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

[Craig Murray]

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.

I never suggested they had planet formation figured out. Their current guesses seem stupid to me. Truth is they have no idea how planets form.

As far as Gravity goes, the ad-hoc hypothesis known as Dark Matter is pretty good evidence that they don't really understand gravity all that well.

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

It would be symmetrical from our point of view. It would be asymmetrical looking at it from the side, which we never see.


The broader point here is that you don't have to understand planet formation, tidal locking of orbiting bodies, or angular momentum to evaluate how things appear for the purposes of determining the size and shape of the Earth.

"You don't understand planet formation" is a terrible argument that the Earth is concave.

And likewise "We don't fully understand gravity" is also not an argument the Earth is concave, or flat, or round.

But we observe lots of planetary bodies tidally locked, so that's not even uncommon. And planets do form, we just don't know how.

None of those things change the fact that when I observe the sun and moon, the only model that fits well is round earth.

When I apply the round earth model, everything I observe falls into place. The sun is the same size at dawn as it is at noon. Day and night across the planet make sense. Seasons. The moon.

I dont know where the moon came from, or where the Earth came from. I don't know what the sun is made out of, or how far away it is.

But when I observe the world around me, the sun, the moon, ships on the horizon, and my friend in China with his cell phone to call me when it's dawn in China... the only model of our solar system I've found that makes sense is a round earth... so that's what I'm going with... at least until someone shows me a better model.

I dont need to know how planets are formed or why the moon orbits the way it does to know the Earth is round.

[Primalredemption]

I was contesting your rebuttal, which I believe I did successfully. As I stated- the current model has huge holes in it which are readily observable- the sun magically being the same same as the moon despite enormous distance differences, and the moon magically always facing the earth despite its orbit. As I explained, the tidal theory is wrong on multiple account. And if gravity and the formation of planets is wrong, the entire heliocentric model is also wrong.

You say you look around and everything in the current model makes sense but you are not thinking about what you observe.

The stars and planets are blobs of light, like pulsating plasma. How can you determine their distance let alone their size and mass? You can't.

The Suns color heat is 5788 degrees K yet we are to believe that it is actually millions of degrees? A giant gaseous ball of fusion? The size and velocity of coronal mass ejections easily disprove that the sun is a million miles in diameter.

As I said, concave earth is the "closest" I have found to the truth. It may not be perfect but it makes infinitely more sense than flat or convex.

[Craig Murray]

the sun magically being the same same as the moon despite enormous distance differences, and the moon magically always facing the earth despite its orbit.

But again, that has nothing to do with the Earth being round. You are conflating these things.

And if gravity and the formation of planets is wrong, the entire heliocentric model is also wrong.

You seem to have abandoned logic on this point. Planet formation and heliocentricism are not the same thing as the shape of the Earth.

The stars and planets are blobs of light, like pulsating plasma. How can you determine their distance let alone their size and mass? You can't.

Perhaps I can, perhaps I can't. In either case it has no affect on my ability to determine the shape of the Earth

The size and velocity of coronal mass ejections easily disprove that the sun is a million miles in diameter.

No, I don't think they do. But regardless it does not mean the Earth is flat.

As I said, concave earth is the "closest" I have found to the truth. It may not be perfect but it makes infinitely more sense than flat or convex.

Well I'm happy you found a model you think is the "cloestest" to true. You're right the model is far from perfect.


What I think you are doing is confusing things like how planets form with the shape of the Earth. I say "the sun doesnt look right in the concave earth model" and your rebuttal is "you dont understand planet formation". As if the concave Earth somehow explains planet formation? Planet formation does not need to be understood to understand the shape of the Earth.

Anyway, it's been an interesting conversation! Thanks for explaining the concave Earth model to me.

[Primalredemption]

Well Craig you asked me a question about why the concave earth's surface doesn't appear concave and why the sun and moon appear the same size at further distances. I explained that a magnification effect is created by the glass sky and even provided a link with an experiment showing that light bends upwards. I even acknowledged that the current model is not perfect. One would think you would appreciate such Intellectual honesty but it seems you've turned to red herrings and mockery instead. Glad you enjoyed the conversation though.

Earth has been proven to be stationary. The experiment is infamous because the person who conducted it actually set out to DISprove geocentrism I.E. A stationary earth. And he failed. Hence the name "Airy's Failure". The experiment proved that the stars and heavens were in motion, not the Earth.

And this does in fact disprove the entire heliocentric Globe earth model, because you can't have a million mile diameter sun orbiting around a tiny earth 93 million miles away in the way we observe the Suns motion here.

Airy's failure. Look it up gentlemen.

[Craig Murray]

I'm sorry if you felt I was mocking you, that was not my intention.

[Craig Murray]

Airy's failure.

I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be a proof of geocentrism, not flat or concave Earth.

[Primalredemption]

I'm sorry if you felt I was mocking you, that was not my intention.

Ah okay, no worries then, I must have misunderstood the reference to "cloestest" I also offer my apologies to you, as looking back some of what I said came off the wrong way.

What I would really like to do is test the curvature of the Earth with a direct, physical line test. So far the only experiment of this nature I've found is the Rectilineator (which concluded concave), but there is of course a confirmation bias with the people who did the experiment since they believed in concavity before the experiment took place.

[LuT]

Primalredemption I love the idea and the in depth explanation man, its like the human body that is a lot of water ... is like
we are a bowl in a bowl that making it an electric motor and from then on the system . I love it , its great.
You read up on stuff like that you get some facts , then people give you some fiction too... its great .

gfadfgdsgfsdgfdsgdf.jpg

[SebG]

How does the concave model of the Earth explain the phases of the moon?

Does it explain exactly where Voyager and Pioneer space probes are right now?

Does it explain quasars, exoplanets etc?

Is there any mathematics associated with the concave-Earth theory that corresponds to Newton's law of universal gravitation?

[Mike Nall]

If the earth is flat, how can you call a friend in California when the sun sets and you're in Washington DC and you ask them if it's dark outside and they say the sun is still up?

It can be dark outside on the east coast and you can Skype a friend in California and see the sun.