Concave Earth Theory

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-12-16 05:38:17
Reaction Score: 2

So in the concave earth, are we inside or outside? If on the inside, which i think you are saying. What holds the water on the outside? Can you explain how the sun would travel? I guess it could just head east but it seems it would show on the otherside of the world.

These are some very good questions.
First there are two theories that you may be blending together here. The hollow earth theory, where the earth is a ball just like science says with us living on the outside. There are openings at the poles which lead to an inner world with an inner sun with people living inside. This was a theory popularized in many 19th century novels.
The other one is the concave earth theory which is pretty much an inversion of the current scientific theory. What is outside of our world is on the inside, including us. Outside is what science says is underneath us, molten rock, salt pools, water pools etc.

What we are talking about here in this thread is the concave earth theory, not the hollow earth theory.

So, what is on the outside is anyone's guess as we have very little data further than 8 miles down. The original author, as far as we know, of the concave earth theory was Cyrus Teed, aka Koresh. He believed it was all contained within and nothing was outside of our world.

So to answer your questions, we live on the inside. If there is water outside of us it would be suspended in pools and underground aquifers, just like what science says. But instead of reaching a molten core, eventually you'd reach another world. Meaning there may be other world just a few hundred miles beneath us.
Or, if Cyrus Teed is correct, there is no water outside, there is nothing.

The sun would travel just as we see it, of course it is inside the earth. The moon and planets all keep their same paths, just inverted.

You can't see the other side because it is blocked by what we call the universe. You cannot see through it. We can only see what is illuminated. Earth is only illuminated in the atmosphere, not in space. So when you look up, you see what is on the inside, and the only thing we see are points of light we call planets and stars. We can't see beyond this to the other side. If we look horizontally, we have a barrier of light and motion. And only within our range of vision and as far as the horizon gives us. The atmosphere eventually ends our distance vision with distortion caused by motion in the atmosphere.

Like any cosmogony, there are more questions than answers and it is not easy to explain, especially since no one knows the whole truth. We are all just trying to figure it all out.

A good place for you to start is with the Wild Heretic page. I believe it is back up now.
Yes, there is actually a post from Wild Heretic earlier in this thread. Comment #47. Please refer back to it. Here is a link to the outside page: Concave Earth Theory – The Wild Heretic

Further reading would be Cyrus Teed's 1898 book, Cellular Cosmogony. Here is a link:
The Cellular Cosmogony; Or, The Earth a Concave Sphere: Pt. I. The ...

There was also much research done by the Nazi's leading up to WWII, and there is still a concave earth movement in Germany. with several books not yet (or ever?) translated into English.

I find this to be a very thrilling subject that answers many scientific enigmas. Enjoy your explorations!

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-12-16 05:42:46
Reaction Score: 3

I think this is supposed to be a visual representation. At least that’s what Google provided. It’s probably not exactly like that, but the main idea has to be something similar to the image.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-12-16 06:08:27
Reaction Score: 2

I think this is supposed to be a visual representation. At least that’s what Google provided. It’s probably not exactly like that, but the main idea has to be something similar to the image.

View attachment 36028

Yes. And here is Cyrus Teed's globe, which is on display at the Koreshan settlement site in Estero, Florida USA. Tour the Koreshan Settlement.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: TS135
Date: 2019-12-16 06:22:23
Reaction Score: 1

The inside globe concave model above has very similar to the traditional spherical dimensions. Was there any curvature formula developed? Wouldn't we still observe the curve if that was the case?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-12-16 06:46:58
Reaction Score: 1

The inside globe concave model above has very similar to the traditional spherical dimensions. Was there any curvature formula developed? Wouldn't we still observe the curve if that was the case?

The curvature would be the same as it is determined at the surface, just going up rather than down. Mostafa Abdelkader, a physicist, proved that this theory works mathematically on the inside of the earth. The proportions are the same, but everything within becomes exponentially smaller as you move toward the center.

Not much on the web about this but oddly enough, the Flat Earth Society has a nice write-up of it on their site.

The Concave Earth Hypothesis

We cannot see curvature because we are to small in comparison to the size of the earth, and there is nothing flat within our vision to measure it against. We don't see curvature now, we are only told it is there so we tend to believe the authorities. But there have been several successful attempts to measure the curvature, or at least make it visible. One is the rectilineator experiment by U.G. Morrow, the Tamarack mine survey is another. Those mine experiments were replicated several times, and were also performed in other mines located in France. There have also been tests done on water with boats that show the earth is indeed curving upward.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-16 08:59:50
Reaction Score: 0

Apologies if this link has been posted before but Gibiru sereved it up when looking for information on Cyrus and his divine revelation and it may be of value here The Cellular Cosmogony Index
Although the word 'pseudoscience' appears very early on. So maybe nott that valuable.
I'm not quoting from it but the divine revelation is discussed and it seems it wasn't an angel who imparted this theory to Cyru it may have been a woman. Either way he seems to have got this information from 'another realm' so too speak. As with all such revelations (Tesla for example or Moses) I wonder how these individuals are chosen and why the specific information is gven. Of course it is impossible to prove or provide any evidence of a revelation to anyone else so either he did get a revelation in a vision or he didn't and made shit up is as good as it gets unless he copied someone else's work.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2019-12-16 10:02:51
Reaction Score: 1

up to 150,000 missing stars: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ab570f

easier to explain in a terrarium.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-16 15:46:36
Reaction Score: 2

Digging once again into how Cyrus came by this information, seems he was knocked unconscious by an electrical shock and when he came to again he claimed he had had a vision of a woman/angel/divine motherhood who told him a few things about the uinverse, life and his destiny or fate (the stories vary) but and this staggers me, it's amazing what the search engines, in this case statrpage divvy up.
From here; Koreshan Unity founder Dr. Cyrus "Koresh" Teed with Freemasons.

Koreshan Unity founder Dr. Cyrus "Koresh" Teed with Freemasons.
Not after 1908

Another thing I noticed when reading through Curus's book at the site linked above, I'm up to here The Cellular Cosmogony: Koreshan Principles of Optics
He is attacking the convex earth theory and has yet to mention the flat earth theory unlike today where its the flat earth theory the concave earth theory people (not neccessarily those on here) are attachking. Quite fascinating to see this change of focus.
As for the book it's a little odd to say the least if for no other reason than he is inventing new words all the time to explain his theory and giving other a 'new version' for exampl the physcal universe is writen like this "aelchemico-organic cosmos (the physical universe)". Once i figured out you can reverse this change by seeing "physical" in plsce of "alchemico-organic" it got easier to read.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Willielad
Date: 2019-12-16 16:45:39
Reaction Score: 1

These are some very good questions.
First there are two theories that you may be blending together here. The hollow earth theory, where the earth is a ball just like science says with us living on the outside. There are openings at the poles which lead to an inner world with an inner sun with people living inside. This was a theory popularized in many 19th century novels.
The other one is the concave earth theory which is pretty much an inversion of the current scientific theory. What is outside of our world is on the inside, including us. Outside is what science says is underneath us, molten rock, salt pools, water pools etc.

What we are talking about here in this thread is the concave earth theory, not the hollow earth theory.

So, what is on the outside is anyone's guess as we have very little data further than 8 miles down. The original author, as far as we know, of the concave earth theory was Cyrus Teed, aka Koresh. He believed it was all contained within and nothing was outside of our world.

So to answer your questions, we live on the inside. If there is water outside of us it would be suspended in pools and underground aquifers, just like what science says. But instead of reaching a molten core, eventually you'd reach another world. Meaning there may be other world just a few hundred miles beneath us.
Or, if Cyrus Teed is correct, there is no water outside, there is nothing.

The sun would travel just as we see it, of course it is inside the earth. The moon and planets all keep their same paths, just inverted.

You can't see the other side because it is blocked by what we call the universe. You cannot see through it. We can only see what is illuminated. Earth is only illuminated in the atmosphere, not in space. So when you look up, you see what is on the inside, and the only thing we see are points of light we call planets and stars. We can't see beyond this to the other side. If we look horizontally, we have a barrier of light and motion. And only within our range of vision and as far as the horizon gives us. The atmosphere eventually ends our distance vision with distortion caused by motion in the atmosphere.

Like any cosmogony, there are more questions than answers and it is not easy to explain, especially since no one knows the whole truth. We are all just trying to figure it all out.

A good place for you to start is with the Wild Heretic page. I believe it is back up now.
Yes, there is actually a post from Wild Heretic earlier in this thread. Comment #47. Please refer back to it. Here is a link to the outside page: Concave Earth Theory – The Wild Heretic

Further reading would be Cyrus Teed's 1898 book, Cellular Cosmogony. Here is a link:
The Cellular Cosmogony; Or, The Earth a Concave Sphere: Pt. I. The ...

There was also much research done by the Nazi's leading up to WWII, and there is still a concave earth movement in Germany. with several books not yet (or ever?) translated into English.

I find this to be a very thrilling subject that answers many scientific enigmas. Enjoy your explorations!

What are the possible explanations to hold the oceans in place? Electrostatic?

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2019-12-16 17:08:47
Reaction Score: 1

What are the possible explanations to hold the oceans in place? Electrostatic?

The most plausible explanation to me is to understand gravity as a force that comes from the centre of the universe (the sun), instead of a pull-force think of it as a push-force. Gravity thus becomes part of the electromagnetic property of the sun or whatever machinery is in the center of the cavity. I suspect that the sun is responsible for keeping the cavity in place, that is, without the electromagnetical properties of the sun the earth cavity would collapse. the push force gravity keeps everything at a certain level, at a certain distance to the sun.

How does gravity work? – The Wild Heretic

What is gravity? – The Wild Heretic

Gravity – observations and theory – The Wild Heretic

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-12-16 18:50:51
Reaction Score: 1

Apologies if this link has been posted before but Gibiru sereved it up when looking for information on Cyrus and his divine revelation and it may be of value here The Cellular Cosmogony Index
Although the word 'pseudoscience' appears very early on. So maybe nott that valuable.
I'm not quoting from it but the divine revelation is discussed and it seems it wasn't an angel who imparted this theory to Cyru it may have been a woman. Either way he seems to have got this information from 'another realm' so too speak. As with all such revelations (Tesla for example or Moses) I wonder how these individuals are chosen and why the specific information is gven. Of course it is impossible to prove or provide any evidence of a revelation to anyone else so either he did get a revelation in a vision or he didn't and made shit up is as good as it gets unless he copied someone else's work.

Digging once again into how Cyrus came by this information, seems he was knocked unconscious by an electrical shock and when he came to again he claimed he had had a vision of a woman/angel/divine motherhood who told him a few things about the uinverse, life and his destiny or fate (the stories vary) but and this staggers me, it's amazing what the search engines, in this case statrpage divvy up.
From here; Koreshan Unity founder Dr. Cyrus "Koresh" Teed with Freemasons.

View attachment 36066
Koreshan Unity founder Dr. Cyrus "Koresh" Teed with Freemasons.
Not after 1908

Another thing I noticed when reading through Curus's book at the site linked above, I'm up to here The Cellular Cosmogony: Koreshan Principles of Optics
He is attacking the convex earth theory and has yet to mention the flat earth theory unlike today where its the flat earth theory the concave earth theory people (not neccessarily those on here) are attachking. Quite fascinating to see this change of focus.
As for the book it's a little odd to say the least if for no other reason than he is inventing new words all the time to explain his theory and giving other a 'new version' for exampl the physcal universe is writen like this "aelchemico-organic cosmos (the physical universe)". Once i figured out you can reverse this change by seeing "physical" in plsce of "alchemico-organic" it got easier to read.

Some people here may not like what I am about to say, but it is the truth as I see it.
The reason Cyrus Teed never brought up the flat earth is because it wasn't a competing theory in his day. Until a few years ago, no one considered the flat earth theory as a possibility. It was a completely dead theory until a few religious extremists brought it back a few years ago. I mean even ten years ago pretty much NO ONE considered the flat earth as a real possibility. It was used as a joke or to show someone is not right upstairs.
The resurrection of the flat earth movement is a recent internet phenomenon.
I've been studying the concave earth as well as the hollow earth theories since the mid-1990's and I never had a single mention of the flat earth until about five or six years ago. This is why I have been so shocked that people even consider it now. It was put away dead long ago, and the only thing that resurrected it was religious fanaticism caused by what I feel is misinterpretations of the bible.
It's also a strong possibility that the new flat earth movement is merely a smokescreen used to cover up the concave earth theory. What other theory could they use to keep people from exploring the concave earth? They first pumped up the hollow earth theory to confuse the two. After the attempt to find the holes in the poles failed in 2013 I believe it was, interest in the hollow earth waned. Now that idea is pretty much dead and no one as far as I see is researching that anymore. So in come the flat earth stuff to muddy the waters again.
The only ones really opposing the concave earth idea are the flat earth believers. The Copernican believers pretty much don't care. They don't consider the concave earth a competing theory.
So why do flat earthers oppose the concave earth model so vehemently? Well it's because there is no evidence of a flat earth! All that supposed "new" flat earth evidence you see on the internet also applies to the concave earth. It is concave earth evidence they are uncovering and are twisting it to suit their flat earth dreams! The laser experiments and all the other stuff they are doing. It's all concave earth evidence.
For years I had to try to get people to just open their minds to another possibility. Now I have to try and convince people the world isn't flat! To me it's absolutely insane, and it shows how easily we are fooled when we are young of age. What is the age of the average flat earth believer? Ever meet an 80 year old who believes in a flat earth? I haven't. Most believers I've talked to are teens and early twenty somethings. That is not a slight against youth. I was very easily fooled at that age as well.
But it's only temporary though. The flat earth movement is losing steam. I'm seeing people start to jump ship and some are looking into the concave earth now because they realize it also fits into their religious dogmas. Others are just going back to the mainstream Copernican model. The overwhelming evidence against a flat earth will eventually win out and kill that theory once again.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to people exploring the flat earth idea. I think it's great they are looking into alternatives. Eventually, one by one they will see the evidence of a flat earth just isn't there, and they will realize all those dreams of a flat world were really the seeds of a new reality. That we live on the inside.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2019-12-16 18:55:10
Reaction Score: 1

Some people here may not like what I am about to say, but it is the truth as I see it.
The reason Cyrus Teed never brought up the flat earth is because it wasn't a competing theory in his day. Until a few years ago, no one considered the flat earth theory as a possibility. It was a completely dead theory until a few religious extremists brought it back a few years ago. I mean even ten years ago pretty much NO ONE considered the flat earth as a real possibility. It was used as a joke or to show someone is not right upstairs.
The resurrection of the flat earth movement is a recent internet phenomenon.
I've been studying the concave earth as well as the hollow earth theories since the mid-1990's and I never had a single mention of the flat earth until about five or six years ago. This is why I have been so shocked that people even consider it now. It was put away dead long ago, and the only thing that resurrected it was religious fanaticism caused by what I feel is misinterpretations of the bible.
It's also a strong possibility that the new flat earth movement is merely a smokescreen used to cover up the concave earth theory. What other theory could they use to keep people from exploring the concave earth? They first pumped up the hollow earth theory to confuse the two. After the attempt to find the holes in the poles failed in 2013 I believe it was, interest in the hollow earth waned. Now that idea is pretty much dead and no one as far as I see is researching that anymore. So in come the flat earth stuff to muddy the waters again.
The only ones really opposing the concave earth idea are the flat earth believers. The Copernican believers pretty much don't care. They don't consider the concave earth a competing theory.
So why do flat earthers oppose the concave earth model so vehemently? Well it's because there is no evidence of a flat earth! All that supposed "new" flat earth evidence you see on the internet also applies to the concave earth. It is concave earth evidence they are uncovering and are twisting it to suit their flat earth dreams! The laser experiments and all the other stuff they are doing. It's all concave earth evidence.
For years I had to try to get people to just open their minds to another possibility. Now I have to try and convince people the world isn't flat! To me it's absolutely insane, and it shows how easily we are fooled when we are young of age. What is the age of the average flat earth believer? Ever meet an 80 year old who believes in a flat earth? I haven't. Most believers I've talked to are teens and early twenty somethings. That is not a slight against youth. I was very easily fooled at that age as well.
But it's only temporary though. The flat earth movement is losing steam. I'm seeing people start to jump ship and some are looking into the concave earth now because they realize it also fits into their religious dogmas. Others are just going back to the mainstream Copernican model. The overwhelming evidence against a flat earth will eventually win out and kill that theory once again.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to people exploring the flat earth idea. I think it's great they are looking into alternatives. Eventually, one by one they will see the evidence of a flat earth just isn't there, and they will realize all those dreams of a flat world were really the seeds of a new reality. That we live on the inside.

brilliant analysis!

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2019-12-16 19:02:26
Reaction Score: 1

They circle around both poles.

So maybe I'm too skeptical, but I haven't been to the south pole so first of all, I'm not sure the stars completely circle around there. They do appear to from southern hemisphere observations. So accepting that premise, you mentioned several times people not having an open mind on the subject, but is it not possible that the sky itself could curve in such a fashion over a flat surface (or whatever) that it creates the same pattern? It certainly is possible to imagine something like that and it's no more conceptually valid or invalid than the land being convex/concave. Whether the sky and celestial objects are even tangible is debatable (and by strict definition, they obviously aren't), and we are all limited by our first person perspective.

Most, if not all, visual evidence can be viewed in a variety of ways. But if thinking the sky and it's lights are holograms is "magical" then so is thinking we live inside a giant ball. I wouldn't dismiss either, but I question where the line is. Again, I am not sure that any human being has the context to accurately assess this.

The resurrection of the flat earth movement is a recent internet phenomenon.
I've been studying the concave earth as well as the hollow earth theories since the mid-1990's and I never had a single mention of the flat earth until about five or six years ago. This is why I have been so shocked that people even consider it now. It was put away dead long ago, and the only thing that resurrected it was religious fanaticism caused by what I feel is misinterpretations of the bible.
It's also a strong possibility that the new flat earth movement is merely a smokescreen used to cover up the concave earth theory. What other theory could they use to keep people from exploring the concave earth? They first pumped up the hollow earth theory to confuse the two. After the attempt to find the holes in the poles failed in 2013 I believe it was, interest in the hollow earth waned. Now that idea is pretty much dead and no one as far as I see is researching that anymore. So in come the flat earth stuff to muddy the waters again.
The only ones really opposing the concave earth idea are the flat earth believers. The Copernican believers pretty much don't care. They don't consider the concave earth a competing theory.
So why do flat earthers oppose the concave earth model so vehemently? Well it's because there is no evidence of a flat earth! All that supposed "new" flat earth evidence you see on the internet also applies to the concave earth. It is concave earth evidence they are uncovering and are twisting it to suit their flat earth dreams! The laser experiments and all the other stuff they are doing. It's all concave earth evidence.
For years I had to try to get people to just open their minds to another possibility. Now I have to try and convince people the world isn't flat! To me it's absolutely insane, and it shows how easily we are fooled when we are young of age. What is the age of the average flat earth believer? Ever meet an 80 year old who believes in a flat earth? I haven't. Most believers I've talked to are teens and early twenty somethings. That is not a slight against youth. I was very easily fooled at that age as well.

I am sorry, but this is all a bunch of rhetoric nonsense. I find the continued attacks on flat earthers to be the most bizarre part of this argument. Many flat earthers are independent researchers with plenty of observations that show distances that would seem impossible on/in a sphere, which is what led them to their conclusion and many would say when pressed "well, I know it's not a spinning ball, at least not the size it's claimed."

It just seems that opposing concave earth means asking for more than a few observations (which mean you dismiss the flat earth and globe earth observations, of which there are lots) or conceptual workarounds. Sure, that's the level of proof that may work for the heliocentric globe model, and for some flat earthers (though less than the average person I am willing to bet), but we should be looking for actual empirical evidence if in fact the shape of the earth is something that can be objectively shown (no idea).

Ok, I'm sorry again if I'm piling on, but I am consistently seeing claims like:

"After the attempt to find the holes in the poles failed in 2013 I believe it was, interest in the hollow earth waned."

Who on earth is credible enough and in a position to say that?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-16 19:44:01
Reaction Score: 1

You do know Cyrus was deeply religious long before he was knocked out by his electricity experiment and had his vision.
From my readings today the flat earth crew spend their time attacking the convex eartt crew who respond in kind. Complete waste of time and effort as far as I can tell.
It looks to me Cyrus may well have been aware of previous people's hollow earth theory which predates his vision and ran along with his after vision theory but oddly he didn't attack that one either.
Interestingly to me, his proof that the earth is not convex matches exactly the proof the flat earth crew use to show the lack of convexity.

Here is the chapter of his book called Experiments on Lake Michigan which he proves convexity is not possible. The Cellular Cosmogony: Experiments on Lake Michigan

As for keeping the water stuck onto the concavity it has too do with flow of gravity out of the sun which keeps everything in its proper place again as far as I can tell from his book. Please feel free to correct me if this is wrong.
This chap and his life is becoming very interesting.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-12-16 19:49:05
Reaction Score: 1

So maybe I'm too skeptical, but I haven't been to the south pole so first of all, I'm not sure the stars completely circle around there. They do appear to from southern hemisphere observations. So accepting that premise, you mentioned several times people not having an open mind on the subject, but is it not possible that the sky itself could curve in such a fashion over a flat surface (or whatever) that it creates the same pattern? It certainly is possible to imagine something like that and it's no more conceptually valid or invalid than the land being convex/concave. Whether the sky and celestial objects are even tangible is debatable (and by strict definition, they obviously aren't), and we are all limited by our first person perspective.

Most, if not all, visual evidence can be viewed in a variety of ways. But if thinking the sky and it's lights are holograms is "magical" then so is thinking we live inside a giant ball. I wouldn't dismiss either, but I question where the line is. Again, I am not sure that any human being has the context to accurately assess this.

I appreciate your position here. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, the trick is doing it without closing your mind to possible new truths. But are you fully thinking this thing through? You don't need to go to the south pole to make that discovery. People live all around the south pole. Australia, south America, and Africa surround it on all sides. And people have sailed those seas for hundreds of years if not longer. The southern skies are well known to those who live down there (it is only down from our perspective here in the north). That is how we got those star trail photo's. They are real. How many people in the southern hemisphere believe in the flat earth? I never see anyone from these southern locations saying there is no south pole or polar vortex. Not one. Maybe there are a few believers down there, but I certainly haven't met any.
And even if the stars are holograms, it doesn't matter.
THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO PROJECT THE STARS IN THOSE PATTERNS WITHOUT A SOUTH POLE.
That is the issue. No hologram could project that pattern without a pole. It is absolute proof. There is no magic here. You need to think this through, Banta. Once you see it you will understand. It simply can't be done. How can you have the southern cross above South Africa, Argentina, and Australia at the same time on the flat earth? Its just not possible. It's not magic. It's impossible.
Furthermore, the north pole doesn't work in the flat earth model either. The stars simply don't work on a dome, hologram or not. It's the geometric pattern that doesn't work and it has nothing to do with the composition of the stars.
Before I started promoting the concave earth idea I spent years trying to disprove it. In the end, I couldn't. The evidence just gets stronger.
HOW MANY FLAT-EARTHERS EVER TRY TO FALSIFY THEIR OWN THEORY?
This is your first step in researching. Try to falsify it. If you can't prove it's false then you move on to finding evidence supporting it. I have yet to meet a single flat-earther who has tried to falsify the flat earth theory! Not one.
I'm still looking for evidence to prove the concave earth false. I haven't found anything yet. There always seems to be a way it fits in the theory. So for the last ten years or so I have been looking for evidence to support it. And I have found much evidence supporting it and one experiment clearly proves it in my mind. It's rock solid evidence supported by mathematics and was performed by actual scientists who repeated the experiment time and again and at different locations by other researchers. In the end they literally buried the evidence. Furthermore, all the competing theories can and have been be falsified through experimentation and observation, including the Copernican model they force on us in school and on television.
That is why I am strong on my convictions of a concave earth. But I am still open to the possibility that it is wrong and will continue to look at opposing evidence. I am not a "believer" in anything. I try my best to understand. That's all we can really do. I wish there were more people seeking understanding and less believers.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-16 20:00:06
Reaction Score: 1

178 pages in and here it is the proof on concavity. The Cellular Cosmogony: Objections by Illogical Critics

Experiments on Naples Bay

A straight reach of 4½ miles was found upon the smooth waters of Naples Bay. At the most southern extremity a target of white cloth 29x30 inches was fixed upon an upright with cross-arms; the top of the target stood 2 feet above the high-tide mark, leaving a space of 4 or 5 inches to the water's surface.

On March 5, at time of high tide, the Staff sailed to the farthest point northeast from which the target could be seen with the telescope. To the naked eye, the target was entirely invisible. The horizon seemed to occult the lower limbs of the belt of mangrove trees constituting the background of the view.

Over the water at the point of observation, the telescope was fixed at an altitude of 30 inches above the water, and through it the target stood out in bold relief. The instrument was then lowered to within 18 inches, with the same observed results. Afterward, at the height of 10 inches above the water, the entire surface of the target was still visible.

Very careful observations were made and repeated with the telescope at this altitude. The target was clear cut and well defined, and even the space between the bottom of the target and the water was observable. Then, to make the test absolutely satisfactory and conclusive, the telescope was fixed upon the water's surface; with the instrument almost touching the water--indeed, it could not be placed closer without wetting the lenses--long and careful observations were made. There could be no mistake; the entire surface of the target could be seen, with a small dark line of the background appearing beneath it.

The terrestrial eyepiece was then exchanged for

p. 178
the astronomical eyepiece of greater power. The target was increased in size, and the relations of the target and the water's surface and the background came out still more noticeably. The object glass is 3 inches in diameter; the axis of the telescope was 2 inches above the water. On the basis of convexity, the horizon would be but one half mile away--for the declination for one half mile is considered to be 2 inches--leaving 4 miles of surface to decline from the horizon point, amounting to 10¾ feet. The target would have to be higher than 10¾ feet above the water in order to be seen; as it was at an altitude of only two feet, it would be 8¾ feet below the line of sight.

Water's Concavity Visible

These are the most satisfactory observations thus far made by the Geodetic Staff, because the tests were more crucial. The results were conclusive, as they afforded an ocular demonstration of the earth's concavity. A stake 2 feet in height was placed midway between the Observing Station and the target, with cross-bar at top of stake.

With the telescope at the same altitude, the cross-bar was observed to be a little below the top of the tar-get, with the target foreshortened by perspective to a breadth equal to about one half the length of the stake. With the visual axis of the telescope 2 inches above the water, the cross-bar was seen to be in line with the top of the target.

Besides this observation, an absolutely satisfactory view was had of the water surface itself. With the telescope placed absolutely level, the water appeared to slope gradually upward to the center of


p. 179
the telescopic field. With the objective end of the telescope placed a little upward from the true level, and with the water still visible near the objective end of the instrument, the actual concavity of the water--a mid-way depression--was clearly observable.

This midway depression was at the point of the stake with cross-bar midway between the point of observation and the target, from which midway depression there was a gradual slope upward to the target. This view was obtained by the long, terrestrial eye-piece, and also by the astronomical eyepiece, the concavity through the latter being the more marked. There could be no mistake as to the concave arc; the. water was seen to be not convex; it did not appear to be a plane, but concave!

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-12-16 20:06:29
Reaction Score: 1

For myself the lack of observable curvature is a big turn off. If the same curvature formula applies, I think we are supposed to be able to see it. I do not think that we are too small to notice it. And the higher we ascend the more of this curvature we should be able to see. Distances are not that great for the curvature to not be noticeable.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-12-16 20:09:54
Reaction Score: 1

You do know Cyrus was deeply religious long before he was knocked out by his electricity experiment and had his vision.
From my readings today the flat earth crew spend their time attacking the convex eartt crew who respond in kind. Complete waste of time and effort as far as I can tell.
It looks to me Cyrus may well have been aware of previous people's hollow earth theory which predates his vision and ran along with his after vision theory but oddly he didn't attack that one either.
Interestingly to me, his proof that the earth is not convex matches exactly the proof the flat earth crew use to show the lack of convexity.

Here is the chapter of his book called Experiments on Lake Michigan which he proves convexity is not possible. The Cellular Cosmogony: Experiments on Lake Michigan

As for keeping the water stuck onto the concavity it has too do with flow of gravity out of the sun which keeps everything in its proper place again as far as I can tell from his book. Please feel free to correct me if this is wrong.
This chap and his life is becoming very interesting.

Now you know where the flat earthers got their idea from! This might come as a bit of a surprise to you, but I don't agree with Teed's conception of our world. I agree that it is probably concave and we live on the inside, but I think much of the model he created is flawed. So my vision of a concave world is quite different than his.
He was raised to be very religious, and he did believe he was visited by what he called "the female aspect of God." He was also trained in a medical system that no longer exists called eclectic medicine. From what I've been able to find, it was similar to what we call now naturopathic medicine. Teed experimented with alchemy as well.
Teed was an unusual man who was very charismatic and apparently a great orator. He had an especially strong appeal to middle aged women, and often times found himself defending against angry husbands. He died from wounds he suffered from a beating by the local town marshal!
If you are interested in Teed's life, here is a really crappy video I made about his life. Some day I'll do it over.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2019-12-16 20:20:19
Reaction Score: 2

I appreciate your position here. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, the trick is doing it without closing your mind to possible new truths. But are you fully thinking this thing through? You don't need to go to the south pole to make that discovery. People live all around the south pole. Australia, south America, and Africa surround it on all sides. And people have sailed those seas for hundreds of years if not longer. The southern skies are well known to those who live down there (it is only down from our perspective here in the north). That is how we got those star trail photo's. They are real. How many people in the southern hemisphere believe in the flat earth? I never see anyone from these southern locations saying there is no south pole or polar vortex. Not one. Maybe there are a few believers down there, but I certainly haven't met any.

I think I am thinking this through, but thank you for checking! First of all, I am not sure what a "pole" really is to begin with. Geographic south pole? Magnetic? So, when I say I'm not sure if they circle around a pole, unless you're saying by definition, that's what they circle around, then I'm not really sure what that means anyway. Which is why I quickly just accepted the premise and agreed that southern "hemisphere" observations imply circular star motion around what can be called a pole. Moving on...

And even if the stars are holograms, it doesn't matter.
THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO PROJECT THE STARS IN THOSE PATTERNS WITHOUT A SOUTH POLE.
That is the issue. No hologram could project that pattern without a pole. It is absolute proof. There is no magic here. You need to think this through, Banta. Once you see it you will understand. It simply can't be done. How can you have the southern cross above South Africa, Argentina, and Australia at the same time on the flat earth?

Although the boldness of the font indicates that I should totally accept this, I do not. We see stars traveling around a vortex in the sky. Imagine, just briefly and simply, if the entire earth realm was an infinite plane, but segments of the sky were divided into circularesque segments, perhaps due to the nature of the local sun. The local sky could be rounded and reflected around you at the edges. Does this sound ridiculous? Maybe! But what makes living inside of a giant sphere any less ridiculous?

Maybe I would find the argument more convincing if I was even sure where the continents were located relatively, although again, I don't really see how that even necessarily matters. The point is, if you can develop a physical model of the Earth to account for how you see the sky, you can create a physical model of the sky that creates the SAME observations. They are both just stories and not scientifically or empirically valid because of things like the thought exercise I just typed above.

The stars simply don't work on a dome, hologram or not.

Again, you keep asserting this, but it's simply not true. You could maybe say that creating a shape to the sky that creates the same perspective from the observer is harder, less likely, etc, but it's literally not impossible. Does sky need to turn in circles to give the appearance of that? Could the sky change appearance based on local conditions (yes, obviously in ways, do we know the extent)?

HOW MANY FLAT-EARTHERS EVER TRY TO FALSIFY THEIR OWN THEORY?
This is your first step in researching. Try to falsify it. If you can't prove it's false then you move on to finding evidence supporting it. I have yet to meet a single flat-earther who has tried to falsify the flat earth theory! Not one.

You need to find better flat earthers then, because most I know entertain the idea because they tried to disprove it (or prove the globe).

It's rock solid evidence supported by mathematics and was performed by actual scientists who repeated the experiment time and again and at different locations by other researchers. In the end they literally buried the evidence

Mathematics by actual scientists? Whee!! And experiments, eh? What's the hypothesis being tested here, with regards to the shape of the earth?

You are at best correlating observational data, which is fine for certain applications, but let's not confused any of this earth shape business with actual empirical science.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2019-12-16 20:28:40
Reaction Score: 1

For myself the lack of observable curvature is a big turn off. If the same curvature formula applies, I think we are supposed to be able to see it. I do not think that we are too small to notice it. And the higher we ascend the more of this curvature we should be able to see. Distances are not that great for the curvature to not be noticeable.

It's funny you should say that because once you see it you can't un-see it. It's there. it's visible. But it's very subtle. The distances are very great for our ability to decipher it, plus our brains do everything they can to make it seem flat, simply so we can have balance. But it can be seen to some extent. Look into our vision, how the eyes are designed, and how the work with the brain work to give us our vision, the inner ears and how our bodies balance themselves, and it starts to make more sense. Many balloonists have reported the horizon rises along with the balloon and the earth beneath looks like a salad bowl. It has been written that airplane pilots also have noticed this phenomenon too, but obviously prefer to keep their occupations rather than report about it. The same reason they keep quiet about UFO sightings.
The problem as I see it is young people expect to see a vision like in a video game. There are a few that use a concave world as their model, but they are not realistic visions, they are fantasies, and have given people false expectations of what a concave world looks like.
If you want to see what a concave earth really looks like, just open your mind and your eyes will see. It's all around us!

I think I am thinking this through, but thank you for checking! First of all, I am not sure what a "pole" really is to begin with. Geographic south pole? Magnetic? So, when I say I'm not sure if they circle around a pole, unless you're saying by definition, that's what they circle around, then I'm not really sure what that means anyway. Which is why I quickly just accepted the premise and agreed that southern "hemisphere" observations imply circular star motion around what can be called a pole. Moving on...



Although the boldness of the font indicates that I should totally accept this, I do not. We see stars traveling around a vortex in the sky. Imagine, just briefly and simply, if the entire earth realm was an infinite plane, but segments of the sky were divided into circularesque segments, perhaps due to the nature of the local sun. The local sky could be rounded and reflected around you at the edges. Does this sound ridiculous? Maybe! But what makes living inside of a giant sphere any less ridiculous?

Maybe I would find the argument more convincing if I was even sure where the continents were located relatively, although again, I don't really see how that even necessarily matters. The point is, if you can develop a physical model of the Earth to account for how you see the sky, you can create a physical model of the sky that creates the SAME observations. They are both just stories and not scientifically or empirically valid because of things like the thought exercise I just typed above.



Again, you keep asserting this, but it's simply not true. You could maybe say that creating a shape to the sky that creates the same perspective from the observer is harder, less likely, etc, but it's literally not impossible. Does sky need to turn in circles to give the appearance of that? Could the sky change appearance based on local conditions (yes, obviously in ways, do we know the extent)?



You need to find better flat earthers then, because most I know entertain the idea because they tried to disprove it (or prove the globe).



Mathematics by actual scientists? Whee!! And experiments, eh? What's the hypothesis being tested here, with regards to the shape of the earth?

You are at best correlating observational data, which is fine for certain applications, but let's not confused any of this earth shape business with actual empirical science.

Well, you should do some more research because the experiments were done by actual scientists and were covered up because they obviously wanted to keep their jobs.