If a magnetic field flows through the earth then why hasn't the extreme heat in the core destroyed the field?
Has anyone heard of it getting warmer as you reach the north pole? Is this true and why does this happen?

Because earth is hollow

Uh well... magnetic fields are not destroyed by heat. Magnets are.

That was a 2 question post and the 2 questions are probably completely unrelated.

I think you are referring to Admiral Byrd's expedition, in which he claimed to go towards the North Pole, and found a way to sail into the interior of the Hollow Earth. He did claim that it felt warmer and that he spotted exotic animals. He also said that he spoke to the inhabitants, who were highly advanced.

Not a whole lot of proof to back this up (you'd think he could have brought back a flower or something, a la H.G. Wells), nor has any other credible expedition to the North found this hole (it isn't in the satellite pictures either). But, hey, if you got $5,000.00 to spare, there is a group of Hollow Earth supporters who are setting up their own trip to retrace the route! No guarantees, unfortunetely. Just do a search on Hollow Earth, and you'll find them.

Well I don't Byrd was the only one to notice this. I even have a picture of rabbits in the north pole, though it's probably faked. I know about the inner earth theory but I was wondering if there is another explanation. I'm sorry I can't tell you who discovered this but I was hopping someone here would know.
Considering the solid earth theory, is it at all possible for it to get warmer at the north pole?

I think what you may be referring to is the temperature in polar latitudes
undergoing warming seasonal averages. The effect is causing the poles
to lose iceshelf material.

The result is that the earth is losing ellipsoid shape, in small increments,
and warming ever so "slightly''.

I did a post on this, with my calculations, from A-Z.

I gave the scientific basis, but no one seemed too interested.
To save bandwidth, I remove my posts if they bore people.

I will not repeat that experience...but if I may.

The earth has a obloid core~~~.
This is due to the layers of the interior.
Of course, they are covered by the exterior. Top down, you have
watery mantle, then crust over viscous molten material, and in the center,
a molten liquid core. As it rotates, with the earth, it displaces the
liquid core into, or rather it tosses it outward, against the higher viscous
layer. Where it contacts cooler, viscous material, the molten core loses
energy and heat, and makes semi-solids.
These line up and accrete tothe midline of the core, which increases the gravity/density along the midline of the core.

The sun and the moon 'tug' at this buildup, and it all creates the bulge
that exists at the equatorial line. The bulge amounts to some
15-1600 kilometers difference, between the polar circumference,
and the greater circumference at the equator.

As the poles melt, weight is displaced further south, by water migration.
This weight flatens the poles, as well, so as it is displaced by ice/water
migrationsouthward, the poles are less flat. The climate is also somewhat
perturbed.

What melts the poles?

Greenhouse gases, El Nino and La Nina, Ozone Holes, volcanic dust,
solar flares and storms, and more infrared energy.

This almost deals with your question, it is a page I made.

http://www.geocities.com/swj20x2/TurnTurnT...l?1078963955707

While the weather is interesting, the world has subtle energies, such as the
magnetic fields, and the effects of gravity.

You might want to branch out, a small bit, and look a site I mention.
Before you do, just consider...
People map the earth and chart the weather.
To measure the world, the survey it.
To present their data, they often refer to the mean (medium) sea-level.
This is called the geoid of the world.
It describes the world as an irregular ellipsoid, which in fact it is.
Geoid. The world and its shape, in the eyes of many scientists.

So, the world is irregular, with mantle plates piling over one another.
This increases local density, and gravity. The topography of the ocean's
bottom is irregular, thus, and the gravity on the ocean varies.
This may have some effect on the weather, ultimatley.

I did an extensive explanantion of gravity, and investigations into it.
But, I removed them...

Here is a map, a gravity model. It shows the subluxing (under) in the Indian Ocean mantles which went under the Himalayas, and also the
South Pacific densities.

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/files/images/hi-r.../bumpyearth.jpg

And, here is this gravity/weather project, I mentioned.

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

The difference between the polar and equatorial diameters of the Earth is around 42kms (12714 to 12756). That means that the difference in RADIUS ® is around 21kms.

Since the circumference of the Earth is 2 x Pi x r, the difference in circumference would be around 130kms.

Don't know about that pot, but the hammer was throughly proven to be only about 100 years old. It was apperantly dropped in a crevice and surrouded sediment, which then hardened to a similar consistency as the limestone around it. It was widely touted as proof of a young earth, until scientists began demanding pieces of the handle for carbon dating. After several refusals, a piece was finally analyzed, and the fraud exposed.
It is very easy for this type of mistake to be made. That is why geologist require not just education, but field experience as well. To a layman, it is almost impossible to tell the different ages of solidified rock merely by looking at them.

i was unaware of the hammer's age.

but carbon dating , and any other type of dating tecnique should be taken with a grain of salt, the crystal that the nail was found in was dated to be a million years old. link
another rock ,dated to 21 million years had a rusty screw in it.

I'm afraid I have to disagree that carbon dating needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Since the discrepencies in dating found back in the seventies were discovered, the radiocarbon dating method has undergone, and still goes, through several recalibrations regularly to keep it as accurate as possible. It is compared to objects of known age, such as tree ring geneology.
The point that I really wish to make is that many people tend to casually dismiss skeptical scientists with the claims of dogmatism. While there are certainly a few of these around, they are in the minority. Please remember that the reason most scientist dismiss these claims is because they have so often encountered similar claims that did not follow proper procedures to verify validity. Those procedures are in place specifically to prevent frauds and errors. Without them, it is very difficult, often impossible to verify age. Whether the item is from an ancient civilization or not, proof of its age has been compromised.
There is nothing quite so frustrating to the scientific researcher of the fringe sciences than the enthusiastic zealot who discovers something significant, then proceeds to destroy its credibility through sloppy scientific methodology.

aquatus,

as for the dogmatism remark, i assure you i choose no religion.

i hardly think that a 21 million year old rock would have a rusty screw in it.
the rock was found in 1851. i would love to see what date they give it today.

the point of what i have posted is that there are things found that do not get reported in mainstream news, or not reported at all because they dont fit the 'standard model' the accepted view of how things are and were. carbon dating may be good for some things but its obviously not good for everything.

and just in case you were doubtful about the anamolous objects i have found a more credible site that reports on the nail , the screw, and a whole lot more click

Actually, I was refering to the scientists themselves being dogmatic, not you. There are, unfortunately, scientific snobs who are so certain in their knowledge that they dismiss anything they consider 'fringe'.
For instance, in this case, I could be accused of ignoring the evidence provided in the latest link simply because it doesn't fit the standard model. That would, however, be incorrect. The reason I dismiss the evidence is because the site itself lacks credibility, being a compilation of little more than personal testimonies (which would be, at best, circumstancial evidence in a courtroom), and the articles presented are liberaly sprinkled with items debunked or proven incorrect several years, sometimes decades ago (such as the hammer, the Ica stones,, etc...). One gets tired of seeing the same old things over and over again, so you dismiss them in a manner which could well be considered smug or arrogant. It's actually just tiredness. I would love to see one of these items studied in a professional, scientific manner, however to date, no anomolous object has remained so upon scrutiny.

Man, I must sound like such a prick...sorry ;-)

Like I said in another thread, some people are very good at dismissing theories that they feel uncomfortable with......and scientists are no exception.

Scientists are the quintessential experts at that......because they're in a position of having enough knowledge to be able to construct a convincing enough argument to dismiss something, which most people (who aren't necessarily knowledgeable) won't question.