Flat Earth

[eitea]

What empirical proof do you have that enables you to say "Certainly not flat" ?

Why do you say "concave alone is not enough, but is a good "beginning point" to begin figuring out" ?

Empiricism is not all that is.
Primarily genuine logic, more so that true empiricism cannot be directly viewed, but only comprehended internally.
Very few people are capable of genuine logic, or perhaps more precisely able to look and see logicality rather than mere thinking. Most simply regurgitate what they have put into their brains memory and combine those statistical cold and unchanging points so create newer cold and unchanging pictures that essentially are those same statistical points they already have in their memory; who generally are also stuck to modern understandings that so prevent genuine logical ability to ever be achieved.

It's not so much that what I have to show that certainly is not flat. But rather what do flatters have to show that it is flat? They don't have anything to show that Earth is flat, only claims based on emptiness and wrong assumptions and delusions.
Concavity in turn has actual experimental proofs that clearly hint at Earth being concave. But if taken into account more facts and logical possibilities and impossibilities, that hint at something yet further, greater, then rather becomes obvious that "concavity" alone is not enough.

Flatters have done that much as to prove convex false. And by doing this they by default try to assert that since is not convex, then must be flat. Flatters deny themselves anything other than flat. They are fanatical cultists.
Simply because something is proven to be false, while researching something else, proving false that something does not make right that something else. That something else also has yet to be proven. Or might also prove to be yet another lie, as it has.
Convex has been proven to be false. Flat has not been proven to be true, and taking into consideration many facts and logical points that make flat evidently impossible, rather clearly shows flat is also false.

Flatearthism is simply another fanatical cult.

When I were to begin writing out reasons I've come to, I've found, that would be at least around 10 000 word long text, if not longer. Probably longer, and goes beyond concavity and beyond what is regarded as "god" level. Goes beyond because need to know and so find reasons for why is as is and not some other way.

I do not cram details into brain memory, nor do I keep some links to some texts and research, nor other such cold and unchanging statistical stuff. It is not about hoarding exterior statistical "facts" and "data" so to simply shove them into others faces when talking about some topics. It is about growing personal inner knowledge and ability to see. I grow inner knowledge, ability to see so-to-say logical landscape. Logicality is connectedness and relativeness, patterns and forms and tones and such "abstract" stuff, that cannot be empirically shown, and yet have clear undeniable meanings and reasons. Comprehension happens inside, not outside. What more knowledge I gain, that much more powerfully and expansively and deeper I come to see.
Flatters keep running around exterior stuff, stuff someone else shoved before their sight. They keep bringing before their vision stuff they have already seen. They follow, but do not comprehend. They do not advance themselves, they instead try to find excuses to flatearthism, as do any cultists whose beliefs are "challenged". And they search for "challengers", and then begin endless arguings, as is common to fanatical cultists.

It's fine if someone has just found that something is wrong with official version, and so came to flat. But why keep self stuck to flat that after some honest reasearch and thinking is obviously yet another lie?
Why go from being stuck to some lies, to being stuck to other lies? From same to same. From primary to alternative. Meaning of alternative is "same general outcome as that of primary". From victim of lies to victim of lies.

 

[Quiahuitl]

I was a professional scientific researcher for many years so naturally I've believed in the Copernican (round ball) model all my life. As a child I read many books about astronomy. 90% of what Flat Earthers say is garbage.

A few years ago I came across the Bedford Levels experiment and it appears that there is a lot of evidence that it is impossible to directly measure the curvature of the Earth, which is said to be 8" per mile squared. That is very interesting.

There are thousands of photos of things too far away to be visible over the horizon, for example the Chicago skyline photographed from the other side of the great lake; ships at one end of the Suez canal photographed from the other end. I will put more info at the bottom of this post.

Short of doing one of these experiments myself, there is no way for me to be absolutely certain that this information is true. However these types of experiments are relatively easy to do, I've done far more complicated/expensive experiments myself. It seems to me that if these types of experiment gave the desired outcome (i.e. validated the assumed curvature of the Earth), then they would appear in every school text book. Yet they do not. I have not seen these types of experiment referred to anywhere in the conventional scientific canon. I've spent enough hours looking into this to satisfy myself that this type of data is really good evidence that the Earth is flat. This is very interesting.

Another experiment which would easily prove the spinning ball model, but which no-one has ever done, is the centrifugal force measurement. An object at the equator, which is moving at 1500MPH due to the rotation of the Earth, would be subject to an upwards centrifugal force equal to 0.3% of its mass. There's a wiki article on this. If you took a very accurate set of scales and weighed an object at or near the North pole then again at the equator, you should be able to measure a 0.3% difference in its weight. Again this is an easy experiment to do and I'm surprised no-one has done it since it would prove the spinning ball model very easily. Again, I can only assume that it does not give the desired result, that's why we don't hear about it.

I realise that there are some proposed models of how the Sun and Moon move around on a flat disk, and I don't understand these models well enough to critique them. However it seems to me that the movements of the planets and the stars are much better described by the Copernican model than by any Flat Earth model I've so far seen. Thanks to an earlier post in this thread, I've seen star trails at the equator, which looks really hard to explain with the Flat Earth model.

Antarctica is very interesting. For a start it's protected by the entire world's militaries and no civilian is allowed past the 60th parallel on pain of death. An earlier post claimed there was a circumnavigation of the continent completed in 2018 in 70-something days. However a fellow contributor took the time to watch the video and determined that at no point in this circumnavigation was the Antarctic ice wall visible.

Let us be clear - the only circumnavigation of Antarctica that would debunk the Flat Earth is one in which the ice wall is visible the entire time. If the Earth was round this would be a few thousand miles, if flat tens of thousands of miles. To my knowledge no-one has ever done this, or if they have the outcome has not been published. For those who don't know, Admiral Byrd led a US Navy exploration of Antarctica in the 1950s and he is on record as saying 'There is an entire continent the size of America beyond Antarctica.'

REFERENCES

From Wiki-

Weight of an object at the poles and on the equator​

If an object is weighed with a simple spring balance at one of the Earth's poles, there are two forces acting on the object: the Earth's gravity, which acts in a downward direction, and the equal and opposite restoring force in the spring, acting upward. Since the object is stationary and not accelerating, there is no net force acting on the object and the force from the spring is equal in magnitude to the force of gravity on the object. In this case, the balance shows the value of the force of gravity on the object.

When the same object is weighed on the equator, the same two real forces act upon the object. However, the object is moving in a circular path as the Earth rotates and therefore experiencing a centripetal acceleration. When considered in an inertial frame (that is to say, one that is not rotating with the Earth), the non-zero acceleration means that force of gravity will not balance with the force from the spring. In order to have a net centripetal force, the magnitude of the restoring force of the spring must be less than the magnitude of force of gravity. Less restoring force in the spring is reflected on the scale as less weight — about 0.3% less at the equator than at the poles.[11] In the Earth reference frame (in which the object being weighed is at rest), the object does not appear to be accelerating, however the two real forces, gravity and the force from the spring, are the same magnitude and do not balance. The centrifugal force must be included to make the sum of the forces be zero to match the apparent lack of acceleration.

Note: In fact, the observed weight difference is more — about 0.53%. Earth's gravity is a bit stronger at the poles than at the equator, because the Earth is not a perfect sphere, so an object at the poles is slightly closer to the center of the Earth than one at the equator; this effect combines with the centrifugal force to produce the observed weight difference.[12]


CURVATURE OF EARTH

Assuming the Earth is a sphere with a circumference of 24,000 miles you can calculate the curvature with simple maths.

Take the distance between object and observer in miles, square it and multiply by 8 and you get the height difference in inches due to curvature. So if something is one mile away there is 8" of curvature. Two miles gives 32" and so on.

At 3 miles the curvature is 6 feet. If you and a friend go to somewhere level like a long stretch of beach, a railway track bed, a canal, a salt flats, you should have trouble seeing each other if you are more than 3 miles apart and you should not be able to see each other at all if you are 6 miles apart. And that would be the same using a telescope, since you would both be behind the Earth's curvature in the eyes of the other.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

I would say 99% of mainstream astronomy is garbage . The cornerstones of astronomy theory are globe earth and light about which we know little and whose speed has never been measured. All astronomy observations obtained within globe theory show earth to be the centre of what is termed the cosmos.

It's a fallacy to say that FErs know nothing about astronomy or science or experiment . The Copernican model introduced no new observation to the Brahes' geocentric model based on empirical observation. Basing a model on an assumptions of a rotating earth is not scienctific.

 

[Quiahuitl]

I tend to agree with you about mainstream astronomy. It seems like a self-reinforcing set of assumptions to me - we know the universe is expanding because of the red shift, we know that stars with more red shift are further away because we know the universe is expanding. None of that was accepted as fact until relatively recently. I believe it's true to say that the Astronomer Royal Edmund Halley in the 1950s did not believe in the Big Bang or the expanding universe.

Since we live on Earth, we have no option but to observe the cosmos from here. We can't directly measure the rotation of the Earth, so we have no way of knowing if we are stationary and the Sky spinning round or the other way round. We can only deduce that from other observable phenomena.

My understanding is that Copernicus died before Tycho Brae was born, and that it was Galileo who used Brae's observations to prove Copernicus' model. This story has been repeated in thousand of books and it's what I was taught at school in the 70s, however the powers that should not be seem to be trying to erase this from our history and claim that mankind has believed in the Copernican model since 2000 years before Copernicus was born.

All scientific models are based on assumptions. It is literally impossible to do Science without assumptions.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Fred Hoyle another one - thought the background cosmic radiation was nothing to do with a big bang. His idea - it was evidence of the constant creation of matter as I recall it. Steady state theory.

The trouble with stellar red shift is that it requires that light has a velocity. Read a book by Oxford Professor R. Dingle in the early seventies . He thought that light had limitless or no velocity and that any change in wavelength was transmitted instantly , what is called redshift had nothing to do with distance or age of galaxies. The guy was an advocate for Special and General relativity until he realised it was a silly theory full of paradoxes.

Yes you are right about Copernicus and Brahe but wasn't it Kepler that stole Brahes data and came up with his "Laws" - there was no new data after Brahe that proved heliocentricity. Why can't we directly measure rotation from earth?

The assumption that we live in a heliocentric system has never been proven. Speed of light has never been measured. At some point you have to verify your original assumptions by experiment - any theory that's built on top of unproven assumption is not science .Several experiments have failed to find rotation and none have been done to verify curvature as far as I'm aware.

If we cant measure rotation directly then how can we produce a scientifically based model based on nothing but imagination?

 

[eitea]

there is a lot of evidence that it is impossible to directly measure the curvature of the Earth

Can anything be genuinely directly measured...? Rather not.
As Earth's shape is regarded as material-physical in quality, but everything we can see is due to light, via light, and not material-physical directly. All measurements are done by aid of light and eyesight. Measured are pictures formed by aid of light and eyesight.
All measurements are based on seeming pictures formed due to light carrying info that somewhere deeper within us form into pictures we see. Measured are essentially pictures, but not Earth itself. So this means all so-to-say scientific measurements, are actually measurements of illusions. And comparing pictures with pictures, and deciding which picture is more real than that other as real picture. All while not taking into account reasons and workings that make and allow and enable stuff to seem as they seem, causes that make those pictures be as they are and seem.

So people who talk about "facts" and want "facts"... Can never get true genuine facts. Because doing pictorial-based tests and experiments, cannot really prove anything other than such pictures can be formed.
But can get very close to factual states of being, via use of logic. So essentially logic is the only way to make certain of anything, as close to "certain" as can get with ways and means available to our present Earthly state of being and working.

With minimalistic ways maximalistic results. Least effort to get highest richness. Anyone who goes into "scientific" deep detail and complex functions and laws and whatever such, without having any general working model to stand for all those details, is on wrong path and with bad results. Whatever model anyone has, must be many times remade into more correct one, so much that first and say some fifth version may seemingly have no relation to each other - done similar myself, to my own versions, many times over, and not only shape of Earth but other topics as well, and certainly will do so again and again and so forth, every time becoming more correct.
Model is something general, overall qualities. Short and simple. That is logical, and through logic can easily be extended to immense accurate detail. General model that stands for all and explains all, which by using logic can be extended into showing details as to why all is and works as does. None of this can be acquired by merely observing and comparing pictures formed before personal sight, nor by assuming those comparison states to be "what truly and only is", beause this way can only get stuff left out from other pictures, stuff that can be seen pictorially and as such are not causes nor true state of being of whatever is attempted to observe.

Whatever someone is looking at, does not actually see that whatever. Seen is essentially only some illusion originating from that whatever, via light that "carries" influence or info from that something.

 

[otl2021]

Can anything be genuinely directly measured...? Rather not.
As Earth's shape is regarded as material-physical in quality, but everything we can see is due to light, via light, and not material-physical directly. All measurements are done by aid of light and eyesight.

Not only can Earth's curvature be directly measured (regardless of light), there is a group of engineers who right now are working on bringing Brian Mullin's project, to do just this, to fruition.

Force the Line

Basically, it is just a matter of constructing a structure capable of supporting to lines (or rails). One line is the forced straight line. This is accomplished by connecting each section by bracket that would force the 180 degree connection, thus guaranteeing a perfectly straight line over the entire distance.

On top of that line, another is constructed. This line has each section formed by using a spirit level. It's that simple.

For clarity, if the Earth is a globe as described with gravity moving everything towards the center of a ball (including the bubble in spirit levels), the line on top will show this by eventually curving down towards the forced straight line.

If however, both lines remain parallel over the entire distance, well, then, as we all already know, the Earth is a plane as it will be proven that gravity does not move anything to the center of a ball that does not exist.

This might help to visualize the experiment:

 

[FarewellAngelina]

I remember Mullins' series of videos - they were good . Force the line done as he suggests would be nice to see .

Do you know if this group is carrying out their own version or sticking to Brians idea?

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Can anything be genuinely directly measured...? Rather not.
As Earth's shape is regarded as material-physical in quality, but everything we can see is due to light, via light, and not material-physical directly. All measurements are done by aid of light and eyesight. Measured are pictures formed by aid of light and eyesight.
All measurements are based on seeming pictures formed due to light carrying info that somewhere deeper within us form into pictures we see. Measured are essentially pictures, but not Earth itself. So this means all so-to-say scientific measurements, are actually measurements of illusions. And comparing pictures with pictures, and deciding which picture is more real than that other as real picture. All while not taking into account reasons and workings that make and allow and enable stuff to seem as they seem, causes that make those pictures be as they are and seem.

So people who talk about "facts" and want "facts"... Can never get true genuine facts. Because doing pictorial-based tests and experiments, cannot really prove anything other than such pictures can be formed.
But can get very close to factual states of being, via use of logic. So essentially logic is the only way to make certain of anything, as close to "certain" as can get with ways and means available to our present Earthly state of being and working.

With minimalistic ways maximalistic results. Least effort to get highest richness. Anyone who goes into "scientific" deep detail and complex functions and laws and whatever such, without having any general working model to stand for all those details, is on wrong path and with bad results. Whatever model anyone has, must be many times remade into more correct one, so much that first and say some fifth version may seemingly have no relation to each other - done similar myself, to my own versions, many times over, and not only shape of Earth but other topics as well, and certainly will do so again and again and so forth, every time becoming more correct.
Model is something general, overall qualities. Short and simple. That is logical, and through logic can easily be extended to immense accurate detail. General model that stands for all and explains all, which by using logic can be extended into showing details as to why all is and works as does. None of this can be acquired by merely observing and comparing pictures formed before personal sight, nor by assuming those comparison states to be "what truly and only is", beause this way can only get stuff left out from other pictures, stuff that can be seen pictorially and as such are not causes nor true state of being of whatever is attempted to observe.

Whatever someone is looking at, does not actually see that whatever. Seen is essentially only some illusion originating from that whatever, via light that "carries" influence or info from that something.

I agree nothing can be measured accurately - every measurement made of some thing will differ . That is well known . All measures are approximations and we have various degrees of accuracy.

You avoid the questions I asked by turning to philosophy , Kant' s ideas ,from the Critique of Reason I believe , or the old Greek cave idea, can't remember his name . Perhaps you should start a thread.

Also you said earlier that "Concavity in turn has actual experimental proofs that clearly hint at Earth being concave."

Evidence and clues hint at things . Proofs are not hints. What are these proofs that hint at things?

 

[eitea]

You avoid the questions I asked by turning to philosophy , Kant' s ideas ,from the Critique of Reason I believe , or the old Greek cave idea, can't remember his name . Perhaps you should start a thread.

Also you said earlier that "Concavity in turn has actual experimental proofs that clearly hint at Earth being concave."

Evidence and clues hint at things . Proofs are not hints. What are these proofs that hint at things?

I do not avoid questions. It is about honesty to self, and in turn to others, that must first be fulfilled, before going onward with reasearch, and during research, and when asking questions and answering them. Honesty is what almost all people neglect and violate severely. If there is lack of honesty in question asked, then answer to that question must first address that lack of honesty, because due to lack of honesty that question is not justified. Asking questions based on lack of honesty, is as if attempt to force answering side to lie, to admit lies into him- or herself, as if attempt to make other one do evil, to make other one socalled "sin" or "debt of life", and so less worthy of life and more worthy of evil.

I did not, do not, will not, ever, turn to other peoples opinions and present them as my own. There is no Kant's or whoever else's opinions in my sayings and writings. Nor will ever be, unless specifically pointed that "this is written by this or that person" or simply that by someone else. I haven't even read those works, and most likely never will. I do not parrot, nor ever will, someone else's as my own. I offer my own genuine, as should every person their own genuine, because if not then nothing ever can truly advance onward because there's nearly only copy-pasting of that which already has been found out.

Proofs can and are also hints, and both also hint at yet further something. What one proof is to someone, same can be something very dfferent to someone else or even not anything at all. It's about personal acquired knowledge and understandings, and who how much has, how broad and deep they go - those with less will comprehend less, and so might not get presented meanings at all and mistranslate severely.

With lack of honesty as basis, cannot get further with anything, except wrong and bad and evil. This obviously applies to all topics, not only Earth's shape one - look at official version, how highly detailed they've gone, and nearly or all of it is garbage. Why is flatearthism so big "hit", because there's severe lack of honesty about those who further it.
Purpose of flatearthism is to replace ballearthism, so evil ones could still hold high positions among people. This applies to all other areas and topics as well - they, evil ones, make their own cults with dogmas that seem as if true and correct, so to trap people and so keep themselves as "leaders". So when modernism "falls", they are still in leading positions. These rotten roots and branches must be cut off and destroyed, one of which is flatearthism - which can only be done if honesty is as basis of self, and so of all thoughts and actions and research and questions and answers.

 

[otl2021]

I remember Mullins' series of videos - they were good . Force the line done as he suggests would be nice to see .

Do you know if this group is carrying out their own version or sticking to Brians idea?

They seem to be going for pretty much exactly what Mullin suggested.

And they seem good:

What one proof is to someone, same can be something very dfferent to someone else or even not anything at all.

Do you know what all these one to one perfect reflections prove?

 

[FarewellAngelina]

I do not avoid questions. It is about honesty to self, and in turn to others, that must first be fulfilled, before going onward with reasearch, and during research, and when asking questions and answering them. Honesty is what almost all people neglect and violate severely. If there is lack of honesty in question asked, then answer to that question must first address that lack of honesty, because due to lack of honesty that question is not justified. Asking questions based on lack of honesty, is as if attempt to force answering side to lie, to admit lies into him- or herself, as if attempt to make other one do evil, to make other one socalled "sin" or "debt of life", and so less worthy of life and more worthy of evil.

I did not, do not, will not, ever, turn to other peoples opinions and present them as my own. There is no Kant's or whoever else's opinions in my sayings and writings. Nor will ever be, unless specifically pointed that "this is written by this or that person" or simply that by someone else. I haven't even read those works, and most likely never will. I do not parrot, nor ever will, someone else's as my own. I offer my own genuine, as should every person their own genuine, because if not then nothing ever can truly advance onward because there's nearly only copy-pasting of that which already has been found out.

Proofs can and are also hints, and both also hint at yet further something. What one proof is to someone, same can be something very dfferent to someone else or even not anything at all. It's about personal acquired knowledge and understandings, and who how much has, how broad and deep they go - those with less will comprehend less, and so might not get presented meanings at all and mistranslate severely.

With lack of honesty as basis, cannot get further with anything, except wrong and bad and evil. This obviously applies to all topics, not only Earth's shape one - look at official version, how highly detailed they've gone, and nearly or all of it is garbage. Why is flatearthism so big "hit", because there's severe lack of honesty about those who further it.
Purpose of flatearthism is to replace ballearthism, so evil ones could still hold high positions among people. This applies to all other areas and topics as well - they, evil ones, make their own cults with dogmas that seem as if true and correct, so to trap people and so keep themselves as "leaders". So when modernism "falls", they are still in leading positions. These rotten roots and branches must be cut off and destroyed, one of which is flatearthism - which can only be done if honesty is as basis of self, and so of all thoughts and actions and research and questions and answers.

Please provide links to the actual experimental proofs that hint at earths concavity. This is an honest request.

 

[John Galt]

Lately, I've been trying to understand hard truths about the Sun and the Moon in the context of both flat and round models. With the sun, I am most confused by its ability to generate Vitamin D in humans, and heal a number of problems. I think this is very overlooked when we discuss what the sun is and where is comes from. How can this object/reflection/ball/etc produce (or spur the production of) such an essential to life vitamin in humans? It amazes me.

On the flip side of the coin, the moon is fascinating in a creepy way. There are many strange studies and anecdotes about the effects of moonlight on various things. The one I found the strangest was that raw meat left in direct moonlight would putrefy faster than raw meat in the shade of moonlight. I will have to find the source, but it is wild. I'm sure everyone has their share of full moon stories as well.

I bring this up because I haven't seen this discussed much in the context of flat earth and it is really interesting. Any thoughts? Apologies if this has been mentioned and I missed it. I've read almost every page in this thread but not all.

 

[otl2021]

Lately, I've been trying to understand hard truths about the Sun and the Moon in the context of both flat and round models. With the sun, I am most confused by its ability to generate Vitamin D in humans, and heal a number of problems. I think this is very overlooked when we discuss what the sun is and where is comes from. How can this object/reflection/ball/etc produce (or spur the production of) such an essential to life vitamin in humans? It amazes me.

On the flip side of the coin, the moon is fascinating in a creepy way. There are many strange studies and anecdotes about the effects of moonlight on various things. The one I found the strangest was that raw meat left in direct moonlight would putrefy faster than raw meat in the shade of moonlight. I will have to find the source, but it is wild. I'm sure everyone has their share of full moon stories as well.

I bring this up because I haven't seen this discussed much in the context of flat earth and it is really interesting. Any thoughts? Apologies if this has been mentioned and I missed it. I've read almost every page in this thread but not all.

The moon's light is her own:

View: https://youtu.be/sAHmKujsbCQ

 

[Apollonius]

The moon's light is her own:

View: https://youtu.be/sAHmKujsbCQ

No, the Moon doesn't have her own light.

 

[chessquaker]

Triangulate the rays in these images and it appears the sun is just a few hundred feet away.

View attachment 19804​

View attachment 19805​

Thank you for this observation. There is a considerable instructional value in this specific example and thus in the response I am giving below so please review carefully.

Short answer: the distance of the local sun to be computed is the distance from the ground directly below the sun, not from your vantage point in the pictures. Your vantage point in the pictures and the rays projecting to you at the point have introduced Perspective. If you watch the Sun setting behind a forest, first the Sun is just above the trees, then it falls below the treetops, and then it eventually touches the ground itself.

Long answer:
The pictures provided do not show that the Sun is just above the trees. Yes, if you naively triangulate from these images without adjusting for perspective, the Sun seems extremely close to the ground. If you triangulate from where you are to a Sun that is far away horizontally, it will appear to be very close to the horizon.. that is, just above or even right on the ground.

When you observe the sun that is far away, it will appear closer to the horizon/ground from your location because of Perspective. This is the same reason we have sunset and sunrise. The Sun that is setting is not touching the ground: it just appears that way to you because you are some distance from the local Sun horizontally, not just vertically.

Perspective and Horizontal Distance from your location to the place where the Sun is directly overhead must be factored in when using the pictures you provided. Somewhere in the distance though, it will be directly overhead at a 90 degree frame of reference (point X). It is at that place (point X) where perspective is not an issue that we will be able to measure the true distance of the Sun from the ground, not from your location.

Triangulation occurs in a 2-Dimensional framework: all reference points would be in one dimension... as on a flat sheet of paper. In your pictures, you need to adjust your calculations to account for for your vertical distance (depth) from the point where the Sun is directly overhead.

If the foregoing is not adequately clear, let me rephrase:
The best way to think about this is to imagine the airborne object is directly overhead at a 90-degree angle of observation when computing the distance. In other words, the distance of the sun is to be computed as being the distance from the ground directly below the sun. Because the sun may not be overhead where you are (see the pictures you provided), the triangulation is not to be computed using your location as the frame of reference. The corpuscular rays to be selected should be the ones along the same dimension where the Sun is overhead, not the ones projecting into a 3-Dimensional frame to reach you.

In short, don't use corpuscular rays that are stretching out across the third dimension of horizontal distance from the Sun to your location. Use corpuscular rays that are in the same 2-Dimension framework as the Sun.

If you want to use the 3-D framework, (your pictures as is) then you have to adjust your calculations for perspective-- i.e., you must factor in the third dimension : your horizontal distance to that distant place where the Sun is directly overhead.

 

[Quiahuitl]

Thanks for taking the time to write this, I will study it carefully.

However I think I already know where I'm going to end up.

Maybe you can help me with this, I've discussed this with an astrophysics professor and still don't understand.

When you can see the Moon and the Sun both high in the Sky, the Moon is generally around half full (Gibbous). Something always looks wrong to me.

In my way of seeing, the axis of the Moon's phase should always be at right angles to the Sun. And yet it rarely is.

My astrophysics professor friend says that proves the Copernican model, and my problem is I'm not thinking in 3D.

However I think the Moon's phase axis should always be orthogonal to the Sun, and I can't understand what my friend is saying.

No, the Moon doesn't have her own light.

My understanding is the accepted laws of Physics say that all energy comes from the Sun, and both the Earth and the Moon are lifeless balls of rock. So it should always be colder in shade than in direct Sunlight, unless there is a local heat source.

In the case of the Moon, it reflects Sunlight onto the lifeless ball of rock upon which we live, and therefore the same should apply - it should be cooler in the shade of the Moonlight, unless there is a local heat source.

We've seen the opposite demonstrated by experiment and measurement. There are several possible explanations, the Moon has its own form of light; the Earth is a local heat source; or something else is happening. And/or something else is happening...

 

[Apollonius]

In the case of the Moon, it reflects Sunlight onto the lifeless ball of rock upon which we live, and therefore the same should apply - it should be cooler in the shade of the Moonlight, unless there is a local heat source.

The Sun, Moon, and other planets are also hollow.

At the center there is a Central Sun, most likely made of plasma. The Sun transmits the energy it receives from the Central Sun to the Earth.

This is the Empyrean heaven that Dante in The Divine Comedy seek to convey to his readers.

 

[Jd755]

Meet John Cleves Symmes jnr John Cleves Symmes Jr. - Wikipedia

​

Origins of Symmes's theoryEdit​

Writing in August 1817 to his stepson, Anthony Lockwood, Symmes for the first time stated that "I infer that all planets and globes are hollow".[22] But Symmes' theory was far from unprecedented. While the idea of polar openings leading into a Hollow Earth was Symmes's innovation, the concept of a Hollow Earth had an intellectual pedigree dating back to the 17th century and Edmond Halley.[23] Halley proposed his Hollow Earth theory as an explanation for the different locations of the geographic and magnetic poles of the Earth. While Halley's contemporaries found the geomagnetic data he had gathered to be of interest, his proposal of a Hollow Earth was never widely accepted. The theory remained dear to Halley; he chose to have his final portrait (as Astronomer Royal) painted depicting him holding a drawing of the Earth's interior as a set of concentric spheres.[16] Some scholars have proposed that Symmes may have learned of Halley's Hollow Earth via Cotton Mather's book, The Christian Philosopher, a popular survey of science as natural theology.[13][24]

Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler has often been claimed as a proponent of a Hollow Earth theory. The version of the Hollow Earth theory ascribed to Euler lacked the concentric spheres of Halley's proposal, but added the element of an interior sun.[16] But Euler may never have actually suggested any such thing; Euler scholar, C. Edward Sandifer, has examined Euler's writings and found no evidence for any such belief.[25]

Whether or not Euler ever proposed a Hollow Earth, Symmes and some of his contemporaries certainly thought Euler had. In an 1824 exchanges of newspaper letters with Symmes, D. Preston implied that Symmes theory was not original, and cited both Halley and Euler as earlier examples.[1] Symmes himself insisted that he had not known of Hollow Earth proposals of Halley and Euler at the time he conceived his theory, and that he had only learned of their works much later.[1][12] Symmes disciple, James McBride, promoting and explain Symmes theory in his book, Symmes's Theory of Concentric Spheres (1826), cited Euler as an earlier proponent of a similar theory.[26]

Has there been a reincarnation?

 

[eitea]

Please provide links to the actual experimental proofs that hint at earths concavity. This is an honest request.

Not at all honest request.
Because you are asking me to do what is yours alone to do for you. It is not due to my neglect that you are not aware of such experiments and tests and logicalities, nor due to my neglect your disability to comprehend. And if you are aware of them, then why ask for them? I don't keep some list of links, nor will I ever; I take out info contained, advance myself accordingly, and then move on.
I don't cram info into my brains memory, I grow knowledge. Two very different things.

But certainly such links and other websites for info, have been provided in this forum in appropriate threads... or use search engines...
I am never going to do your research for you. If you want them, then go ahead and do what is yours to do, only yours and no one else's.
What I know, does not come from asking others to give me. I don't even remember ever asking anyone anywhere to give me some links to some "proofs". If someone says something, I do my own research and thinking. I don't ask for links, ever.

If I have something to say, it is not so to copy-paste links to some strangers' opinions and works, but to give my own. You cannot get my personal from anyone other than me. Does same apply to you, or do you personally not have anything personal, and instead only opinions and works of other people?