Yo Guys, I gotta Red Pill you about the real shape of the Earth

[Craig Murray]

A major component to the concave earth model is that light bends upwards. So what this means is that what we call the Horizon is actually the termination point where objects in the distance bend beyond our vision. There is an interesting experiment done by a Geodesist that lends credence to this idea:

http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/

So for the Sun, this means as it moves higher up the "bowl" as you call it, it appears lower in the sky because the light is bending more before it reaches your eye.

Can you draw me a picture? Is this a bowl, or a donut, or are you on the inside of a geode?

Not sure how light could possibly bend in the way required for a bowl earth to look like a round earth from our perspective.

[Humanfit]

I believe a flat concave earth would be like the bottom half of a doughnut. I also don't necessarily think it's a "dome" I think it's a point of drastic change in frequency. Also likewise under the earth at some point. Not too dissimilar to the way octaves are to sound and color is to light. Take light frequency for example. It's all well and good just playing with colors... Till you get to thsee right frequency and you X-ray yourself.

[vdesire]

Slight problem with original post that states......

"Let this sink in a little. An artillery shell fired at 55 degrees would actually travel further than one fired at 45 degrees, despite the rule that a 45 degree trajectory should yield the furthest distance along the x axis. What does this mean? It means that trigonometry is either false, or that the true point along the x axis where the bullet landed was some point in the sky. In other words- the the surface of the Earth curves UP. "

Ok but if you actually go to the link you posted and read the article it says......

"These experiments uncovered what appeared at first sight to be a strange result: that maximum ranges are best achieved at elevations of around 50 to 55 degrees, not the 45 degrees that geometry (and ideal conditions in a vacuum) would suggest. The reason, Krupp’s technicians quickly appreciated, was that the earth’s atmosphere grows thinner the higher the altitude. Consequently, at the higher elevations, a long-range shell is travelling for a greater part of its trajectory through very thin air, increasing the range. This phenomenon would be significant for the Paris Gun project."

So it's cack all to do with trig not working or earth curving upwards. It's due to wind resistance and higher altitudes having very thin air.

[Primalredemption]

Can you draw me a picture? Is this a bowl, or a donut, or are you on the inside of a geode?

Not sure how light could possibly bend in the way required for a bowl earth to look like a round earth from our perspective.

It's a sphere, just like the globe except inside out.



The line represents your line of sight. The red area is where you cant see. So what you think of as the horizon is actually the central celestial sphere.

[Primalredemption]

So it's cack all to do with trig not working or earth curving upwards. It's due to wind resistance and higher altitudes having very thin air.

You are wrong. Air resistance of a projectile depends primarily upon the length of travel, because that is how much air needs to be overcome. So while a shell fired at 45 degrees might have a travel time of 110 seconds, a shell fired at 55 degrees has a travel time of 128 seconds. This equates to 18 more seconds of drag. The atmosphere is not "very thin" at 20k meters as opposed to 17k meters, and it would be irrelevant anyway since the majority of drag on the shell is caused by pressure differences between the nose and end due to super sonic speed.

[Craig Murray]

It's a sphere, just like the globe except inside out.



The line represents your line of sight. The red area is where you cant see. So what you think of as the horizon is actually the central celestial sphere.

So in your animation the distance from the sun to the observer is dramatically different when the sun is rising and at noon. Based on what I observe about distant objects appearing smaller I would expect the sun to appear larger at noon than it does at dawn.

For the sun to appear as it is, it must be very far away so that the relative distance of sun at dawn and sun at noon are very close. But if the surface of the Earth is the entire outside of this geode, then we know the sun must be INSIDE the geode with us. And we know how far it is around the Earth. So the sun must be very small, and contained inside the geode with us. Therefore it must change observable size as it moves across the sky.

I don't think this model makes much sense. If the surface of the Earth surrounds the cosmos, sun, and moon, then those celestial bodies must be very small to fit inside our geode with us.

The more I think about it the less this model makes sense to me.

[Humanfit]

Sorry primal... Not feeling it so much either :/

[Primalredemption]

So in your animation the distance from the sun to the observer is dramatically different when the sun is rising and at noon. Based on what I observe about distant objects appearing smaller I would expect the sun to appear larger at noon than it does at dawn.

This is correct, we would expect this. According to the theory it is the glass sky that causes a lensing effect to magnify the Sun and Moon so it appears the same size at further distances. I know it seems a stretch of the imagination, but to me it's a lot less of a stretch than the Sun being exactly 400 times larger than the Moon while simultaneously being 400 times farther away giving the illusion that they are the exact same size. Or the uncanny notion that the Moon just so happens to rotate at the exact rate on the exact axis as it orbits around the Earth, giving the appearance that only 1 side ever faces us.

I don't think this model makes much sense. If the surface of the Earth surrounds the cosmos, sun, and moon, then those celestial bodies must be very small to fit inside our geode with us.

Yes they are very small. When you look at "stars" and "planets" all you see are blobs of light- because that is all they are. Check it out:




10 Million mile diameter balls of superheated gas 18 quadrillion miles away, or blobs of light a few thousand miles away? To me it's obvious.

[Craig Murray]

, but to me it's a lot less of a stretch than the Sun being exactly 400 times larger than the Moon while simultaneously being 400 times farther away giving the illusion that they are the exact same size. Or the uncanny notion that the Moon just so happens to rotate at the exact rate on the exact axis as it orbits around the Earth, giving the appearance that only 1 side ever faces us.

Glad you brought those questions up. Let's do them in reverse order. First, rotation of the moon.

The same side of the moon always faces Earth because it is tidally locked. This is the case with MANY moons we observe in telescopes. It's actually not that hard to imagine how the gravitational pull or the Earth could pull on the heaviest side of the orbiting body, and over time cause it to become locked so that the heaviest side faces the planet it's orbiting... thereby tidally locking to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

Now, the more interesting question to me is why does the Sun appear the same size as the moon. That that is a big coincidence, if you assume the Earth, Moon, and Sun got their sizes and positions randomly. But perhaps it was not random?

It doesn't end there though. This is it's own rabbit hole.

You might want to check out Scott Onstott's video Secrets in Plain Sight, if you haven't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNp2JDKOAlk

[Primalredemption]

A few contradictions with the tidal locking theory:

1) Planets and moons formed with an asymmetrical center of gravity completely goes against the cosmological model of how planets and stars are formed as well as the theory of gravity.

2) The moon exibits no signs of tidal bulging and appears symmetrical.

3) if it were in fact caused by an off center of gravity, a "locking" would never take place since the angular forces applied on one side of the pass would cancel out the forces that occur on the other side. So in that Wikipedia image you linked the moon would be torqued counter clockwise when passing on the left of earth and clockwise when passing on the right.