Talk:Hollow Earth

Expedition
I have no affiliation with the PSF and I was the original contributor of the expedition information. 72.150.123.48 claims that the website contains inaccurate scientific data, but after looking at the PSF website, I found no such claims. Although the website is a bit amateur-ish for a scientific organization, I guess we will find out the truth by July 2007 when this expedition is supposed to take place. I would like to put this section to a vote, but I'm not sure how. Templeofthedog7 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * , so what came out 10½ years ago? --Thnidu (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

hollow moon
I wonder if some of the more experienced debunkers might help out with Hollow moon. The theory existed in a highly PoV fashion for several weeks on wp. I had never heard of the "theory" but I looked it up a little, and there's still quite a bit of misinformation out there (mostly on hollow earth pages). For that reason I oppose a delete. Anyone want to step up with some debunking goodness? Charles (Kznf) 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did stumble across this and blogged it up and while I don't consider it very likely all I can offer is more details to support the contention. Of course, even the weirdest things need to have balanced coverage I suppose. (Emperor 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

There was this joke explaining how Space: 1999 was able to explode an Eagle spacecraft at least once every episode. The moon was hollow and filled with these Eagles.

Not NPOV
I don't think that this article is NPOV. It's a huge article explaining various fringe theories and then two paragraphs (poorly) refuting it and a sentence in the introduction saying it's false. The large majority of the article is also unsourced. Perhaps a section could be added on views against Hollow Earth. —  Pious 7  21:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're kidding, right? It's clear from the start of the article that the idea is bunk
 * ("the hypothesis of a Hollow Earth has long been contradicted by overwhelming evidence as well as by the modern understanding of planet formation, and the scientific community now dismisses the notion as pseudoscience") The article discusses what proponents thought and/or argued, it doesn't *support* those ideas. I'm removing the tag. - DavidWBrooks 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * that sentence is missing in current version. I added it back in. Lot49a (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be NPOV? It's obviously a load of rubbish. Should I make a page about the flying spaghetti monster and demand it be NPOV? This is an encyclopaedia, encyclopaedias are supposed to be educational. How is giving an absolute load of gobbledy-gook such as the hollow-Earth 'theory' a NPOV educational? You people who want balance for balance's sake are absolute idiots.
 * You are responding to a 2 1/2-year-old comment that is no longer relevant to the article. Just thought you'd like to know, because you are, of course, not an absolute idiot. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to comment, on the above, very old comment. As much as I may not believe in a hollow earth, and you may find those that do "idiots," it is possible that there are some out there who may believe this kind of thing, or entertain the notion. Such people might find a disparaging comment insulting. Is it likely there are many of them? Probably not. Does consensus equate to reality? No, I do not think that it does. And further, society typically dictates that we should have respect or sensitivity toward the beliefs of others that differ from our own. Or do you think that sensitivity is the rightful reaction to SOME ideas, viewpoints, or theories, and not others?

Note for Michaelbusch
You might want to be more careful in your deletions, and your characterizations of the material deleted. You recently reverted an edit of mine as "misleading and nonsensical." I saw nothing to warrant such a characterization, and so restored it. I notice you have made another deletion with the same characterization, this time of one sentence in the entry preceding my addition to the list. I had edited that entry at the same time I added mine to move the title of the item to a more sensible place; the statement objected to was pre-existing, and having no knowledge one way or another of whether its characterization of some people's belief was accurate I let it stand. Since your problem appears to have been with that sentence, you ought to have limited your original deletion (and characterization) to that sentence alone, and left the valid material alone. Just a little friendly advice.BPK 19:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable?
I removed these two paragraphs as they appear to be about an idea of limited notability:


 * In 2001 the Australian father-and-son team Kevin and Matthew Taylor self-published the book The Land of No Horizon (direct link National Library of Australia ISBN 0-646-41057-1). Among other things it proposes an expanding and hollow Earth (as well as other planetary bodies) which eventually reached equilibrium. The book also looks at a range of topics including but not limited to evolution, human physiology, impact craters and other geology in light of such a hollow Earth.


 * Kevin and Matthew Taylor's view of a hollow planet envisages a hollow globe with a small (depending on planet size) central sun ignited by radiation from the inner surface. They use this view both to explain Earth's magnetic field (replacing the dynamo theory) and the origin and ignition of stars.

I refer to WP:FRINGE, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. for why this text doesn't belong in the article.

24.199.99.169 22:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. Thanks for catching it. Michaelbusch 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning disclaimers(?)
Regarding Obruchev's Plutonia (and probably other "hollow Earth" books by other authors) - it might be worth noting in the article that the book's author himself did not believe the Earth to be hollow. Obruchev explained in preface that the Earth is hollow in the book only because he wanted to write an educational story about dinosaurs, and there already wasn't much unexplored territory left on Earth for such story to take place. He did, however, recieve considerable amount of correspondence that indicated how few people actually read prefaces.

fiction and culture
I like "references in culture" sections in articles, but this one has gotten way out of hand and should, I think, be removed. It has become an enormous list, which is one of the things that wikipedia is not. I guess the hollow-earth concept is too widespread to be listed out. Instead I think we need a paragraph or two that talks about the fact that it's a commonly used plot device, and that's all.

I thought I'd mention this here first, before making such a drastic change. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I approve culling the example farm, but a few specific examples should be kept. In particular, Edgar Rice Burroughs' books. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What should we use to separate the wheat from the chaff, then? Once you let in Edgar Rice Burroughs, why not the scads of other scifi/fantasy authors listed? If we keep any list, we need a good argument to prevent it from growing back to this size. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would apply common sense and WP:N. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which translates into "constantly removing rubbish for the rest of eternity", alas. That's one of the advantages of completely removing a list. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I took out all the comic/cartoon/videogame references. Let's see what happens. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's creeping back up, two months later - 21 books and 7 "other" references. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

North pole expedition
Some clown named Agnew Brooks is perpetuating the theory and organizing a new North Pole expedition to go inside the earth again. The radio talks and some videos are up on youtube as well. There ought to be a section on it. Its been in a few newspapers as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Brooks Agnew, actually. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

a.k.a The Inner Earth Expedition Part One. This is absolute non sense... :-( --Pascal Boulerie (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

admiral byrd's flight
Why is there no information on Admiral Byrd? I've read a great deal about his flight logs and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir tetra (talk • contribs) 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Byrd's "lost diary" has been proven to be a myth, but it gets discussed ad nauseum. I think there should be some kind of text mentioning it in this article, and that it's purely a myth. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of his "lost Diary" having been "proven" to be a myth - which it was not proven beyond a doubt to be a myth, there should ABSOLUTELY be some kind of text in this article about Admiral Byrd, as his information, whether it be lore or fact or in between, was very very popular and he is still talked about to this day, and many consider him to be one of the main modern day references to the subject, then they study further, more verifiable sources. (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2915 (UTC)

Introduction and reference to 15 miles of drilling
"thus direct knowledge of the Earth's structure extends only that far."

That's a misrepresentation of what's meant by "direct knowledge." Information gained from sources other than visual still counts as "direct." I'm changing the wording to "visual," since that's as strong/truthful a description as could be in the context of the article. Ryanluck (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ufology
Why does the article have a ufology-box at the bottom? I can't see the connection with hollow earth! --83.72.7.63 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Some branches of UFOlogy maintain that UFOs originate in the hollow of the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.16.118 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Books by Adam Seaborn "Symzonia" and Professor Symmes "Symmes theory...."
At one time I owned a store called Cachivaches y otros adefecios ilimitada, a used goods and antique shop in Lima Peru and the two books were sold to me and by me. The Seaborn book was dated 1829 and the Symmes theory of concentric circles proving that the earth is hollow and habitable within was 1832 ie three years after the novel which has stuck in my memory as also the Z in Symzonia. If I remember rightly I mentioned them in a letter to Martin Gardner. Are other copies of the books extant? Prof Symmes has a dedication to the Emperor Napoleon the third by Symmes widow on the fly .92.234.53.41 (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Myths and hints
The oldest claims of the hollow earth are Tibetian myths. Those myths report of 3 openings into the earth: 2 near the poles and 1 in the Himalaya. The Thule society, which was closely known by Adolf Hitler, reported much about those myths. There is even the theory that Hitler ordered a research journey for such an opening in the Antarctica. This theory is based on a speech of admiral Dönitz in front of the German submarine in 1944. During that speech, Dönitz claims, “The German submarine fleet is proud of having built an invinsible fortification for the Führer, anywhere in the world.” During the Nuremberg Trials, Dönitz spoke of “an invinsible fortification, inmidst of the eternal ice.” These are the only serious hints of the theory of the hollow earth.

I request you to discuss this part of the article, which was deleted. I think this is in no way "spiritual" or "esoteric", but rather serious, since I also gave serious sources. What's your opinion? Should this be a part of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.234.196 (talk) 11:34, 2008 April 20 (UTC)


 * This has apparently been removed and readded before, but I removed this on the basis that 1) It was nonsense 2) It had no sources 3) Donitz never said any of that. If you can find some sources please forgive me and add it in again. :)--Andrews Palop (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious and reliable source: http://www.hi-story.de/themen/schwab/schwab.htm There is also an English version; a historian writes a serious essay about the myth of the Nazis in Antarctica. There are also the few sentences, my text is about. Please, read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.234.200 (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how serious the hi-story page is, but it has since vanished (took a look with archive.org). If the quote is genuine, I would really like to have it confirmed. The given date varies, sometimes it's 1943 and sometimes 1944. Also, what is not mentioned here is the name he (allegedly) gives the secret base: "Die deutsche U-Boot Flotte ist stolz darauf, dass sie für den Führer in einem anderen Teil der Welt ein Shangri-La gebaut hat, eine uneinnehmbare Festung." A Shangri-La in another part of the world, what would that be supposed to mean? I can think of plenty of explanations other than one in Antarctica and/or inside a hollow Earth, including the simple fact that the U-Boots themselves are (comparably) unreachable, and that the "Teil der Welt" in question would simply be the deep sea. Hexmaster (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Literature
I believe H. P. Lovecraft also wrote a hollow earth story called The Mound, and several others written by him have similar themes. I don't know if you really want the literature section to be any longer, but seeing how there's a reference to a Scrooge McDuck comic in there... 75.209.146.71 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"The hypothesis of a Hollow Earth has long been contradicted by overwhelming evidence"
It is claimed that there is "overwhelming evidence" which contradicts the hollow earth theory. However there is no evidence cited within the article and there are no links to such evidence. This statement should be removed unless substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaurDon (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC) DinosaurDon (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008


 * Don't remove it, since it's a statement of obvious fact that casual readers need. But you're right: We need, a good short discussion about why the hypothesis runs afoul of modern geological knowledge. Help needed from knowledgeable editors! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Overwhelming evidence"? All knowledge of what's below the deepest drilling hole (~20 miles, I believe) is based exclusively on seismology measurements and volcanic eruptions. I wouldn't discount this theory just yet.  Hmaier (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, the theory also says that the entire universe is contained within what we think of as the surface of the earth. This is completely at odds with ALL astrophysics, geometric understanding, gravity, and so many other things the list would take days to write. The only way this theory is "correct" is if all scientific understanding is incorrect and the universe functions in metaphysical terms instead of physical terms. Such abandonment of rationality is hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia devoted to collecting objective information and presenting it in an organized and intellectual manner. While this belief is certainly influencial in human history and worth of philosophical consideration, it would hardly be appropriate to depict it as any thing other than a disproved notion of a less informed time, like the flat earth theory.98.28.114.217 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no mention of moment of inertia as evidence against a hollow earth. Astronomers define a quantity called the 'moment of inertia factor' defined as the polar moment of inertia divided by the mass and the square of the average radius. For a uniform solid sphere this is 0.4 and for a spherical shell 2/3 or about 0.67. The value measured for the earth is about 0.33, indicating density increases in the interior.Daviddlm (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Newtonian gravity and a hollow Earth
This section explains how inhabitants on the inside would be pulled outwards by the centrifugal force, but does it really work like that? If there is no gravity to pull the inhabitants towards the surface, how would they be affected by the rotation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.171.135 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Friction. If you were to bump into the inner surface, friction would start you rotating with the Earth, and then the centrifugal force would push you outwards to bump the surface again, and then friction would pull you some more; this process would continue until you were resting against the inner surface, moving at the same velocity and being pressed very weakly against it.  If there were atmosphere inside the shell, friction would also cause the air to rotate with the Earth, precluding you from simply floating motionless without touching the surface. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

visual knowledge
What is the case for including this? It seems totally irrelevant to me; we know the Earth isn't hollow.71.240.67.58 (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a piece of information that answers a question many readers will have. It doesn't interfere with the article, or make it lop-sided - there's information elsewhere about non-visual methods of determining the non-hollowness of the planet. It also doesn't say that visual information is the only information possible. I think it's fine; maybe it could be moved lower down in the story. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved it way down. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Way too many fiction references
We now have 27 books/stories in the Literature section, which is ridiculous. The point of such sections is to demonstrate that the article topic has a certain presence in popular culture, not to list every such reference in a pointless bludgeon-the-reader attack. This issue was discussed a while ago (it's in the Talk page Archive), with the agreement that we had too many but nobody (including me) ready to pare them down. It has only grown since. So ... what the heck ... i'm going to remove them all and replace them with a summary paragraph, and see what people think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh - I just can't remove those interesting 18th- and 19th-century examples! We need to think of a way to keep those but cut all the recent dross. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

removed fiction items
The "Hollow Earths in fiction" list is still enormous. I just removed a few items, trying to keep them only to fiction about the Earth itself being hollow, not other planets or fake planets - like Dyson spheres (the Halo book), or hollow Moon (Neznaika on the Moon (Незнайка на Луне)), or Matter (2008) by Iain M Banks describes a "shell world" ... the iffiest cut was James De Mille's novel A Strange Manuscript Found in a Copper Cylinder'' (1888) is a Victorian satire, because he thinks he's in a hollow Earth but really isn't. I also removed an "independent sci/fi" film because there are a bazillion independent films out there, maybe that was excessive on my part. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All of this makes sense. If no one can bear to cut things, is it worth splitting off the list? Hollow Earth is a very popular and common theme. Lot   49a talk 18:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting idea. If we do it, it should cover all hollow-planet stories and movies, not just hollow Earth. Hollow planets in fiction would cover Dyson spheres, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps better would be Hollow worlds in fiction? "Planet" is too restrictive, it seems to me, excluding moons, etc. And too general, as I think the interest is in inhabited (if only by animals) places, I guess? TomS TDotO (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like Hollow Worlds in Fiction myself. It has a nice ring to it. Lot   49a talk 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Worlds" is much better. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that there is an article Subterranean fiction. Perhaps the proper thing would be to expand upon that article? TomS TDotO (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect! We can do some cut and paste from here to there, then reduce the section here to a few sentences and a "main article" link to Subterranean fiction, and voila. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Seven months later, I did just that, since nobody seemed to care much. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! I was just coming back here because I remembered about this. Nice work. Lot   49a talk 15:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

part about gravity
The part about gravity is entirely incorrect. It's been mathematically proven and well known that gravity on the inside of a sphere would allow you to walk on the outside shell, much like the picture shown. Also, there is no such thing a "centrifugal force." It should not even be mention as it makes no sense. Mbaboy (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section is probably incorrect, but not quite as you say. Walking on the outermost shell would be the same as walking on a solid sphere of a proportional density.  Inside the shell, its gravitational effects would be cancelled, but one would be able to walk on any inner shells in exactly the same manner.  Centrifugal force does exist, it just depends on your frame of reference. 218.143.30.1 (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The proof that a the gravitational force inside of a hollow shell is zero (from the shell, although other bodies may exert a force) has been well-established since Newton. Your claims are bogus.

As for the centrifugal force, it's a totally standard and useful way to represent motion in a non-inertial reference frame (like a rotating sphere).

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's never been proven that you can walk on the inside of a hollow shell planet solely by gravitational attraction. Newton's Shell Theorem on the other hand demands that the total gravitational potential inside the shell be zero everywhere inside. Also, Newton's law of gravity is formally analogous to the classical law of the electric force. The Shell Theorem applies also to electric fields; the interior of a hollow, spherical, conducting sphere is predicted to have an electrical potential of zero everywhere. This is easily demonstrated, and is commonly demonstrated in college classrooms.

It also doesn't matter if you don't like the term "centrifugal" force. Whatever you call it, it's what presses riders against the interior surface of a common carnival centrifuge. The same would happen inside a hollow, spinning Earth.

Reversion of edits arguing about physics
I have reverted this. There are many things wrong with it: Cardamon (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Its tone is argumentative, which is wrong for Wikipedia
 * 2) It is sourced to largely to a web site that is not a wp:reliable reference
 * 3) The website it is sourced to doesn't even support it
 * 4) The physics is incorrect. For example, the center of mass of a hollow uniform spherical  shell is at the center of the sphere.
 * And, most importantly, Wikipedia is not a hosting service for wp:Original Research.

Gravity section
Hi guys,

I've just tried to tighten up the section about the forces experienced by an observer standing on the interior of the shell. I have also moved the last bit, about the observed mass of the Earth, closer to the first bit (about stability reasons for the infeasibility of a hollow Earth) as they seem closer together in spirit than the bit about the forces does to them both. PatBuckles (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the older version was clearer (it was also shorter, so I'm not sure what you mean by "tighten up"). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steven. I'm sorry to see that you deleted my section. This is what I meant:

-The original version states that 'Someone one the inside would not experience an outward pull' and then contradicts itself a couple of lines later by stating that there would actually be an outward pull due to the the ellipticity of the Earth's surface and the influence of other astrophysical bodies.

-The original version contradicts itself again by saying that one would be 'nearly' weightless and then goes off onto a tangent about the shell-theorem. Only after talking about the shell theorem does it mention why it is 'nearly' weightless and not totally weightless.

The relation between the shape of the shell, the gravity, and the influence of other bodies is not coherently laid out as is.

-It is not true that one instantaneously co-moving with the Earth's rotation at the shell would feel always feel a centrifugal force, hence my comment about the necessity of the person not lying on either of the two points of the shell that meet the Earth's axis of rotation. If one is one the axis of rotation then the is no force. One simply would stay where one was (assuming there is no mass interior to the shell. PatBuckles (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steven,

Also if you need a bit of help with the physics, this is a good book in my view: `An Introduction To Mechanics' by Kleppner and Kolenkow (McGraw-Hill Inc.,US.). It covers things like Newton's theory of gravity and centrifugal and centripetal forces. PatBuckles (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first sentence, the addition of the word "significant" fixes the problem with "would not experience an outward pull". "nearly weightless" is correct.  I don't see how the shell theorem is a tangent: it is the reason why a person would be nearly weightless.  Your comment about a lack of coherence is not clear. One still feels a centrifugal force if one is on the axis of rotation assuming that you don't have zero size (though yes, on the axis there is no net force on a symmetrical person), although of course the maximum force is at the equator as stated.  Anyway, this seems like a pointless quibble: the whole point is that the centrifugal force is tiny, even at the equator.  I'm not sure why you think I need "help with the physics"; I'm quite familiar with K&K (I have a PhD in physics). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like everybody forgot within the fiction section about Jules Verne book "trip to the center of the earth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.14.2 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Caption for Euler's "thought experiment"
The text itself does not suggest that Euler proposed the earth was that way as a thought experiment. Thus I intend to change the caption to "purported theory"; however I've never heard of this myself (it doesn't fit in with how I envisage Euler) and so have only the main article to go on. Thus, before I do so, I invite comments. Egg Centric (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have subsequently found a pdf here about the subject, suggesting it was indeed a thought experiment. The problem, therefore, lies with the text. I'm not certain what to do at this point. Input, as ever, is welcome. Egg Centric (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Relative density
Nothing here about relative density? Consider that atmosphere has a certain density which life could float on top of, imagining that nothing could live within. 71.198.129.20 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not sure I followed that ... could you explain it? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Noises from inside the earth
I have been studying the Hollow Earth and one of the claims I have come across, is that noises etc have been heard underground. See for example this here: Link

Any opinions? Should we mention this on the article? Earthisalive (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how claims of noises underground, even if true, are relevant to the article. Similarly, I don't see how claims of single caves or caverns, which are tiny compared to the size of the earth, are all that relevant. Cardamon (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the hollow earth theory, it has many aspects. Not all hollow earth believers claim that the whole of the earth is hollow, some claim just some of it, others just a small part. Theres ancient myths all around the world saying that ancient peoples had originated from coming out of caves from inside the earth. Regarding the noises, if you look at many of the early hollow earth writers (you may not know about them) well many of them have written about noises underground, as evidence for people living inside of the earth or UFOs. Earthisalive (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are myths concerning underground origins of various peoples, and that  some of them are appropriate.  For example, if I remember correctly (the relevant books are packed in boxes) the Navajos have a myth that their ancestors emerged from a cave, after passing thru the sky of another world.  However, I would suggest that underground cavities smaller than, say, the Chicago Tunnel Company, or the tunnels that Colonel Gaddafi had excavated, would not be appropriate in this article.  (They might be appropriate in some other article).


 * If someone has used reports of caverns or noises or whatever to argue that the earth either is hollow, or has truly extensive systems of tunnels in it, and their argument is notable, we can write about their arguments. But we shouldn't collect reports of odd things underground to support a hollow earth.  That would be getting close to Wikipedia calls wp:synthesis; also there would be the potential of over-filling the article with allegations of odd things underground. Cardamon (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move
Would there be support to swap this page with Hollow Earth theory since that's what it is? This page should be the redirect, not Hollow Earth theory. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This would go against the established practice of dropping non-essential words from a title, unless a longer form is preferable for some particular reason. There is no habit to include the word "theory" to theories' titles, see e.g. Big Bang. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point, i was using Evolution as my basis but since that title agrees with you i now agree a move wouldn't be appropriate. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You removed one short-ish declaratory sentence talking about a single book. Even if that's from somewhere else, that's not enough to be a plagiarism issue - and while the book it discusses is looney-tunes, it seems a legitimate addition to the article - so I've restored it. If you can point to an actual location that it's copied from, or if others have a concern, we can discuss it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am no copyright-specialist. But tell me: Is it really forbidden to simple talk about the mere (?) existence of a book? --185.81.138.26 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A large is section is copied from http://www.crystalinks.com/hollowearth.html or possibly it's the other way round. WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC) WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about the theory
Hi, I have recently heard about this theory while watching the History Channel and I think there are a few technical problems in this theory (fix me if I wrong):

If there is an hollow space between the core to the outer stratum (where we live), provably as a stratum, there might be a few "bridges" which hold those stratums, unless the fact that the outer stratum is in space and the fact the core of earth applies a gravity force, that its field reaches the outer stratum (and the atmosphere) - so the distance between them is always the same and they are both spin at the same speed (and are synchronized to each other).

Other problem might be - in what stratum does the magma located? It should be more near to the core, but this way, according to the theory, volcanos shouldn't have magma inside them and the Tectonic plates shouldn't be affected by the magma. If not, it should be in one of the stratums which are nearer to the outer stratum. Galzigler (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Concave hollow Earth and the "centre" of the Earth
In the Concave hollow Earths section, the very salient point is made that if the distance metric of the universe was configured in an extremely particular way, we would be unable to discriminate between a concave hollow Earth and standard cosmology. Does this mean that if this picture was zoomed out, we should be seeing an outer ring of the crust, an even outer ring for the outer core, and finally the "inner" core stretching out to infinity (from our non-projective point of view), à la azimuthal equidistant projection (where the circumference of the map corresponds to just one point, i.e. the South Pole)? I think this is an interesting consequence of the "theory" but I'm wary of adding it to the section due to WP:NOR concerns. --Anagogist (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

shin megami tensei nocturne
In fiction This game has a hollow world map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoodNv (talk • contribs) 02:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Verne's A Journey to the Center of the Earth
I haven't read this in a long time. If I remember correctly, Verne imagines a vast underground sea, stretching from Iceland to the Mediterranean, with internal sources of light. I got the impression that he intended a vast cavern, not the interior of a spherical earth, nor the exterior of another spherical body inside. Maybe this article should distinguish cavern narratives from inverted-world hollow earth narratives. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Split article up!
This article talks about two vastly different theories, one being that planet earth would be hollow, and the other being that the entire universe would be inside-out. Theory #1 is just silly, whereas theory #2 is scientifically irrefutable (but can be refuted by means of Occam's razor). The only thing the two theories have in common is that people mistakenly use the same names for it. Thus, the article should be split up. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate contrary evidence
The contrary evidence saying "The solid sphere is the best way in which to minimize the gravitational potential energy" really only applies to non-rotating matter. The rotation effect creates a centrifugal force that pushes matter to the surface and this would partially counteract the force of gravity. the honeycomb earth theory is based on the effect of both forces Normana400 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It is technically inaccurate, but really only pedantically. The form that minimizes gravitational potential energy, accounting for pressure and the centrifugal potential, is a solid oblate spheroid. I'll add a clarification. Justin Kunimune (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

theory by Amico-Roxas deleted
this section has been deleted: --- The mathematician and physicist Paolo Emilio Amico-Roxas in his books Il problema dello spazio e la concezione del mondo: la teoria endosferica del campo o sistema cosmocentrico (1960) and La suprema armonia dell'universo: la teoria endosferica del campo (1990) he develops a cosmogonic theory partially based on the hollow earth theory but giving a strong scientific basis. With the aims to resolve some problems of standard cosmogony (like energy conservation in an expanding universe), with geometric exactitude the author exposes an alternative cosmogonic model based on non-Euclidean geometry, in whitch the Earth is shaped within an hollow sphere that contains the whole universe and that subject to field laws, but that the human being perceives it as described by standard cosmogony through his own sensory experience. He highlights, according to Einstein's Theory of relativity, that the universe is not Euclidean and the propagation of the light is rectilinear in a non-Euclidean sense (the light rays run on geodetics, which in the Euclidean sense are curviline). Through the application of the transformation by reciprocal vector rays the author shows how it's possible the passage from a convex sphere (called exosphere) to a concave sphere (defined endosphere). ---

NewEnglandYankee deleted it with the follow reason: "OK, I read it two times. It was gibberish the second time, too." So, the question is: beyond the fact that this model is real or not (because in this view the entire wiki hollow earth article could be considered nonsense), it is really gibberish or, is it difficult to understand because some basic physics and mathematics are needed? Amico-Roxas' model of the Earth is essentially based on non-Euclidean geometry, on the physical concept of the field, on the curvature of Einstein's space in which the propagation of light is not straight (the light in this model follows the lines of a field) and on the transformation by reciprocal vector rays, that is used for switching from euclidean to non-euclidean spaces. So, for understand how the model works is needed, at least, to know these:

Non-Euclidean geometry - Field (physics) - Einstein field equations - and for the transformation by reciprocal vector rays: "Liouville, Joseph." Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Encyclopedia.com. (July 7, 2018). http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/liouville-joseph also called Circular Inversion (see Inversive geometry) This paragraph need to be reviewed by someone has knowledge of math & physics, because reviewers without that skills should not delete (so lightly) all that they doesn't understand. Is this statement correct? Thanks.


 * Just as importantly, it's a peripheral argument from a single person that has too little importance to be cited in this article. Mathematical models of physical systems are a dime a dozen - a lire a dozen, in this case - and not worthy of mention by themselves unless they've had some impact. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your good answer. Reading that (from the article):

--- In one chapter of his book On the Wild Side (1992), Martin Gardner discusses the Hollow Earth model articulated by Abdelkader. According to Gardner, this hypothesis posits that light rays travel in circular paths, and slow as they approach the center of the spherical star-filled cavern. No energy can reach the center of the cavern, which corresponds to no point a finite distance away from Earth in the widely accepted scientific cosmology. A drill, Gardner says, would lengthen as it traveled away from the cavern and eventually pass through the "point at infinity" corresponding to the center of the Earth in the widely accepted scientific cosmology. Supposedly no experiment can distinguish between the two cosmologies.

Gardner notes that "most mathematicians believe that an inside-out universe, with properly adjusted physical laws, is empirically irrefutable". Gardner rejects the concave Hollow Earth hypothesis on the basis of Occam's razor.[48]

Purportedly verifiable hypotheses of a "Concave Hollow Earth" need to be distinguished from a thought experiment which defines a coordinate transformation such that the interior of the Earth becomes "exterior" and the exterior becomes "interior". (For example, in spherical coordinates, let radius r go to R2/r where R is the Earth's radius.) The transformation entails corresponding changes to the forms of physical laws. This is not a hypothesis but an illustration of the fact that any description of the physical world can be equivalently expressed in more than one way.[49] --- At this point I would ask: who decided that this one, that refers to a work made by a single person (Martin Gardner), has enough importance to be cited in this wiki article and is not only one of the "a dime a dozen - a lire a dozen" (as you wrote) of Mathematical models of physical systems? Because the only cited source about Martin Gardner idea is the book itself by him wrote, who decided that it is worthy of mention by themselves or that it has had some impact? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.155.186.219 (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts - type in four tildes at the end. It's very confusing otherwise to know who's saying what, and when. (the SineBot just did it for you, but you should do it yourself.)
 * As for who decides, the people who edit the article decide as we proceed, and that decision may change over time. That's how wikipedia works. So far, you're the only person who thinks this one hypothesis is worthy of mention. Martin Gardner is internationally known and his works have been commented on and reported on and analyzed by many, many people. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Soapboxing
, and  violated WP:SOAP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Language problem
Add many languages in this site Sri creation (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , click here. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Start of History Section is not really about "Hollow Earth"
The first section of the "History" section is not about the theory/myth of the whole earth being hollow, but about subterranean spaces of various sort. The name should refer properly only to theories of the Earth being mostly a self-supporting empty shell, without support from some core. I would think that Halley's theory still qualifies because the inner shells would be disconnected from the outer one. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agartha Conspiracy Theory
''Hollow Earth also recurs in conspiracy theories such as the underground kingdom of Agartha and is often said to be inhabited by mythological figures or political leaders. ''

Why is this labeled as a conspiracy theory? The Agartha article simply referrers to this as a legend. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)