gravitational
force may be replaced by a reversed, upwardly-directed
force at depths of 2700 to
4980 km, and that the widely-accepted figure of 3500 kilobars for
the pressure at the earth's
centre, may be an order of magnitude too high [5].
Earthquakes
and volcanoes tend to concentrate along certain major fault lines in the
earth's
crust. The fact that heightened
geological activity occurs along these 'plate boundaries' is
sometimes hailed as one of
the great successes of plate tectonics. However, it is precisely the
high incidence of earthquake
and volcanic activity that led geologists to label these belts as
'plate boundaries' in the
first place! Plate tectonics sheds no light on earthquakes that happen
within plates. Officer and
Page state: 'We know very little about the mechanisms involved in
such intraplate earthquakes,
but [they sometimes] illustrate effects that one might expect from a
gigantic internal explosion,
odd as such a concept may appear' [6].
Thomas
Gold has argued that, during its formation, the earth retained large quantities
of
hydrocarbons in its interior.
He holds that various gases are sometimes released from depths of
about 150 km, and when they
invade the outer brittle layers of rock they weaken them by
creating new fractures or
reducing friction in existing faults, thereby causing or facilitating
earthquakes [7]. The emission
of gases (e.g. methane) from the ground is already known to
cause mud volcanoes on land,
circular pockmarks on the ocean floor, and 'ice volcanoes' or
pingos on ice fields. Hydrocarbons
and hydrogen are also major components of the gases
emitted during major volcanic
eruptions.
Eyewitness
accounts provide strong evidence that gas emissions also help to cause
earthquakes in general, but
nowadays scientists tend to ignore these 'subjective' accounts in
favour of 'hard' seismic data.
Eruptions, flames, roaring and hissing noises, sulphurous odours,
hazes and fogs, asphyxiation,
fountains of water and mud, vigorous bubbling in bodies of water
-- all these are observed
today in conjunction with earthquakes, just as they were in past. On
the basis of such evidence,
the ancients held that the movement and eruption of subterranean
'air' (i.e. gases) caused
volcanoes if they found an outlet, and otherwise generated earthquakes.
Gold argues that this mechanism
could explain deep earthquakes, since he believes that the
mechanism of sudden rock shear
cannot operate deep in the earth's interior. But as already
noted, this belief may be
wrong, and both mechanisms may apply at all depths.