so you do not believe in a hollow earth and the explanations that guy makes in his text.
but you believe the stuff that he wrote that could fit to the flat earth idea.
but his explanations are done so it does fit for a hollow earth and not for a flat earth.
but anyway, this is only a "thinkmodel" there are no proven evidence that it could be possible.
therefore it is like a religion: its a believe without any proof.
you claim there is no evidence for the curvature of the earth, you are complete ignoring the evidence that was explained to you
(my explanation of the no visible lower lever of Toronto wile looking across lake ontario and the sun set we all can see at each day)
Don't you see how many times i point out that globers jump to conclusions without trying to understand flatearthers ?
Granted my grammar is bad !
But i said i do not believe in a concave earth, but that Mostafa Abdelkader engaged in a thought process that shows our current ''understanding'' of the universe is a mere choice of directions after standing on a crossroad.
Here are the most important sentences of his essay !
For one who dogmatically insists on believing the unprovable hypothesis that light propagates in straight lines over distances of billions of light-years, the universe must be the universally accepted Copernican system. If one is open-minded enough to get rid of one’s attatcment to this dogma, then the only alternative universe is Geocosmos. The former, with its incredibly gigantic stellar galaxies and other celestial objects distant billions of light-years, and its stupendous energy sources, scattered aimlessly throughout space, reduces the earth and the solar system to nothing in comparison; whereas in the latter, the earth’s surface is the finite boundary of the whole universe contained within it. Since both universes are equally possible, there is no valid reason for astronomers, astrophysicists, and other scientists to confine their attention exclusively to the study of [the Copernican system], totally dropping the competitive [Geocosmos] out of their consideration.
These are remarkable conclusions.
The only one realising that you need physical proof for the model of the earth is Cyrus Teed who built a rectilliniator.
He did so in a backward time with vague outcomes, but the idea of a physicall structure is extremely appealing.
If they are willing to built facilities like CERN and the latest one to search for gravitational waves then it seems more and more absurd that such curvature structure does not excist.
All the lame excuses about that there is enough proof and supporters and understanding of the globe so that such a structure is unwanted is poor reasoning.
In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.
To have absolute proof of the curvature through a physicall structure would be awesome.
That it is absent today is a smoking gun in favour of flat and concave earth !
I myself had done the test long ago if you would give me the money and many flatearthers face the same problems.
We are absolutely sure that the amount of supposed curvature given in the current model is false !!