The Earth is hollow.

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his contribution to the debate. Seismologic unreliability My opponent apparently does not dispute that seismographs are not the most accurate method of measurement: he states early on, “it is true that seismographs are indirect.” He then explains how seismometers work, in vibrations calculating density of the materials they pass through. This explanation, however, fails to actually refute my argument: I was not arguing that seismometers were unreliable in their method of measurement, but rather in their placement predominantly on land, distance from any meaningful measurement, and failure to fulfill their primary function. I will repeat them briefly. Princeton earth scientist Frederik Simons states, “all we really have are land-based seismometers. That leaves more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface uncovered…You’re just not going to get a very good image of what’s inside.”1 The limited coverage of the planet by seismometers partially accounts for their unreliability. Next, seismometers placed at a teleseismic distance from any significant measurement were shown to be unreliable.2 Ergo, seismometers on the surface placed thousands of miles from the core, or practically anywhere under the crust, are unreliable in their extreme distance. Lastly, seismometers fail in their foremost function of earthquake prediction. My opponent has not provided an adequate response to any of these arguments; he has merely explained how seismometers work. If one were to measure the temperature of the Sun with a thermometer on Mercury, you simply would not measure very accurately, no matter how precise your thermometer may be. Satellite photographs My opponent disagrees with my photographic evidence. He explains how the semi-polar orbit of the ESSA-7 produces a composite photograph of the Northern Hemisphere, and the hole is simply where the satellite never crossed. Fine. I did, in fact, agree they were composite photographs in my Round 1 argument. My issue is not with that they are composite photographs, but rather the evidence within the content of the image that points to an actual hole present. As you can see in the comparison below, a closer look at the ESSA-7 photograph shows that the hole is not perfectly circular as one would expect from a composite photograph, but rather irregular, with a “rim” around the edges. Compare this to an image of a Guatemalan sinkhole: For the section of an image that is supposed to be perfectly circular and look as if it were simply a missing part of the photo, the hollow Earth entrance does seem to have undeniable similarities to actual sinkholes, albeit smaller ones. Moreover, my opponent did not address the same findings by the ESSA-3 earlier. What is even more interesting is that my opponent’s two photographs supposedly showing an intact North Pole are both rather misleading. The first photograph does not show the North Pole, but rather “Arctic sea ice,”3 which, need I remind the reader, is not synonymous with the North Pole; the second image is not a photograph at all, but a computer generated image (CGI) known as data visualization.4 Crater formation My opponent states: “we have not observed craters forming, and certainly not the size craters that my opponent bases this argument on.” My opponent is correct that we have no direct way of seeing craters (although a comet collision with Jupiter was observed in 1994,5 2009,6 and 20105 – leading scientists to speculate that “collision rate of events of this magnitude may be five to ten times more frequent than previously thought”7) in the same way that my opponent agrees seismometers have no direct way of imaging the planet. However, research into the formation of impact craters is “aided by synthesizing ideas and methods of petrology, mineralogy, crystallography, geochemistry, geophysics, [and] astronomy.”8 My opponent then goes on to state that “The hollow model has no mechanism sufficient to uplift the weakened crater floor; and in fact, faces significant problems from the existence of craters.” If there is no mechanism sufficient to uplift the weakened crater floor, then how are central peaks observed at all, and why are basic craters deeper than large craters?9 The argument that there is a planet is unable to rebound is contrary to observable evidence, nevermind the dispute over the planetary structure underneath. My opponent also argues that the impact would break the outer shell of a planet; this argument is only relevant if one were to consider the outer shell extremely thin which a hollow planetary structure does not necessitate at all. Spiderweb fractures radiating from the impact site can be considered negated in the same regard; the Hollow Earth hypothesis does not dictate a skeletal, thin outer shell. Lastly, I would like to reitarate my point about crater formation under a compressed Earth. A Hollow Earth is simply more compatible with the current theories of crater formation, such as the rings and central peak, than a solid Earth – it is simply too compressed to allow any change from the basic bowl-shaped crater. I encourage readers to review the diagrams in my Round 1 argument. Volcanoes Volcanoes are not contrary to the Hollow Earth hypothesis. In fact, magma is not contrary to Hollow Earth hypothesis. We are arguing whether or not a considerable amount of space in the Earth’s interior is empty. This does not mandate a lack of magma, and I would ask my opponent in his last round to prove where a Hollow Earth certainly requires a lack of magma, or plate tectonics for that matter, as a model for interior planetary strucure certainly does not dictate the affairs of the exterior planetary structure, even if they are closely related. Oceans This argument only works if the oceans were somehow attracted to the polar holes. The oceans exist stay on the surface because they are gravitationally attracted to the center of the Earth; this is the reason anything falls towards the surface. Moreover, not all ocean water moves towards the poles. Consider this chart of ocean currents: As you can see, many ocean currents are roughly circular, some are linear, but not all of them move towards the poles. Thus, the presence of a hole does not mandate a drainage of the oceans – the oceans would stay because they are attracted towards the core, not the poles, and because not all water currents travel towards the poles. Core My opponent asserts that drifting magnetic poles are caused by “by convection currents in the molten core, which of course the hollow earth would lack.” A Hollow Earth model does not abandon the idea of a core at all. In fact, one of the most famous Hollow Earth models, that by Edmund Halley, posits the existence of multiple layers of shells, each with its own magnetic field, and explained shifts in the overall magnetic field within this framework.10 This (and the central core) can be seen in the diagram below. Earth mass and volume This argument relies on a specific embodiment of the Hollow Earth hypothesis. As I stated above in “Core,” Hollow Earth theories do not always hypothesize one outer shell with no empty space within. My opponent’s estimate of 75% empty is an incredibly vast overestimate of the supposed inner world that most hollow planetary structure models theorize. For instance, Halley’s model above clearly has less than that estimate. Adding more shells, such as in Halley’s model, certainly bring the density to a reasonable quantity. A Note on the Entrance I have provided sufficient evidence that there is a hole at the North Pole, serving as an entrance to an inner Earth. However, I would like to remind the reader that although most theories necessitate an entrance, the pure concept of a hollow planetary structure does not absolutely mandate an entrance, and thus one should contemplate a polar entrance only in addition to contemplating a Hollow Earth. Sources http://goo.gl...