Concave Earth Discussion (Convex and Flat Earth Advocates Welcome)
0 2016-04-26 by DirtyBird9889
I love Reddit because there is an appropriate place to discuss virtually anything. I myself love to dive into the alternative earth model theories.
There are dedicated subs to discuss flat earth, hollow earth, simulation theory, all with enthusiastic advocates.
Yet there just doesn't seem to be any real discussion about the concave earth theory.
It is my contention that any phenomenon that shows inconsistencies with the heliocentric convex model, or with the flat earth model, can be reconciled using the concave earth model. In my experience, most flat earth arguments actually point to a concave earth rather than a flat one (with the exception of flight paths, to me that is still a puzzle.)
Furthermore, I contend that the concave model is the most complete model, or rather it has the least observable issues.
I know there are those out there that have been exploring the concave model longer than I have and I welcome you to share your thoughts and sources here.
I also welcome anyone with questions about the concave model to ask them here and I will give it my best shot to answer them or at the very least provide you with a source that attempts to answer it.
I am certain that this thread will attract many ad hominem attacks, however, I will only be addressing arguments rather than users.
So let's do it this way: I contend that the earth is concave and the heavenly bodies rotate within the center. If you believe I am wrong: why?
65 comments
8 EndlessCompassion 2016-04-26
Occam's razor.
And I've been on aeroplanes with gps.
-3 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
See the problem with this is that I could just as easily say that I have concluded that the Earth is concave using Occam's razor, which I in fact have.
I would like to hear more about this aeroplane gps though. You are saying you flew in a commercial or private aeroplane at altitude and you were able to use gps? How so and what for?
7 EndlessCompassion 2016-04-26
Things in 0 gravity become spheres. Also there is no reason this conspiracy would exist, nothing to hid and no one benefits.
Both commercial and private; for entertainment and navigation.
Flight plans are curved because earth is a sphere.
1 DethFiesta 2016-04-26
It is trivially easy to prove that the Earth is not flat.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
Hey DethFiesta,
This is the now the second time I have attempted to have a discussion about the concave earth and your response has been in regards to the flat earth.
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/48ozso/any_of_you_got_interesting_documentarieslinks_on/d0mhouv
I find it peculiar... And given the amount of time we spent discussing the flat earth and agreeing about the flaws in the model it seems to me you might at least recognize my username.
Either way I appreciate the contribution.
2 DethFiesta 2016-04-26
It is also trivially easy to prove that the Earth is not concave. And yes, GPS receivers work in any airplane at any location on the globe. GPS was designed specifically for this purpose.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
I don't know man, my GPS didn't work on my flight home from Dallas 3 weeks ago. I understand what it is designed to do, but it does behave differently than I would expect.
Also, before you say it, I believe that satellites exist and that they can transmit information. My contention is that they revolve around the celestial sphere, and the circumference of their orbit is actually smaller than the circumference of the earth.
For some reason they behave differently in the southern hemisphere than in the north. In theory there should be no difference. Any idea why?
2 DethFiesta 2016-04-26
Your anecdotal evidence isn't data. It is anecdotal. What kind of GPS receiver were you using? A real one has no trouble at all anywhere on Earth it can see 3 satellites.
And of course, it is trivially easy to prove that the orbit of the satellites is not smaller than the Earth.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
That's the third time in this thread alone you have began a sentence with "It is trivially easy to prove..." without offering any evidence whatsoever.
At least anecdotal evidence is a form of evidence. I assure you there is no one still reading this thread so there is no one to impress with your smug attitude, and you certainly aren't impressing me.
I have a phone for work and a personal phone. I booted them up and loaded up AT&T navigation on my work phone and loaded up Waze on my personal phone and in both cases the app "could not find [my] location," which I found odd considering that I should have been in clearer view of GPS satellites.
Flights are not tracked in the Southern Hemisphere when they are over the ocean. This is because there are no radar stations across the ocean and the flight GPS is intended to receive the flight's position from satellites but not to transmit. This puzzles me considering that I was unable to receive GPS reception on my flight over the US.
Either way, it is trivially easy to count the number of fingers on my hand. It is not trivially easy to determine a satellite's location, altitude, velocity, etc. and calculate the circumference of its path, give me a break.
I could look up a satellite's altitude and do simple math to determine the circumference of it's path, but without knowing if the earth is convex or concave the results would be meaningless.
Care to offer any sort of argument?
2 DethFiesta 2016-04-26
Waze is not GPS. Waze has nothing to do with GPS. Your Dunning-Kruger is showing.
Yes, GPS is a RECEIVE-ONLY thing.
"It is not trivially easy to determine a satellite's location, altitude, velocity, etc. and calculate the circumference of its path, give me a break."
Sure it is. The position and velocity of all GPS satellites are publicly available knowledge.
"Care to offer any sort of argument?"
Sure. Tell me: why are there 2 Celestial Poles? Why do we see objects obscured by the distant horizon? None of our astronomical observations align with a concave Earth. Why do we see negative declination of stars as we travel towards the equator? Why can't we aim a telescope at the sky and see the other side of the Earth? '
On a concave surface we should be able to see the majority of the rest of the planet from any position on the inner surface of the concave object. Your Dunning-kruger is showing HARD.
It is trivially easy to prove that the Earth is not concave.
Measure the angles of shadows cast at different lattitudes. The results only make sense on a convex surface.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
Can you fill me in on how Waze works? Everything I am reading says it does use global positioning satellites... I hope it isn't my supreme intellect deceiving me again... </s>
Of course it is public information, and of course we can make calculations based on those numbers but that doesn't actually prove that they are orbiting a globe rather than rotating within the celestial sphere. In either case the observational effect would be the same (although the actual velocity of the satellite would be much slower in comparison in a the concave model.)
Your critiques are giving me Déjà vu.
I have already attempted to explain how the celestial poles work. The celestial sphere prevents you from seeing to the other side of the earth, and light curves towards the center of the celestial sphere which is why we can see things that we shouldn't be able to see on a convex earth but we also can't see forever. It also explains why the horizon is always perceivedly eye level.
The sun still rotates around the equator of the celestial sphere so it would still give us the same observational difference in the angles of our shadows based on our latitude.
All of this aside, until your comment I was unaware of the Dunning-Kruger effect so i appreciate you giving me the opportunity to learn something new. I also realize that you must think I am a complete numskull that thinks he is smart, so for that I thank you for even entertaining this discussion.
I do not believe that any of your critiques actually break the model even if I have done an unsatisfactory job at explaining the effect to you.
2 DethFiesta 2016-04-26
Waze uses normal cellular data. GPS is receive-only. User's phones send their data back to the servers using cellular protocols. The fact that you couldn't connect to it meant you were out of cell service, not GPS range. Your Dunning-Kruger is showing.
The horizon is not always perceivedly eye level. Here's what it looks like when you actually measure this rather than just take a photo and claim eye level.
http://imgur.com/cBrTtzR
"light curves towards the center of the celestial sphere which is why we can see things that we shouldn't be able to see on a convex earth but we also can't see forever."
What causes this curving? What things shouldn't we be able to see on a convex Earth?
"Of course it is public information, and of course we can make calculations based on those numbers but that doesn't actually prove that they are orbiting a globe rather than rotating within the celestial sphere."
Yes it does. The mathematical outcomes are not the same. Your Dunning-Kruger is showing.
Tell me: what math describes your model? Where is your model being accurately presented for scrutiny?
1 DethFiesta 2016-04-26
Where did you go? Didn't like the feeling of having your horseshit laid bare?
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
Honestly I am enjoying this back and forth. I am starting to wish I could change my username to /u/DunningKruger.
I do want to respond to your comment but I have been tied up with work and shit so I was going to type up and source my response when I get a minute this weekend
What is the source of that image you posted with the horizon? It looks like a flight simulator, is that the actual HUD for some type of aircraft?
1 DethFiesta 2016-04-26
That's what you get from a modern digital theodolite. It places data over the image. You see this when looking through the viewfinder/eyepiece. Ask any surveyor on Earth what shape the Earth is.....it is not concave nor is it flat.
A Theodolite is a tool that surveoyrs use to check for level. As you can see, the horizon is far below eye level.
Tell me: in all the flat Earth/Concave earth videos that claim the horizon is at eye level why do they never actually PROVE this using instrumentation? Just looking at an image in a camera without such data can't tell you the relationship of the horizon to the view with any accuracy.
7 jerkwood09 2016-04-26
Why does it take longer to travel to distant planets than to China?
1 Triplechins 2016-04-26
because apparently they are distant, got a source for this?
5 jerkwood09 2016-04-26
I just thought I'd throw out a question. Obviously this is the perceived norm. I'm interested in why OP thinks it is incorrect. I'm not trying to prove anything here.
-1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
I'm going to assume you are referencing the satellites that have traveled to distant planets.
Think of space as a spherical shape that spins around once a day. One could launch a satellite into "orbit" and it could travel and spin with this sphere in a way that an observer would see it orbiting a planet. The path of this orbit would actually be a circumference smaller than the circumference of the earth.
This guy made a model that can help you visualize it. I linked it past his dramatic intro so you can just see the model.
3 jerkwood09 2016-04-26
I don't really understand. Why does it take lightyears to get to some places "in space", but only hours or days to get to places on the opposite side of where you are on Earth?
0 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
Can you clarify what you a referencing as something that took light years to get where it was going?
To get from the US to China (or whatever two points on opposite sides of the earth) you would just fly in an airplane and your speed would determine how long it takes to get there. Airplanes only work in the presence of some form of gas so that their wings can still provide lift, so you would have to travel along close to the surface of the inside of the sphere or you would be in the vacuum.
3 jerkwood09 2016-04-26
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-far-is-a-light-year
Why does it apparently take 4.4 light-years to get to Proxima Centauri but just you could theoretically walk and swim and get to China faster than that?
0 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
What makes you think light takes 4.4 years to travel from Proxima Centauri? How could you even test or verify that without having an observer located at/in Proxima Centauri?
So I guess my answer is this:
If you are in the US and you can see Proxima Centauri in the sky, you are actually closer (as far as straight line distance) to Proxima Centauri than you are to China. The reason it takes longer to get to Proxima Centauri is because there are other barriers in the way, most notably the lack of oxygen.
The reason scientists tell you it takes that long is because they read in books how far away it is and they do the math.
4 rjl2382 2016-04-26
Up to a distance of about 400 light years (if I remember correctly) you can use trigonometry to work out the approximate distance to a star. But I think you have to measure the angels at different times of the year.
0 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
Right I am familiar with parallax. When we travel around the sun we can perceive a slight difference in the location of certain stars because we are viewing them from slightly different vantage points.
But then you must remember that the solar system is presumably traveling around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at something like 45,000 MPH, and it has for our entire history, and then the Milky Way is traveling even faster than that. Yet this movement has cause no parallax at all with the constellations that we see. In fact, there are many ancient structures that still line up perfectly with certain constellations.
If we are travelling so unfathomably fast, how come the stars show zero parallax even over thousands of years?
Puzzling to say the least.
4 rjl2382 2016-04-26
The position of the starts in the sky do move over time. But it happens very slowly. The stars would have looked different. The north star was Thuban 5000 years ago. Yes we are moving at great distances but we are still measuring in relation to Earth. In six months the the star we measured has moved great distances, but so have we. The only stars we can measure using trig are the ones in our galaxy (I'm fairly sure about this but I may be wrong. Our closest neighbor galaxy is Andromeda and that's about 2.5 million miles away). So we are still in close relation movement wise because we're moving in the same galaxy. The only variables you would have to count are the distance it moved in relation to Earth during the six months, the expansion of space, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something. Please someone smarter than myself chime in if I'm talking our my ass. It's been over a decade since I took classes.
3 perfect_pickles 2016-04-26
flat earth, hollow, concave, all these require an architect, builders and engineers. and massive amounts of tech and resources.
and for what end result, to fool everybody or to keep everybody comforted.
the globe model of the earth and the modern traditional universe is easier and simpler.
what is more scarier for people, a simulated earth and cosmos aka a goldfishbowl, or the small earth in a dangerous and uncaring universe, GRBs able to wipe us out in a heartbeat and nobody the wiser.
-1 Putin_loves_cats 2016-04-26
Simulation theory is what I've been interested in lately. A complete mind fucker..
2 Scarytownterminator 2016-04-26
Not really, just armchair philosophy. Bad armchair philosophy.
3 drwooo 2016-04-26
heh, let's look at it from different perspective, guys .. how do you estimate, OP is serious, came to his own conclusions and is definitely not paid by?
Hollow earth, flat earth and now concave earth? what is next, triangle earth?
out of these, simulated earth is the most probable to me ... besides, you know REAL earth.
but i'm just a guy and i've done zero research about this so what do i know
2 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
There's the ad hominem. I am serious, I came to my own conclusion, and I am not being paid. If you would like to address the topic I will not respond with straw man arguments or other paid shill tactics. I genuinely believe that the concave earth deserves more discussion.
I am unfamiliar with any triangle earth theories but the concave discussion has been around since ancient times.
2 sirricharic 2016-04-26
I've been here a while and never heard of a concave earth theory what's that?
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
So we are on the inside of a ball that's the exact same size as the earth you know. The surface is still and the stars/celestial sphere/heavens rotate in the center. Gravity is a push outward from the center and the sun and planets are much smaller and closer than you are used to.
15 Triplechins 2016-04-26
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue
2 [deleted] 2016-04-26
[deleted]
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
Excellent question.
What is the worst "public outcry" in history? We are often told that the public "can't handle" the truth but I disagree. I believe that it is a fallacy human's heads would just explode and everyone would die if confronted with this type of information. Really the majority of humankind would not even know the difference.
That being said, the Western World would certainly change, although the disruption in social standing would only be a bad thing for a tiny fraction of people and would be a tremendously positive thing for the social standing of the rest of the people. There may be chaos while governments are called out and overthrown but who is that a bad thing for?
The other problem with revealing the truth is that someone within NASA knows how this celestial sphere works, perhaps many people. I suspect that the technology used to fake satellites is much like the technology that some people refer to as the "UFO Phenomenon."
If the people had access to anti gravity, then they would be at risk of discovering the truth about our world.
Because of this we the people must use airplanes that only function in air, and that run on oil. That way industrialism, consumerism, and the petrodollar remain intact while ensuring that no one within the system is capable of reaching or discovering the truth.
2 [deleted] 2016-04-26
[deleted]
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
I think you nailed it here.
I agree that it will never happen in any form of disclosure.
So then the only remaining way for this knowledge to become mainstream would be for the government/western world to crumble or for those 'in charge' to suddenly be overthrown for some other reason.
Then we could work backwards once we realized how much of what NASA is doing is fraudulent. Then people from all over the world could re-conduct the rectilineator experiment.
Maybe we could somehow rally reddit behind re conducting the rectilineator experiment in various countries? Surely the people would believe reddit.
2 [deleted] 2016-04-26
[deleted]
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
Yeah but it seems to me that the American empire wants war, so I feel inclined to believe WWIII may make it stronger.
What we need isn't written about in our history books. I too have laid awake at night wondering about what it is.
2 Goldandblue42 2016-04-26
Google Albert Pike three world wars. The American empire is not what it appears to be.
2 justinxduff 2016-04-26
How do you account for the billions of billions of galaxies that exist, a lot of which are millions of light years away?
How come every other body in our solar system is a sphere?
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
I think that the stars in the sky don't move very much over the centuries which makes no sense in the heliocentric model unless they are millions of light years away.
I understand that it is accepted that space is infinite and that there are billions of stars that each represent a solar system but really we only know that because of deep space telescopes and there is just no way for a common person like myself to verify their actual distance.
As camera technology gets better we are able to get a better look at these distant stars and they just don't look like they are actually that far away and a lot of times they don't appear to be solar systems at all.
I mean let's be honest, how do YOU know that there are billions of billions of galaxies? I'm being earnest, I understand this is accepted science, but how can we actually know?
I'm sure we come from different walks of life but I have a hard time believing that these Mars rovers are actually on Mars. I am unsure how any person could truly prove that the planets in our solar system are actually spherical without going there themselves, and I just don't have the same faith in authority that most of today's society has.
Perhaps it is the case that the planets in our solar system are spherical but why are we so certain of their size? They could just be smaller spheres that rotate around the celestial sphere that is within the earth.
If these galaxies were actually not millions of light years away, how would you know?
2 justinxduff 2016-04-26
Look up Edwin Hubbles research, that is how we know.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
I appreciate the recommendation.
I have also read from multiple sources that the red shift phenomenon cited to prove the expanding universe may not be such sound science.
This article is one of many examples.
0 anarchopotato 2016-04-26
i find it hard to believe (or test) that light bends.
so i tend towards flat
4 Triplechins 2016-04-26
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tWy2QfC9APM
Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that every object bends light rays through its gravity. This is called gravitational lensing. For our Sun this effect is very weak, but it has been measured. For more massive and distant objects in the Universe much stronger lensing has been seen.
1 anarchopotato 2016-04-26
yeah, not that.
Concave Earth Bendy Light.
completely different esoteric subject here
3 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
Ok, so how does the South Celestial pole work in your model?
-1 anarchopotato 2016-04-26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsnUynVK-Hc
0 [deleted] 2016-04-26
[deleted]
-1 AutoModerator 2016-04-26
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1 anarchopotato 2016-04-26
ha. didnt look at the un, thought u were the shill.
fuck if i know how to rectify the southern pole in flat earth. holograms.
its not anymore crazy than bendy light.
the map is not the territory
1 Goldandblue42 2016-04-26
How do sunsets work?
1 ThePsion5 2016-04-26
Have you tried, you know, putting half of a long object under water? The water is clearly bending light.
1 anarchopotato 2016-04-26
yeah, not that.
Concave Earth Bendy Light.
completely different esoteric subject here
1 ThePsion5 2016-04-26
Both the Concave Earth and Flat Earth hypotheses require bendy light though, don't they? FE uses it to explain how ships sink below the horizon or something.
1 DirtyBird9889 2016-04-26
Yeah well none of the models adequately explain the way that ships disappear over the horizon better than the concave model. Although it does require that you accept that all light bends towards the center of the celestial sphere which in our case would be up.
-3 ChangeThroughTruth 2016-04-26
Thank you for opening this discussion in the way that you did. This is a topic with huge implications because it really is about the nature of the universe, reality itself.
I think the Concave model is correct. To me, there are two primary ways to measure the shape of the earth: visual and physical. We could put measurement methods such as infrared in the visual category because they both share an important property: we must know how these signals propagate through the atmosphere in order to properly interpret them.
Visual
When we view a landscape over a long distance with the naked eye we assume straight light in our interpretation of the image. But this is a problem for a globe earth. We can see much too far into the distance over water for a sphere of circumference ~25000 miles with straight light. When we interpret this assuming straight light it really does appear that the earth is flat. So, can we perform an experiment to determine how light bends within the atmosphere so that we can properly interpret our visual observations?
Here is one such experiment using surveying devices over a 1km distance: http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/#Theodolites
The experiment is well described at the link, please read it there. The results indicate that light curves upwards within the atmosphere and this curve can be measured even at the short distance of 1km. When we interpret our horizon observation in this context it places the objects at the horizon above us rather than right in front of us.
Physical
Properly factoring error in measurements is a huge task when conducting a physical experiment to measure earth's curvature. It is an interesting thought experiment to attempt to devise a method to measure the earth's curvature accurately. Here are a couple of them described with results:
The Rectilineator : http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/6/ -A physical apparatus that uses segments to create a very long straight line. Measured against sea level with tidal patterns accounted for. The much fuller description of the specifics can be found through the link.
Tamarak Mine Plumb : http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/4/ -Two mine shafts a known distance apart with a connecting tunnel at the bottom. Hang a weight from a wire down each shaft. Measure the distance apart at the top and the bottom. The intersection of the extrapolation of the lines formed by the hanging wires is the "center of gravity". If the wires are closer at the bottom, convex. If the wires are the same distance apart at top and bottom, flat. If the wires are closer at the top, concave. The experiment showed the wires closer at the top indicating a center of gravity directly above us and a Concave Earth.
Here is a thread I happened upon recently in another forum: http://truth-zone.net/forum/science-and-physics/63418-hollow-world-theory-inner-world-cosmos-skycentrism-we-live-in-the-concave-earth.html?limitstart=0
Lots of interesting links and discussion there.
-2 ChangeThroughTruth 2016-04-26
Something I find interesting culturally is how often the idea of infinite space is used as the premise for an argument. It really does influence thinking in many areas to have the perspective of a random chance occurrence in a vast infinite space.
A person's perspective changes with a concave universe. It means that there really is a physical 'heaven above' contained within the celestial sphere. I suppose there is still the question of infinity, but it is below our feet rather than above our heads (are there other concavities), and it is unknown rather than drilled into our heads as fact.
A youtuber, Godrules, proposes a modification to the Concave model where there is an opening at the South pole. There do seem to be differences between the far South and far North of the Earth. Here is a recent video he did on evidence for a glass barrier of some sort in the sky which includes his description of the modified concave model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PSkc1NJMH0
-2 [deleted] 2016-04-26
[removed]
-1 ChangeThroughTruth 2016-04-26
I think your reading comprehension may need work.
-2 [deleted] 2016-04-26
[removed]
0 ChangeThroughTruth 2016-04-26
I am very clearly not advocating for a flat earth. The recent resurgence of Flat Earth appears to be a limited hangout with multiple goals. One of those goals seems to be generating the type of response that you have exhibited here: an angry backlash on topics related to flat earth such as problems with the official cosmology or the material produced by NASA.
By associating a wide swath of topics with the flat earth taint it replaces actual discussion of those topics with the violent emotional response you are exhibiting now. In this way, you have been manipulated by the recent flat earth campaign.
1 [deleted] 2016-04-26
[removed]
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2016-04-26
Multiple rule 10 violations in this thread. Consider this your first and only warning.
0 ChangeThroughTruth 2016-04-26
What leads you to conclude that I am a troll? My comments in this thread or my posting history? Can you be specific?
1 Foxprowl 2016-04-26
Nope.
0 ChangeThroughTruth 2016-04-26
I suppose you should just downvote and move on then.
2 Goldandblue42 2016-04-26
Google Albert Pike three world wars. The American empire is not what it appears to be.