Concave Earth Theory

[heretolearn]

At least not based on "Oh! I see the horizon line straight so the whole Earth is flat."

It's an accurate model according to scientific, gnostic, historic and biblical research.

Hello, I left you a reply on the other thread, you must have missed it, I am looking forward to your response.
I have to say, I think there is alot more to considering it flat than just the horizon being a straight line.
But if thats your take on it so be it.

Your response compelled me to come check out this thread so thanks for that.

I feel compelled to ask given the statements made what Biblical research leads you to consider this accurate as a model?
I was of the impression the Bible heavily implies the Earth to be Flat. I enjoy reading the Bible and have found no mention of concavity anywhere within in its pages. so please enlighten me so I can understand your findings also.

Again with the historical context as well what has led you to determine this model to be accurate?
I have personally not found any evidence to suggest that this was a credible concept or notion held by anyone historically.
Honestly, till seeing your post in the other thread and now your imagery here. I wasnt even aware of concave earth as a concept.
Even the generally accepted ball earth lie was not a belief held by anyone until around the 1500s so please could you share your historical research I would be much appreciative.

I should state just because there is no historical evidence as far as I can see to support such claims. I do not discount this theory on this basis alone.
I intend to look at any information gathered here in this thread for any truth that can be found as any good researcher should.
However, you made the statement that history has given you indications of its existence and so I think it fair to require the proof that supports such assertions as those made.

In regards to research of a gnostic and scientific nature I would respectfully urge you to consider.
Scientific data can be read and interpreted from many different angles.
A fantastic example would be the data produced by George Dodwell.
The ball earth community and the man himself saw his research as proof that the earth ball was inclining or wobbling in its fixed place within the solar system.
Something this thread would claim impossible given its viewpoint.
I on the other hand consider his data to be evidence of the sun moving through the place we call earth as if through a smaller area of a much larger earth namely God's Earth. Returning to this area and its starting point once full traversal of the other areas has concluded.
The same data producing and supporting two opposed and contrasting conclusions. So singular scientific data alone sadly is not sufficient in determining such proof.
Which ironically is why I found myself on that tidal research thread where we began our interaction.
I am looking through research threads here to determine if my concepts hold any basis or validity in others work. but also to see if others hold any form of knowledge that I should know or should deem relevant for consideration within my own concepts and designs.

Interestingly what is the concave earth's position on George Dodwells research?
How would concave earth interact with such findings?

Your final claim was of research leading to understanding of some gnostic element pertaining to this model. I would be most interested if you could share it?
I for example noticed the gnostic element hidden within the Bible where it states that the Firmament was placed between the two waters of Heaven and Earth in the form of two seperated sides with the Firmament placed between them.
not as a dome around or above everything as people always mistake it to imply, but as a functional gateway or layer between the ground of Earth and the ground of Heaven two flat sides with a Firmament between the two.
gnostic because it is there written in plain english but still not ever seen, the very definiton of gnosis in fact.
The Bible repeatedly throughout the Old testament mentions Heaven as being above and the Earth as being below. But we dont register it because we are indoctrinated to think of Heaven as over our heads in the sky where the angels sit on clouds etc. Not beneath our feet where its actually stated to be in the words.

Further gnostic works indicate similar denotations.
For example the highly gnostic zohar indicates a Firmament as having many levels and being akin to a ladder between the Earth and Heaven. I am also in the process of translating a cuneiform tablet BM 74329 which is titled "The Divine Genealogy of the Firm Ground" it makes similar assertions of a "circle/chariot" performing the same actions as the firmament does in genesis.
These documents are written with potentially thousands of years between them but imply the same thing that I have also noticed hidden within the bibles writings.
Im sure your gnostic research has produced similarly engaging deductions that support concepts indicated in concave earth theory.
As stated extremely eager to recieve your gnostic learnings, and very happy to hear others are looking for such things as well.

How would my gnostic findings in relation to the Firmament for example apply to the concept of concave earth?

I eagerly await your response to the questions posted on both the other thread and on here.
Additionally your follow up research evidence on here is eagerly anticipated as well.
I thank everyone in advance for the research being done here and everywhere on this forum.
I hope to find insights here that can lead to further understanding of the place we all live.
We work this out with one another, and not in opposition to one another.
Perhaps something for my esteemed colleague to consider. Kindest Regards.

 

[Apollonius]

In order from outside to inside:

Earth's metallic crust ---> Lava (Molten Metal) ---> Biosphere (Earth) ---> Crystal Sphere (Raw Material: Pure Silica) ---> Planets (In order: Moon > Venus > Mercury > Sun > Mars > Jupiter > Saturn > Uranus > Neptune > Pluto) ---> Celestial Sphere (Firmament) ---> Central Sun (Cosmic Egg / Celestial Fire of Alchemists / Central Fire of Pythagoreans / Primum Mobile) ---> Central Point of the Creation (Beginning, Empyrean, Chaos)

(Related image: The author of the cartograph is Guillaume Testu (1509-1573), from Cosmographie Universelle, 1555)

No creature on the Earth can cross the glass ceiling! Everything that has happened has always happened here, is happening, and will continue to happen. This barrier cannot be overcome, neither by external nor internal intervention!

Above the planets is the Firmament or the Celestial Sphere, as it is most commonly used. Stars are holes in the Celestial Sphere, sort of like Pores (holes) in the cell nucleus. The stars enable the transfer of energy from the inside to out. The Celestial Sphere is the last layer that humanity can observe, beyond this is invisible to humanity unless certain conditions are met!

Inside the Celestial Sphere is the Primum Mobile (Prime Mover), also known as the Central Sun. The Central Sun is the heart/hearth of the Earth, the source of the fire that alchemists call the "Celestial Fire".

(Related images: The Empyrean heaven is within the Primum Mobile.)

"According to Pernety, the purest grade of fire was the white Celestial Fire, or the fiery power of God's will. He described it thus: “The Celestial Fire is very pure, simple and not burning in itself. It has for its sphere the ethereal region, when it makes itself known even to us. Celestial Fire shines without burning and is without color and odor, though it is sensibly exhaled. It is gentle and known only by its operations.”

The Central Sun is the source that gives shape to the entire material world, breathes life into all living things, radiates aether, and provides movement in the universe. It is also referred to as "The Sun Behind The Sun" in some places.

Within the Central Sun is the Empyrean heaven, the starting point of creation. I don't know much about what's going on in Empyrean. However, it is written that the fire that the alchemists call the "Central Fire" is located here.

 

[otl2021]

Am I right to assume that this is the guy that explains all the recent diversions on the flat earth thread?

Besides the idea that water is diamagnetic, in his world, do large bodies of standing water ever become concave or convex on its surface?

And regardless of altitude, in his world, does the horizon/vanishing point ever appear anywhere else but at eye-level?

Thanks

 

[Jd755]

User ripvanwille on version one of stolen history and page one of this thread provides all the links.
Concave Earth Theory

 

[Apollonius]

Besides the idea that water is diamagnetic, in his world, do large bodies of standing water ever become concave or convex on its surface?

And regardless of altitude, in his world, does the horizon/vanishing point ever appear anywhere else but at eye-level?

 

[Jd755]

View attachment 19800​

I must pay tribute to your computer graphic skills they are very polished.
Might I ask if you have gone out into the world and put the evidence you present for concavity to empirical test?

 

[Jd755]

Here is a lake called Grasmere its a mile in length and half a mile wide. Its lovely I've been there quite a few times.

So in these photographs are we to assume the very middle of the lake has a lower surface over the mile than it does over the half mile?
Are we to assume that it is in fact equally concave in all directions and the size of the container in this case the surrounding land has no bearing on it?

Pictures & measurements from here Grasmere - the lake

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

Here is a lake called Grasmere its a mile in length and half a mile wide. Its lovely I've been there quite a few times.

So in these photographs are we to assume the very middle of the lake has a lower surface over the mile than it does over the half mile?
Are we to assume that it is in fact equally concave in all directions and the size of the container in this case the surrounding land has no bearing on it?

Pictures & measurements from here Grasmere - the lake

View attachment 19802​

View attachment 19803​

Is it water? If so, then yes, it is diamagnetic.

Now, with only 1 mile long, and a half mile wide, you're not dealing with much in terms of concavity, but if measured precisely, you should still observe it. It should be noted that you're probably only going to have a concavity of 2-4 inches at the very center due to how small this lake is.

Nahat Island Boston MA.

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

Is it water? If so, then yes, it is diamagnetic.

Now, with only 1 mile long, and a half mile wide, you're not dealing with much in terms of concavity, but if measured precisely, you should still observe it. It should be noted that you're probably only going to have a concavity of 2-4 inches at the very center due to how small this lake is.

Nahat Island Boston MA.

View attachment 19798

Am I right to assume that this is the guy that explains all the recent diversions on the flat earth thread?

Besides the idea that water is diamagnetic, in his world, do large bodies of standing water ever become concave or convex on its surface?

And regardless of altitude, in his world, does the horizon/vanishing point ever appear anywhere else but at eye-level?

Thanks

In addendum:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYTMYTlNov4

 

[Apollonius]

In addendum:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYTMYTlNov4

It had been a very good conversation!

God is the Black Sun (void, singularity, black hole) within the crystalline celestial sphere.

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

You know that I agree with you on your positions - the problem is not your views, but your behavior. Aggressively trying to convince others of your positions is not in line with the goal of this forum. And the more you try, the more resistance you meet.

I have read some FE posts here on the forum that were more consistent and valuable overall than some of your posts consisting of memes making fun of flat earthers, even if I didn't agree with them.

I've tried to convince nobody of anything other than they traded one illusion, for another; meanwhile they missed what was directly infront of their faces.



19:32

 

[veeall]

Do the concavity theory just inverts the globe or do the proponents entertain the idea that our known continents might only comprise the 'bottom' hemisphere or even less of the surface of the concave globe?

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Have read through all this thread at last . Harking back to the Tamarack mine experiments with pendulums/plumbobs. Here are the results of the experiments as published by the Science magazine 1902 .

Divergence of Long Plumb-Lines at the Tamarack Mine on JSTOR

It should be noted that the pendulums converged and diverged at various times. Scientists were unable to explain this and it says nothing about the shape of the earth but rather destroys the theory of gravity.

This is why the experiments were hidden or ignored by the mainstream . Heliocentric model debunked again.

Further experimental work with pendulums was carried out in1954 by Professor Maurice Allais, and followed by more experiment by himself and others again further debunked the heliocentric model - swinging pendulums reversed their direction during solar eclipse. Gravity schmavity.

Look up the Allais ,Jevardin -Antonescu-Rusu effects for more information . All syzygy effects - any heavenly bodies aligning with earth.

In my opinion all these are electromagnetic effects caused by the conductive pendulums passing through the rotating earth toroidal magnetic field. Could be the basis for astrology too - or bodies/minds are affected by magnetic fields.
.
The Tamarack mines experiment don't suggest concave earth , sorry.

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

It's not earth that rotates. It's the celestial sphere.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Yes , I know earth does not rotate but the magnetic field does. Hence the pendulum , suitably designed as those at the mine were , will always move or deflect.

 

[sandokhan]

The Tamarack mine mystery:

The Tamarack Mines Mystery.

However, the anomalies which had been discovered are an extraordinary proof of the existence of telluric currents.

"In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world."

A superb study of the seminal paper published by Roland Eotvos on gravitational anomalies almost 100 years ago:

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF THE EOTVOS EXPERIMENT*

His discoveries remain completely unexplained by modern science.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Thanks for that sandokhan . More proof of the hidden force which ,although ignored by the mainstream scientific brain washing machine, must be under investigation (and used for nefarious purposes no doubt.

About 20yrs ago I studied Foucaults pendulum original design - as a friend and I knew then that earth rotated and hence must be a sphere.
Took about two minutes for that world to collapse. A long metal conductor with a weight on the end with a pointy bit so it could draw a pretty pattern in sand.

Recognised immediately this design was a simple generator/electric motor design. Any conductor moving through a magnetic field and discharging to earth , completing the circuit ,will result in a force acting at right angles to the direction of flow ( Flemings? right hand rule).

Since earth is stationary the magnetic field must be moving - the Foucault pendulum aligns with deep space ie the rotation of the heavens not rotation of earth. I've since seen this admitted within mainstream .

The mine shaft job - the pendulum weights were immersed in oil to which would dampen the rotation but not stop the deflection totally.

Disturbance of the magnetic and aether fields found by Allais ,Eotvos and others in their experiments I'm thinking.

Nice to see the post and read the results - although hard to stop my eyes glazing over at equations involving c r g and other cringeworthy constants which have no basis in reality.

Would be nice to see a set of real equations without the bumpf.

 

[PANparadox]

Guys, I did the same experiment as the ZENITH ATLAS channel on youtube. Check out my video at jew-tube called Shape of the Earth 1, Chaotist channel.

The camera altitude is around 15 cm (it's a big telescope and I'm pointing my smartphone into the eye-lense).

You can clearly see upward curvature of the water thanks to various objects along the distance. It was around 7-10km to opposite shoreline where you see the trees. The ducks were BELOW the opposite shoreline, as well as below another object - a boat which was further than the ducks but still below the horizon level.

In the second part of the video, after following the boat, you see a red object along the surface of the lake, all the way to the opposite shoreline where the trees start. The red object is clearly below the horizon where the trees start. Concavity.

I also compared some images that I took and check this out: turns out that thanks to perfect weather - almost zero wind, the water was like a mirror. I checked two sides of the horizon (where the split between mirror and true image was) and IMAGINE THIS: on the water (one side of mirror) the mirror-image of the trees was a bit wider than the real, open view of the trees. This would not be possible either on convex of flat surface because either the mirror image would be perfectly the same size as the open view (flat surface) or it would be shorter than the open view (convex surface). But because the mirror image is longer than the open view, the surface is concave.

Guys, the lesson is in doing the experiment and you'll see once you start pointing that camera/telescope at 15cm above water level at a huge lake with various objects on the way, the shape will be evident to you.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

I am unable to locate that video , can you provide a link please?
Are you aware of the problems caused by a moisture laden atmosphere when viewing/filming only 15cm above the surface of the lake.

Here is a link to an article that shows even the big observatory telescopes can have problems at high altitude caused by moisture and pollutants.

MountainQuest!

 

[PANparadox]

I am unable to locate that video , can you provide a link please?
Are you aware of the problems caused by a moisture laden atmosphere when viewing/filming only 15cm above the surface of the lake.

Here is a link to an article that shows even the big observatory telescopes can have problems at high altitude caused by moisture and pollutants.

MountainQuest!

Sure, here's a link. I couldn't post links in my 1st post ever but now I think I can.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzPtskZKacw

Guys, I did the same experiment as the ZENITH ATLAS channel on youtube. Check out my video at jew-tube called Shape of the Earth 1, Chaotist channel.

The camera altitude is around 15 cm (it's a big telescope and I'm pointing my smartphone into the eye-lense).

You can clearly see upward curvature of the water thanks to various objects along the distance. It was around 7-10km to opposite shoreline where you see the trees. The ducks were BELOW the opposite shoreline, as well as below another object - a boat which was further than the ducks but still below the horizon level.

In the second part of the video, after following the boat, you see a red object along the surface of the lake, all the way to the opposite shoreline where the trees start. The red object is clearly below the horizon where the trees start. Concavity.

I also compared some images that I took and check this out: turns out that thanks to perfect weather - almost zero wind, the water was like a mirror. I checked two sides of the horizon (where the split between mirror and true image was) and IMAGINE THIS: on the water (one side of mirror) the mirror-image of the trees was a bit wider than the real, open view of the trees. This would not be possible either on convex of flat surface because either the mirror image would be perfectly the same size as the open view (flat surface) or it would be shorter than the open view (convex surface). But because the mirror image is longer than the open view, the surface is concave.

Guys, the lesson is in doing the experiment and you'll see once you start pointing that camera/telescope at 15cm above water level at a huge lake with various objects on the way, the shape will be evident to you.

I messed up explaining one thing here.

In this:
"I also compared some images that I took and check this out: turns out that thanks to perfect weather - almost zero wind, the water was like a mirror. I checked two sides of the horizon (where the split between mirror and true image was) and IMAGINE THIS: on the water (one side of mirror) the mirror-image of the trees was a bit wider than the real, open view of the trees. This would not be possible either on convex of flat surface because either the mirror image would be perfectly the same size as the open view (flat surface) or it would be shorter than the open view (convex surface). But because the mirror image is longer than the open view, the surface is concave."


The mirror image is not wider, but shorter actually, than the open view image and THIS is a reflection we would get in a concave container. On convex surface, the mirror image would be wider than the real view.