In the final two chapters of the book I explore Hollow Planet Theory and how it might relate to the problem of continental drift. In spite of my comments about seismology I'm sure someone will still say to me that Plate Tectonic theory disproves the idea of Hollow Planets.

It is amusing to note that the theory of continental drift was regarded as the preside of crackpots and fools for decades, until new data suddenly caused scientists to make an about-turn and to embrace it and rename it Plate Tectonics. Woe to anyone who dares challenge Plate Tectonic theory. Woe to me! I wondered how Hollow Planet theory would hold up to something as entrenched as Plate Tectonics. And that's what this chapter is about. It is a comparison between these two completely different lines of thought.

I suggest that continental drift may be an illusion. Continental drift might actually be a misinterpretation of Pole Shifts. It may be that the Earth undergoes a redistribution of weight and therefore tilts upon its axis from time to time. Such tilting may over many millions of years completely reorientate the Earth.

Continents are thought to be permanent features. I have my doubts. If continents were left to themselves they would be destroyed in a mere 10 million years by erosion alone (based on erosion statistics). Scientists believe that there is mountain-building going on which is responsible for keeping the continents above sea-level. This point is discussed in detail since I have my doubts about this process.

I point to the existence of guyots in the oceans. Guyots are submerged mountains which have had their tops eroded off. The problem is that the flat-topped guyots now lie far below sea-level. Their flat-tops however are evidence that they once lay at sea-level. Waves eroded their tops off and made them flat. So why are they now lying so deep in the sea? Scientists believe that ocean levels rose and fell due to ice-ages. Or could it be that land can actually subside on a Hollow Planet? I take the Reader through verious detailed discussions of land which has obviously subsided and where various scientists suggest this happened.

There are some geologists who believe the Earth has expanded. These geologists vigorously attack the concept of subduction where one plate moves over another. They say this phenomenon is not real. They show that subduction is merely a feature of the Pacific and that it does not really exist anywhere else where Plate Tectonics demands it should be (e.g. Africa).

One of the most convincing pieces of evidence for Plate tectonics is the apparent fit of the coastlines of South America and Africa. When various fits are applied to all the continents one finds that some are not so clean and that one must chop various pieces of land off. In another case a scientist showed that part of the Australian coastline actually fits well into the east coast of North America. This is an improbable fit which could never have taken place and yet the coastlines match exactly. This of course devalues the concept of continent fitting. It may mean that we must not read too much into continent-fitting.

Then there is the problem of the energy needed to drive Plate tectonics. Continents do not float aimlessly like ice-bergs on the sea. They are deeply rooted and it requires an incredible amount of energy to move them. Is this process really practical?

All these things make me wonder if the theory of Plate Tectonics is really as viable as we have been led to believe.