The Earth is hollow.

Seismologic unreliability My opponent still seems to believe that seismometers are reliable no matter their placement or distance. This argument has never been that seismometers are completely unreliable; obviously, they have assisted in the study of plate tectonics and seismic waves. Their study, as I have shown in my previous rounds, is still extremely limited. Yes, a seismometer measures speed variations of seismic waves. A thermometer measures temperature through the expansion and diminution of a substance due to heat change.1 However, there are limits to a thermometer’s measuring capacity; an earthly thermometer cannot assess lunar temperature. Likewise, land thermometers cannot calculate the true average surface temperature of the Earth, as the oceans would not be accounted for in the average. The seismometer is limited in a similar manner – as I have shown, seismometers are restricted to land2 and are unreliable at teleseismic distances.3 The only way to refute this argument was to provide counter-evidence that seismometers do indeed cover the oceans and can measure seismic waves with reasonable precision at extreme distance. My opponent has provided neither; he has reiterated an explanation of seismometer mechanics. Satellite photographs This argument stands. My opponent explains the irregularity of the entrance, as well as the rim, as a blunder in photographic development, considering them an artifact of the image. Photographic errors cannot account for the abnormalities I described: artifacts are “random pixels that don’t match their surroundings,”4 a randomness that must persist through the lengthy circumference of the polar entrance. A rim is a much simpler and likelier explanation. My opponent then avoids defending his very own evidence. He states: “I gave images from satellite photos, two of which were not composites, but direct photographs of the norther section of the earth. ” Firstly, this claim is untrue even if they both displayed an intact pole: the second “photograph” was an artificial CGI rendering!5 The article exhibiting the first photo clearly states, “the graphic depiction […] shows Arctic sea ice coverage…”6 My opponent chooses not to provide any counter-evidence, despite the supposed ease he would have. Crater formation The argument from crater formation is perhaps the most compelling in favor of a hollow planetary structure. My opponent’s reply here is once again that astroblemes are not visually recorded. My opponent states that magma is what causes the planet to rebound against the impacting object – however, even solid Earth theorists disagree with this statement. In Planetary Sciences, astronomer Imke de Pater states, “shortly after the excavation process ends, the debris remaining in the crater moves downwards and back towards the center, while the crater floor undergoes a rebound…”7 Magma has little to do with crater rebound, and is not a sufficient mechanism to uplift the crater floor. A hollow Earth is simply more compatible with crateral rebounding. The energy required for such a compressed planetary structure to form a central peak is colossal. The natural rebound of an uncompressed shell, which does not mandate unrealistic energy, is more reasonable than the abnormal compression of a solid Earth. He additionally restates his claim that a collision would punch through the exterior, but does not show how hollow Earth theory absolutely requires a fragile exterior – a thick outer shell is more plausible. Once again, my opponent questions a specific manifestation of hollow Earth theory without attacking the idea of an empty interior as a whole. Volcanoes, Oceans, and Core Several claims are made that geographical features are supposedly in conflict with a hollow terrestrial interior. He claims, (1) a hollow Earth would drain magma, but provides no evidence, or evidence as to how a solid Earth would restrict similar drainage, (2) a hollow Earth would have eons ago ended volcanic activity, but similarly refrains from substantiating this statement, and (3) the terrestrial shells would be thin, an erroneous statement that is incorrect for the same reasons listed in response to crateral rebounding. My opponent rejects Halley’s model because “no conceivable process of planetary evolution could a series [of] concentric spheres form. ” We have already agreed that seismometers do not directly image the Earth’s interior, and that impact crater formation is not directly observed. Only a deity could possibily watch as the Earth itself was shaped from a protoplanetary disk – and if one were to accept this refutation as valid, please rethink the refutation of crater development. My opponent also asserts that Halley’s model was “a thought experiment,” despite the fact that the famous scientist “maintained this belief more than thirty years till his death. ”8 Earth mass and volume In Round 1, my opponent defined hollow as follows: “hollow in this case does not refer to the fact that there are caves and mines in the outer part of the crust, but to an alleged vast central space inside making up a significant fraction of the Earth's total volume. ” Nowhere did my opponent provide a specific number, percentage, or amount. Attention must only be drawn to “significant fraction,” which, in subjectivity, could mean anything from an extensive labyrinth of internal tunnels9 to nearly the entire interior.10 The 75% overestimate can be dismissed as a vast overvaluation intended to misrepresent hollow Earth theory. Halley’s model clearly shows a much greater mass than my opponent claims is the theoretical norm among hollow Earth thinkers. Once again, if we presume a more rational percentage of empty space, my opponent’s calculations can be dismissed, as it brings the total density to a realistic amount. Conclusion I will review both my arguments in favor of a hollow Earth and my opponent’s arguments in favor of a solid Earth. My arguments 1. Seismology: Seismometers, which solid Earth theorists employ as evidence for their case, are unreliable in studying the structure of the Earth. I have shown that seismometers fail to provide a complete view of the interior because they are limited in their coverage of the Earth and are untrustworthy at a teleseismic distance. 2. Photographs: While clearly a composite photograph, the perfectly circular blackness one would expect to find from the ESSA hemispheric photo is instead an irregular opening with a visible rim, similar to observable sinkholes. Moreover, the polar photographs my opponent provided were either faulty or computer-generated. 3. Craters: A compressed planetary structure underneath the impact site cannot account for observed central peaks or rings in sizeable craters. Basic physics requires an outer shell for planetary surface rebound and concentric ring expansion. Opponent’s arguments 1. Topography: My opponent has suggested that geographic features such as oceans and volcanoes present evidence that is contrary to a hollow Earth. Dismissing the fact that these arguments only attack meager manifestations of the theory, the ocean argument fails in that currents are not all polar, but are gravitationally bound to the surface; the volcano argument fails in that a layer of magma and a shelled hollow Earth are compatible. 2. Mathematics: My opponent declared that calculations of telluric quantities such as mass and volume are inconsistent with a hollow Earth. However, my opponent established this entire argument on a subjective overestimate, insisting that 75% vacuity was reasonable. I have shown planetary theories are visually contrary to this approximation, and shift these measurements to a sensible amount. I will remind voters that the inner Earth does not require an entrance. Any arguments that negate an entrance do not necessarily negate the hollow Earth; arguments that support an entrance do support a hollow Earth. Thank you. Sources . http://goo.gl...