Everybody probably knows that there are some crazy (ok, delusional) people
who seriously believe in a flat Earth (for a reason that completely escapes
me, if mental illnesses or seriously low IQs are disregarded).

  That's not the only crazy hypothesis that some people seriously believe.
Another one is the hollow Earth hypothesis. There really are people out
there who seriously and honestly believe this (or at the very least consider
it plausible). And not only that the Earth is hollow, but that there's an
"inner sun" and an advanced civilization inside the Earth.

  There many several-hours-long pseudodocumentaries about this subject
(some even shown on TV channels such as the History Channel; go figure),
but for the life of me I cannot find even one single source that would
even *attempt* to explain the physics of this, which is what I would be
most interested in hearing (because it always amuses me when these people
try to struggle to explain how physical impossibilities are actually
possible). Granted, I have only skimmed through the many videos trying
to catch a glimpse of even the simples physical explanation, and I have
read the Wikipedia article on the subject, to no avail. For example one
pseudo-documentary goes on and on and on and on about ancient myths, more
recent myths, folklore, wild conspiracy theories (often including nazis)
and so on, but not even one single attempt at explaining the *physics* of
a hollow Earth with an "inner sun" and a civilization living inside there.

  In fact, most of these pseudodocumentaries are extremely vague about
the details. They often don't even mention *where* exactly this supposed
advanced civilization resides. On the inner surface of the hollow crust?
Somewhere else? Where? They all only talk about a civilization living inside
the Earth without going into more detail. Just inside there, somewhere,
somehow.

  The thing is, even if the shell of the hollow Earth would be strong enough
to not to collapse under its own gravity (which btw is physically impossible,
as no material is even nearly that strong, taking into account the mass of
the Earth), anything on the inner surface of this shell would fall into the
central "inner sun" due to that sun's gravity. There is no force of gravity,
or any other force pointing outwards inside this hollow shell. An "inner sun"
would cause anything on the inner surface of the shell to fall into it.

  I would like to see their attempt to explain this away with their
pseudophysics. It would be amusing. I just can't find any such explanation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/9/2011 1:21 PM, Warp wrote:
>    I would like to see their attempt to explain this away with their
> pseudophysics. It would be amusing. I just can't find any such explanation.

The closest thing I've seen is the argument that a hollow earth is 
possible because our theories of gravity are wrong.  You're correct that 
it's amusing though, here's an example:

http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2010/08/gravity-modern-enigma.html

Clearly there's a multitude of obvious issues with what his argument 
seems to be here.  That whole blog is probably worth taking a look at if 
you're interested in people who believe this theory BTW.  A reasonable 
fraction of the posts at least make an attempt to sound scientific, so 
they're more fun to read IMHO.

Also, check out this quote from another site:

"
I agree with you that hollow planets theory of gravity does not agree 
with this.

Any people on the interior of the earth, according to orthodox gravity 
theory, would be WEIGHTLESS and floating around. If our theories about 
the hollow earth, however, are true, that the interior earth inhabitants 
have their feet firmly planted on the inner surface, this means, that 
orthodox gravity theory must be revised. One or the other must be wrong. 
If we prove planets are hollow, gravity theory will HAVE to be revised. 
Perhaps this would lead to gravity control, and gravity
control will lead to free energy for all. Maybe here is another reason 
the hollow earth is still World Top Secret!
"


Another related theory you might enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

Post a reply to this message

On 09/11/2011 09:21 PM, Warp wrote:

>    That's not the only crazy hypothesis that some people seriously believe.
> Another one is the hollow Earth hypothesis. There really are people out
> there who seriously and honestly believe this (or at the very least consider
> it plausible). And not only that the Earth is hollow, but that there's an
> "inner sun" and an advanced civilization inside the Earth.

You've got to admit, if there really *was* an unknown inner-world hidden 
right beneath our feet, that would be extremely cool. Who wouldn't want 
to believe that? Oh, yeah, I forgot - anyone who wants to be taken 
seriously ever again. :-P

>    There many several-hours-long pseudodocumentaries about this subject
> (some even shown on TV channels such as the History Channel; go figure),

Fantasy makes good TV. It's entertaining if not exactly factual.

> but for the life of me I cannot find even one single source that would
> even *attempt* to explain the physics of this

That's not greatly surprising, given the multiple simultaneous ways in 
which this is completely impossible.

>    In fact, most of these pseudodocumentaries are extremely vague about
> the details. They often don't even mention *where* exactly this supposed
> advanced civilization resides. On the inner surface of the hollow crust?
> Somewhere else? Where? They all only talk about a civilization living inside
> the Earth without going into more detail. Just inside there, somewhere,
> somehow.

That's probably because if you actually engage your brain and THINK 
about that for a moment... you start realising how utterly absurd it is, 
and immediately stop believing such nonsense.

>    The thing is, even if the shell of the hollow Earth would be strong enough
> to not to collapse under its own gravity (which btw is physically impossible,
> as no material is even nearly that strong, taking into account the mass of
> the Earth), anything on the inner surface of this shell would fall into the
> central "inner sun" due to that sun's gravity. There is no force of gravity,
> or any other force pointing outwards inside this hollow shell. An "inner sun"
> would cause anything on the inner surface of the shell to fall into it.

1. If the Earth is hollow, wouldn't that *significantly* alter its mass?

2. A hollow Earth-sized structure with a vacuum inside would surely 
collapse pretty quickly, no matter what you made it of, but if it was 
filled with an atmosphere of some kind, at absurd pressure, it might 
work. (Isn't that what a bubble is, after all?)

3. It's not quite correct to say that "no force" would hold people's 
feet onto the anti-ground. There is one: centrifugal force due to the 
Earth's rotation. Sure, it's a force several orders of magnitude too 
small to make the slightest shred of difference, but it's real.

4. A *star* inside Earth? Um... do these people know how big stars 
actually are? If you hollowed out the Sun, you could fit one million 
copies of the Earth inside it - and the Sun isn't a particularly large star!

(The Sun also has 333,000 times Earth's mass, and at its surface it has 
28 times as much gravity as at Earth's surface...)

Still, I guess when you look up at the Sun [DO NOT EVER DO THIS!], it 
looks quite small... :-P

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> The closest thing I've seen is the argument that a hollow earth is 
> possible because our theories of gravity are wrong.  You're correct that 
> it's amusing though, here's an example:

> http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2010/08/gravity-modern-enigma.html

  I just love the cherry-picking that these people do.

  The pioneer anomaly is indeed existent (as well as the flyby anomaly,
which might or might not be related, and which the blogger missed even
though it would have been a wonderful addition to the list) and physicists
fully acknowledge its existence.

  The problem is that mentioning only it is cherry picking. It ignores the
hundreds and thousands of other experiments which can be and have been used
to corroborate GR, and they do give accurate results to as much precision
as we can measure, exactly how GR predicts.

  So if we have something like a thousands different experiments that
confirm GR to the highest degree of measurable accuracy, and two which
deviate a bit from it, which option is more probable, that GR is wrong,
or that there's something else affecting those two particular cases?

  It's also making a category error. While pioneer and flyby anomalies
are significant (in the statistical sense, iow. they cannot be attributed
solely to measurement errors), they are minuscule. Even if (and that's a
big if) they mean that GR has to be fine-tuned, the change wouldn't be
large. On the other hand, if the hollow Earth hypothesis is correct, it
would require a completely humongous change in not only the theory of
gravity, but to most other physics as well.

  It's a bit like saying that "the measurement of the distance between the
Earth and the Moon using a laser has an error of 1 meter; that means that
we could just as well estimate the diamater of the Earth to be 1 kilometer".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 1. If the Earth is hollow, wouldn't that *significantly* alter its mass?

  The only claim that I have ever seen to explain that is that the "inner
sun" accounts for the missing mass.

> 2. A hollow Earth-sized structure with a vacuum inside would surely 
> collapse pretty quickly, no matter what you made it of, but if it was 
> filled with an atmosphere of some kind, at absurd pressure, it might 
> work. (Isn't that what a bubble is, after all?)

  No amount of atmosphere would be able to hold the shell under Earth's
gravity. It would just crumble and collapse. The only reason why the
Earth does not collapse is because it's fully made of rock and metal.
(No double entendre intended.)

> 3. It's not quite correct to say that "no force" would hold people's 
> feet onto the anti-ground. There is one: centrifugal force due to the 
> Earth's rotation. Sure, it's a force several orders of magnitude too 
> small to make the slightest shred of difference, but it's real.

  Even at the equator it's over 300 times weaker than g. That means that
if someone were to make a jump at the equator that would normally boost
him 1 meter into the air, would boost him over 300 meters into the air.

  Anyways, the majority of these hollow Earth theories claim that there's
an "inner sun" at the center of the Earth (which explains how the interior
surface of the Earth is habitable). The gravity of that sun would be strong
enough to pull anything on the inner surface of the Earth, which would then
fall into this 'sun'.

> 4. A *star* inside Earth? Um... do these people know how big stars 
> actually are? If you hollowed out the Sun, you could fit one million 
> copies of the Earth inside it - and the Sun isn't a particularly large star!

  A body of eg. the size of the inner core of the Earth could indeed not
have enough mass to cause a fusion reaction, and hence it would not be a
star at all. It would be just a small moon, a lifeless rock. (It could not
be made of gas because it would be too small to maintain its shape.)

  The only "star" that small would be a neutron star, which in turn would
be *so* massive that the Earth would collapse into it in a microsecond.
(Not to talk that a neutron star does not have a fusion reaction going on
either. Also the radiation that a neutron star emits would kill all life
on earth in another microsecond.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/11/10 04:22, Invisible a écrit :

> Still, I guess when you look up at the Sun [DO NOT EVER DO THIS!], it
> looks quite small... :-P

At least one guy realy beleive, or beleived, that an elephan was bigger 
than the moon, and the Sun... After all, the elephan can hide the moon 
or the Sun.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/11/2011 09:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> 1. If the Earth is hollow, wouldn't that *significantly* alter its mass?
>
>    The only claim that I have ever seen to explain that is that the "inner
> sun" accounts for the missing mass.

I meant more that a hollow Earth couldn't withstand the forces that our 
Earth withstands, but if Earth was hollow the forces would be smaller.

>> 2. A hollow Earth-sized structure with a vacuum inside would surely
>> collapse pretty quickly, no matter what you made it of, but if it was
>> filled with an atmosphere of some kind, at absurd pressure, it might
>> work. (Isn't that what a bubble is, after all?)
>
>    No amount of atmosphere would be able to hold the shell under Earth's
> gravity. It would just crumble and collapse. The only reason why the
> Earth does not collapse is because it's fully made of rock and metal.
> (No double entendre intended.)

I'm sure if you had the right gas at insane enough pressure it could 
work. Whether anything could *live* in that is another matter entirely...

>> 3. It's not quite correct to say that "no force" would hold people's
>> feet onto the anti-ground. There is one: centrifugal force due to the
>> Earth's rotation. Sure, it's a force several orders of magnitude too
>> small to make the slightest shred of difference, but it's real.
>
>    Even at the equator it's over 300 times weaker than g.

Quite.

(And I note that the Earth isn't perfectly spherical, so not only is 
centrifugal force strongest at the equator, but gravity is weakest, 
since you're slightly further away from the center of Earth.)

>    Anyways, the majority of these hollow Earth theories claim that there's
> an "inner sun" at the center of the Earth (which explains how the interior
> surface of the Earth is habitable). The gravity of that sun would be strong
> enough to pull anything on the inner surface of the Earth, which would then
> fall into this 'sun'.

Uh, yeah, a "star" is where a ball of gas is so massive that it 
collapses under its own gravity. Pro-tip: There's a reason you don't 
usually find objects near to a star. They tend to fall into it.

>> 4. A *star* inside Earth? Um... do these people know how big stars
>> actually are? If you hollowed out the Sun, you could fit one million
>> copies of the Earth inside it - and the Sun isn't a particularly large star!
>
>    A body of eg. the size of the inner core of the Earth could indeed not
> have enough mass to cause a fusion reaction, and hence it would not be a
> star at all. It would be just a small moon, a lifeless rock. (It could not
> be made of gas because it would be too small to maintain its shape.)
>
>    The only "star" that small would be a neutron star, which in turn would
> be *so* massive that the Earth would collapse into it in a microsecond.
> (Not to talk that a neutron star does not have a fusion reaction going on
> either. Also the radiation that a neutron star emits would kill all life
> on earth in another microsecond.)

I'm being frustrated in my attempts to find any data for star sizes. But 
it seems that most typical types of star are *vastly* bigger than our 
tiny little planet. A neutron star is indeed the only kind I can find 
reference to which is anywhere near small enough to fit inside Earth.

There's a couple of problems with that. The first problem is the insane 
amount of gravity it generates. Any plausible configuration of matter 
having a gravitational field strong enough to crush it to the point 
where fusion, or even significant heating occurs, is going to have a 
similar problem.

Then there's the huge amount of X-ray radiation that neutron stars 
apparently produce.

Then of course, neutron stars are apparently the *final* phase of the 
development of a star, which asks the question of how the **** a star 
ends up being in the center of a planet in the first place. That is an 
entire *other* debate.

Even if we assume that by some freakishly unlikely miracle the Earth has 
a star inside it, there's another problem. The Sun emits about 4 * 10^26 
W of radiation, in all directions. Of that vast amount of energy, a 
vanishingly tiny fraction of it illuminates Earth.

(According to Wolfram Alpha, the Earth orbits the Sun at roughly 93 
million miles. That gives us a sphere with a surface area of roughly 3 * 
10^23 square miles to illuminate. The Earth has a radius of about 4,000 
miles, and so covers an area of this sphere about 50 million square 
miles. 3 * 10^23 / 50 million = 1.6 * 10^-19. So the Earth receives 
roughly 10^-19 of the Sun's radiation.)

Now consider a star enclosed by a planet. That planet would receive not 
10^-19 of the star's radiation, but 10^0 of it - i.e., 100%. Said 
interior might get... a tad warm.

(Think about it. How tiny is the flame in an oven? And yet, ovens get 
pretty damned hot!)

It's almost fun to try to make the math work, just to see how many 
different ways that this idea of a hollow planet is absurdly implausible...

Post a reply to this message

On 11/11/2011 8:47 PM, Invisible wrote:

>
> It's almost fun to try to make the math work, just to see how many
> different ways that this idea of a hollow planet is absurdly implausible...

Not that I support the "Hollow Earth" folk but I'd simply point out for 
the purpose of discussion that all of your arguments are based on 
natural planet and star formation and behaviour.

An alien race with sufficiently advanced technology could in theory at 
least construct and maintain any domicile that they wish and could do so 
for whatever reason they want.  Think force fields to form the hollow 
structure, fusion power for a micro star, gravity manipulation etc. 
Actually, scratch the gravity.  Imagine the living space of not just the 
surface but the entire volume.

Now they'd also have to produce things like the seismic propagation 
patterns that give evidence of the mantle / liquid outer core / solid 
inner core, plate tectonics, volcanism, mineral origin, isotope ratios, 
mass concentrations etc.  Geologists have a pretty clear - but not 
perfect - picture of the supposedly real structure of the Earth going 
down pretty much to the core.  It would be massively difficult to fake 
all of the phenomena realistically.  To do so in order to confuse the 
primitives living on the outer skin seems pretty extravagant and down 
right malicious.  Still who can say what their motives are?

So, mythical, super powerful beings (or being!) living in a hidden place 
who act for their own reasons and take care to produce evidence that 
would lead us not to believe in them / it.  All of this proposed by a 
few nutters who have no understanding of technology, no evidence in 
their favour and no capacity to alter their beliefs based on substantial 
evidence to the contrary.

Where have I heard that before?

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.11.2011 13:16, schrieb Paul Fuller:

> So, mythical, super powerful beings (or being!) living in a hidden place
> who act for their own reasons and take care to produce evidence that
> would lead us not to believe in them / it.

But isn't that where things fall into place? It's clear as daylight: 
That place is Hell itself! No doubt Satan is powerful enough to pull the 
stunt of creating and maintaining it, and of course he wouldn't want 
anyone to believe in Hell, would he?

That's also where the X-rays from that neutron star fit in, as well as 
the inner earth receiving 100% of the inner sun's output. And that 
super-dense gas to stabilize the earth's crust. Hell, yeah!

But of course none of you sheepish fools will believe this, because 
you're being betrayed by Satan's lies.

:-)

Post a reply to this message

On 11/11/2011 12:58 PM, clipka wrote:

> But isn't that where things fall into place? It's clear as daylight:
> That place is Hell itself! No doubt Satan is powerful enough to pull the
> stunt of creating and maintaining it, and of course he wouldn't want
> anyone to believe in Hell, would he?
>
> That's also where the X-rays from that neutron star fit in, as well as
> the inner earth receiving 100% of the inner sun's output. And that
> super-dense gas to stabilize the earth's crust. Hell, yeah!
>
> But of course none of you sheepish fools will believe this, because
> you're being betrayed by Satan's lies.
>
> :-)

Best post of the week.

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
> An alien race with sufficiently advanced technology could in theory at 
> least construct and maintain any domicile that they wish and could do so 
> for whatever reason they want.  Think force fields to form the hollow 
> structure, fusion power for a micro star, gravity manipulation etc. 
> Actually, scratch the gravity.  Imagine the living space of not just the 
> surface but the entire volume.

  We know that the Earth's crust is several kilometers thick (I think it
was something like 5 km thick at the *thinnest* point, so in average it's
much thicker than that), and we know that underneath the crust there's a
significant amount of molten rock (which, among other things, causes
continental drift, and of course volcanos).

  In order for the Earth to be hollow there would have to be an inner
surface strong enough to stop this rocky shell from collapsing under
its own gravity. This rocky shell is really, really heavy. We know
approximately how much solid rock there is in the crust alone (not to
talk about the magma below it), and we know Earth's gravity, so can
can calculate how much force this rocky shell would be exerting on
the inner surface of the hollow Earth.

  Granted, I haven't done the calculations, but I wouldn't be surprised
if the required strength would surpass even the strongest known materials
by several orders of magnitude.

  Another alternative is that the alien technology is keeping Earth's curst
in place by using some unknown form of energy which is a) capable of doing
that, b) strong enough, c) undetectable by our technology.

  Additionally the alien technology would have to simulate how earthquake
waves traverse through the Earth, to give us a false picture of the
different layers inside.

  Seems like a whole lot of trouble and a whole lot of unknown physics
and technology. If aliens are experimenting on us, wouldn't it be much
simpler to just use an old-fashioned solid planet?-)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/12/2011 11:33, Warp wrote:
>    Seems like a whole lot of trouble and a whole lot of unknown physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strata_%28novel%29

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/11/2011 7:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/12/2011 11:33, Warp wrote:
>> Seems like a whole lot of trouble and a whole lot of unknown physics
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strata_%28novel%29
>

Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_Shadows


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

That is pretty much what I said.  Conceptually possible given unknown 
but extremely advanced technology and unknown but extremely unlikely 
motives.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/11/2011 7:29 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 12/11/2011 7:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 11/12/2011 11:33, Warp wrote:
>>> Seems like a whole lot of trouble and a whole lot of unknown physics
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strata_%28novel%29
>>
>
> Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_Shadows
>
>

Or http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_%28novel%29

There was another SF series that I can't recall the name of right now. 
The solar system had been converted to house vastly more humans by 
erecting concentric Dyson spheres approximately at the orbital radii of 
the existing planets.  The planets were left as little legacy worlds 
rotating in blisters within the shells.  These allowed passage between 
the spaces between the shells and therefore for the protagonists to 
travel either inwards or outwards.

There was a nice driver in that the structure was created by an AI 
charged with "providing ever increasing living space for the human 
population".  Initially it appeared that the AI was trying to prevent 
the crew exploring. [Spoiler alert] It turns out that the AI had 
realised the futility of trying to cope with exponential growth and had 
caused the crew to be formed in order to try to resolve the situation 
before its capabilities were exceeded.  It was a bit schizo because it 
could not defy its primary directive but still had to resolve the 
impossibility.

The shells had to be reinforced by some form of force field and gravity 
generators were used to allow occupation of the outer surface of each 
shell.  Fusion generators were used to create mini suns in orbits 
between the shells to provide heat and light.

Then there was a shell where the "humans" were engineered to be smaller 
and able to exist in caverns through a greater volume rather than just 
on the shell surface.  The population was in the trillions or quadrillions.

I read them about 30 years ago.  Probably a bit childish and naive to 
reread but I recall them fondly.

Was it the "Cage World" series ?  Can't turn up any hits through the 
usual means.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/11/2011 10:16 AM, Paul Fuller wrote:
> Or http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_%28novel%29
>

I was thinking of that one too.


> Then there was a shell where the "humans" were engineered to be smaller
> and able to exist in caverns through a greater volume rather than just
> on the shell surface.  The population was in the trillions or quadrillions.

Which reminds me of James Blish's "The Seedling Stars" series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Blish#The_Seedling_Stars_.28Pantropy.29

>
> I read them about 30 years ago.  Probably a bit childish and naive to
> reread but I recall them fondly.
>

I know that feeling. :-)

> Was it the "Cage World" series ?  Can't turn up any hits through the
> usual means.

Sorry, I can't help there. Sounds worth a read, though.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2011 2:11 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/11/2011 10:16 AM, Paul Fuller wrote:
>> Or http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_%28novel%29
>>
>
> I was thinking of that one too.
>

I enjoyed both "Matter" and "Surface Detail".

>
>> Then there was a shell where the "humans" were engineered to be smaller
>> and able to exist in caverns through a greater volume rather than just
>> on the shell surface. The population was in the trillions or
>> quadrillions.
>
> Which reminds me of James Blish's "The Seedling Stars" series.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Blish#The_Seedling_Stars_.28Pantropy.29
>

Haven't read that series.  The only Blish I've read is "Cities in 
Fight".  The idea was good but the writing seemed a bit heavy for my taste.

>>
>> I read them about 30 years ago. Probably a bit childish and naive to
>> reread but I recall them fondly.
>>
>
> I know that feeling. :-)
>

Yes.  Some old favourites you just can't risk reading again.  Others 
stand up well.

>> Was it the "Cage World" series ? Can't turn up any hits through the
>> usual means.
>
> Sorry, I can't help there. Sounds worth a read, though.
>
>

I've searched a little bit more and I have not yet found a reference on 
the web.  Mind you that is searching without knowing the author, any of 
the book titles or character names.  Still I'd expect to turn up 
something based on the slim details that I do remember.  Maybe this is 
the rare case where there is nothing to be found on a topic on the whole 
web?

Post a reply to this message

>
> I've searched a little bit more and I have not yet found a reference on
> the web. Mind you that is searching without knowing the author, any of
> the book titles or character names. Still I'd expect to turn up
> something based on the slim details that I do remember. Maybe this is
> the rare case where there is nothing to be found on a topic on the whole
> web?

I spoke too soon.

Here are the details found at http://www.larryniven.net/mega.shtml:

Author:  Colin Kapp
Title:   Cageworld 1:  Search for the Sun
          Cageworld 2:  The Lost Worlds of Cronus
          Cageworld 3:  The Tyrant of Hades
          Cageworld 4:  Star-Search

Type:    Dyson sphere (type II)
Description:

In the distant future, the Solar System has been transformed into a 
series of concentric shells (one for each planet, plus an extra one 
between Saturn and Uranus, if I remember rightly).  People live on the 
outer surface of each sphere, and have forgotten about the outside universe.

Dimensions of the system (overall):  diameter 12 billion kilometres; 
mass 5.2e36 kilograms (2.6 million Suns).

Which gives enough info to find more references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cageworld_series (very brief)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Kapp (not a lot of detail)
http://www.goodreads.com/series/50535 (this looks like the most detailed 
info on the books)

Yet another obscure interest from my childhood that can be revived 
through the wonders of the Internet.

Post a reply to this message

On 17/11/2011 3:40 PM, Paul Fuller wrote:

>
> I enjoyed both "Matter" and "Surface Detail".
>

I've liked all of Iain M Bank's books even the ones without the M.

>>
>>
>> Which reminds me of James Blish's "The Seedling Stars" series.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Blish#The_Seedling_Stars_.28Pantropy.29
>>
>>
>
> Haven't read that series. The only Blish I've read is "Cities in Fight".
> The idea was good but the writing seemed a bit heavy for my taste.
>

I read them a long time ago and I fear that I would not enjoy reading 
them now.


>
> Yes. Some old favourites you just can't risk reading again. Others stand
> up well.
>

Too true. It shows that it was the new ideas that captivated not the 
literary style.

 > I spoke too soon.
 >
 > Here are the details found at http://www.larryniven.net/mega.shtml:
 >
 > Author:  Colin Kapp
 > Title:   Cageworld 1:  Search for the Sun
 >           Cageworld 2:  The Lost Worlds of Cronus
 >           Cageworld 3:  The Tyrant of Hades
 >           Cageworld 4:  Star-Search


Well done. I really liked Colin Kapp's Unorthodox Engineers when I was 
young. And I see that I have a few of his books in pdf or txt format 
that I have not gotten around to reading, yet.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I would venture to say that some of the people who believe in an 
Underworld with unknown civilizations picture things not so much as a 
hollow sphere with a sun in the middle, but more like the interior of 
the earth (or perhaps the outer mile or so of the crust) being riddled 
with caverns of varying size, some large enough to harbor large 
communities of perhaps thousands of residents.

 From the viewpoint of physics this is actually quite plausible.  There 
are large cave systems in various places around the world, generally 
where there has been no recent seismic activity to speak of.

Of course, the true believers have a ready explanation for why the 
surface people are unaware of what dwells beneath us, and usually the 
explanation involved the untimely demise of everyone who ventures into 
the inhabited portions of the chthonian realm.  Readers of H.P. 
Lovecraft are familiar with this.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 15/12/2011 08:13 PM, John VanSickle wrote:

> Of course, the true believers have a ready explanation for why the
> surface people are unaware of what dwells beneath us, and usually the
> explanation involved the untimely demise of everyone who ventures into
> the inhabited portions of the chthonian realm. Readers of H.P. Lovecraft
> are familiar with this.

I don't know what Lovecraft is, but this all sounds suspiciously like 
Journey to the Centre of the Earth by Jules Verne.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I don't know what Lovecraft is

  Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 16/12/2011 13:17, Warp a écrit :
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I don't know what Lovecraft is
> 
Not what, who.

>   Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
> 
Yes, but who makes the housework around the sleeping beauty ?

- No, Who is Lovecraft.
(in mood of "baseball joke about who/when/... )

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I don't know what Lovecraft is
>
>   Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

If you didn't have to google that, I'm very impressed.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/12/16 04:19, Invisible a écrit :
> On 15/12/2011 08:13 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> Of course, the true believers have a ready explanation for why the
>> surface people are unaware of what dwells beneath us, and usually the
>> explanation involved the untimely demise of everyone who ventures into
>> the inhabited portions of the chthonian realm. Readers of H.P. Lovecraft
>> are familiar with this.
>
> I don't know what Lovecraft is, but this all sounds suspiciously like
> Journey to the Centre of the Earth by Jules Verne.

He is THE master of fantastic/nightmarish literature.
I started reading one of his novels, could not finish it nor sleep for 
about a week after that... Next, I read the Acopalypse in the bible and 
found it rather boring :P


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-12-16 20:21, Alain a écrit :
> Le 2011/12/16 04:19, Invisible a écrit :
>> On 15/12/2011 08:13 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, the true believers have a ready explanation for why the
>>> surface people are unaware of what dwells beneath us, and usually the
>>> explanation involved the untimely demise of everyone who ventures into
>>> the inhabited portions of the chthonian realm. Readers of H.P. Lovecraft
>>> are familiar with this.
>>
>> I don't know what Lovecraft is, but this all sounds suspiciously like
>> Journey to the Centre of the Earth by Jules Verne.
>
> He is THE master of fantastic/nightmarish literature.
> I started reading one of his novels, could not finish it nor sleep for
> about a week after that... Next, I read the Acopalypse in the bible and
> found it rather boring :P
>
>
> Alain

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 10 lines --]

> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > > I don't know what Lovecraft is
> >
> >   Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

> If you didn't have to google that, I'm very impressed.

  I think this description is quite evocative:

  "How to describe these grotesque mockeries of natural law? There are no
words that can encompass such disgusting foulness, not in English or any
other human tongue. They are The Other. The Inconceivable. Alien beyond
comprehension, their sole existence is an affront to all reason. We could
speak of painfully dissonant noises and nauseating colours, ichor-dripping
vermiform tentacles and abyssal yonic voids, or complex mathematical
geometries, but those are mere superficialities. Monstrous and sick though
these stigmata are, they do not define the abominations; they are merely
among some of the more common symptoms of their underlying wrongness.
They are the things that should not be, the ultimate aliens. It is this
what makes them abominable, and it is this that horrifies and reduces to
gibbering madness all but the strongest of those who encounter them."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/12/27 11:57, Warp a écrit :
> Bill Pragnell<bil### [at] hotmailcom>  wrote:
>> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 10 lines --]
>
>> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>>> I don't know what Lovecraft is
>>>
>>>    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
>
>> If you didn't have to google that, I'm very impressed.
>
>    I think this description is quite evocative:
>
>    "How to describe these grotesque mockeries of natural law? There are no
> words that can encompass such disgusting foulness, not in English or any
> other human tongue. They are The Other. The Inconceivable. Alien beyond
> comprehension, their sole existence is an affront to all reason. We could
> speak of painfully dissonant noises and nauseating colours, ichor-dripping
> vermiform tentacles and abyssal yonic voids, or complex mathematical
> geometries, but those are mere superficialities. Monstrous and sick though
> these stigmata are, they do not define the abominations; they are merely
> among some of the more common symptoms of their underlying wrongness.
> They are the things that should not be, the ultimate aliens. It is this
> what makes them abominable, and it is this that horrifies and reduces to
> gibbering madness all but the strongest of those who encounter them."
>

Makes me think of the Call of Ktul'hu role playing game. In that game 
you play "investigators" looking into some strange appening. You should 
NOT get to attached to your persona, nor spend to much time creating him.
It's arguably the role playing game with the lowest survival expectacy 
of them all. After the first game cession, your investigator will almost 
surely be dead, changed to a raving lunatic, plunged in a catatonic 
state or some other such state.
You may not even encounter any creature, only reading some dark book or 
handling some artefact may doom you.


Alain

Post a reply to this message