Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic

  • 19 Replies
  • 259 Views
Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« on: May 23, 2020, 01:56:35 PM »
Hello. Most of us think that there are only 2 possibilities of Earth's shape. Flat or Round. But I belive there is 3.

Concave Earth. That is basicly hollow Earth with us inside. It was created by Cyrus Reed Teed. ( more about him: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cellular_cosmogony ). Me founded Koreshian Society which followed his ideas. Later, he did Naples survey, (refitation: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm )

Quote form wiki:

"Several 20th-century German writers, including Peter Bender, Johannes Lang, Karl Neupert, and Fritz Braut, published works advocating the Hollow Earth hypothesis, or Hohlweltlehre. It has even been reported, although apparently without historical documentation, that Adolf Hitler was influenced by concave Hollow Earth ideas and sent an expedition in an unsuccessful attempt to spy on the British fleet by pointing infrared cameras up at the sky.[46][47]"

"
In one chapter of his book On the Wild Side (1992), Martin Gardner discusses the Hollow Earth model articulated by Abdelkader. According to Gardner, this hypothesis posits that light rays travel in circular paths, and slow as they approach the center of the spherical star-filled cavern. No energy can reach the center of the cavern, which corresponds to no point a finite distance away from Earth in the widely accepted scientific cosmology. A drill, Gardner says, would lengthen as it traveled away from the cavern and eventually pass through the "point at infinity" corresponding to the center of the Earth in the widely accepted scientific cosmology. Supposedly no experiment can distinguish between the two cosmologies.

Gardner notes that "most mathematicians believe that an inside-out universe, with properly adjusted physical laws, is empirically irrefutable". Gardner rejects the concave Hollow Earth hypothesis on the basis of Occam's razor.[50]"

Basicly, we can't find diffirence in globe vs concave.

But to main point: wildheretic

He is concaver with his own site:

http://www.wildheretic.com/

He belives most of things flat Earthers do like: there is glass in sky, NASA fake..., ane he has evidence

Let's start with his article called "dissaperaing stars" and comments below it, beacise maybie our objections are answered:

http://www.wildheretic.com/disappearing-stars/

He says that there aren't any stars in ballon videos form amateurs. Expoisire is answer

But he intercepted us:

Quote
  I know what you are thinking. This idiot doesn’t realize that camcorders can’t pick up stars even in the best low-light conditions, let alone contrasting with the bright sky below.

Absolutely. It is very difficult to see stars with a camcorder, but there are ways to tinker with some of them to see stars at night. The Panasonic HDC-TM90K and Samsing SDC-435 are two such examples.

Still, the people sending up their balloons during the day were probably not interested in changing the camera settings just to see stars. Their camera might not be capable or they may not have read its instruction manual on how to do it. Fair enough.

Having said that, there is not one example on You Tube where one single star is visible at all at any time. Not once.

He then claims that NASA is rich and that they shoud have brought us photos of stars...

And claims amateur photo similar to NASA. By amateur, he mant:

Quote
1. Repeatable. Unlike the so-called amateur footage of 9-11, which was a one-off event in history that we can’t repeat ourselves since the event has past forever.
2. Accessible. Sending a camera up to 30 to 44km is something which anyone can do for under $100. This guy’s launch cost $325. Most people can afford that.
3. Variedly sourced. The amateurs must come from all walks of life and not all be connected to one family (think Sandy Hook hoax) or all work for the big media companies (think 9-11) or be involved with any one organization.
4. Numerous. There must be more than a handful of videos or photographs. Obviously, the more there are, the better.

I know this isn't Flat Earth, but it is in intrest of both Globers abd flat Earthers to debunk se foe, concave Earth. Maybe we will work together ;D
For those beliving in "true flat Earth planets":

1. Wait for night
2. Look at nearest street light
3. "Blur" your eyes
4. See how light looks
5. Admit it is optical phenomenia

Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2020, 02:00:54 PM »
And Felix on his jump told us :

Quote
“You can see that the sky is totally black.”
 

Why? On Earth we see milky way? Why not in upper atmosphere? Almost on air particles blocking magnificent wiev?
For those beliving in "true flat Earth planets":

1. Wait for night
2. Look at nearest street light
3. "Blur" your eyes
4. See how light looks
5. Admit it is optical phenomenia

*

rabinoz

  • 25730
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2020, 06:15:46 PM »
Hello. Most of us think that there are only 2 possibilities of Earth's shape. Flat or Round. But I belive there is 3.

Concave Earth. That is basicly hollow Earth with us inside. It was created by Cyrus Reed Teed. ( more about him: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cellular_cosmogony ). Me founded Koreshian Society which followed his ideas. Later, he did Naples survey, (refitation: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm )
Why waste time on every silly possibility?
Just see that the simple Heliocentric Solar System with its slowly rotatin Earth fit all we can see and determine quite well.
Spend you time understanding that, along with a bit of simple physics and astronomy, then you might more easily see the obvious flaws in these new ideas.

So many flat Earthers, especially those on YouTube, simply have distorted ideas about the Globe Earth, Sun, Moon etc.
As a result, there arguments against the Globe Earth, Sun, Moon turn out to be unintended straw-man claims.

Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2020, 01:01:36 AM »
Hello. Most of us think that there are only 2 possibilities of Earth's shape. Flat or Round. But I belive there is 3.

Concave Earth. That is basicly hollow Earth with us inside. It was created by Cyrus Reed Teed. ( more about him: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cellular_cosmogony ). Me founded Koreshian Society which followed his ideas. Later, he did Naples survey, (refitation: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm )
Why waste time on every silly possibility?
Just see that the simple Heliocentric Solar System with its slowly rotatin Earth fit all we can see and determine quite well.
Spend you time understanding that, along with a bit of simple physics and astronomy, then you might more easily see the obvious flaws in these new ideas.

So many flat Earthers, especially those on YouTube, simply have distorted ideas about the Globe Earth, Sun, Moon etc.
As a result, there arguments against the Globe Earth, Sun, Moon turn out to be unintended straw-man claims.

Bit why didn't Felix see any stars?
For those beliving in "true flat Earth planets":

1. Wait for night
2. Look at nearest street light
3. "Blur" your eyes
4. See how light looks
5. Admit it is optical phenomenia

*

rabinoz

  • 25730
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2020, 01:18:54 AM »
Hello. Most of us think that there are only 2 possibilities of Earth's shape. Flat or Round. But I belive there is 3.

Concave Earth. That is basicly hollow Earth with us inside. It was created by Cyrus Reed Teed. ( more about him: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cellular_cosmogony ). Me founded Koreshian Society which followed his ideas. Later, he did Naples survey, (refitation: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm )
Why waste time on every silly possibility?
Just see that the simple Heliocentric Solar System with its slowly rotatin Earth fit all we can see and determine quite well.
Spend you time understanding that, along with a bit of simple physics and astronomy, then you might more easily see the obvious flaws in these new ideas.

So many flat Earthers, especially those on YouTube, simply have distorted ideas about the Globe Earth, Sun, Moon etc.
As a result, there arguments against the Globe Earth, Sun, Moon turn out to be unintended straw-man claims.

Bit why didn't Felix see any stars?
Who's this Felix who see any stars?

*

rabinoz

  • 25730
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2020, 01:30:39 AM »
Hello. Most of us think that there are only 2 possibilities of Earth's shape. Flat or Round. But I belive there is 3.

Concave Earth. That is basicly hollow Earth with us inside. It was created by Cyrus Reed Teed. ( more about him: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cellular_cosmogony ). Me founded Koreshian Society which followed his ideas. Later, he did Naples survey, (refitation: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm )
I note that you refer to Donald Simanek so maybe you should read what he has to say about the flat stationary Earth:
Is the earth a spinning round ball? by Donald E. Simanek

Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2020, 01:57:53 AM »
Hello. Most of us think that there are only 2 possibilities of Earth's shape. Flat or Round. But I belive there is 3.

Concave Earth. That is basicly hollow Earth with us inside. It was created by Cyrus Reed Teed. ( more about him: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cellular_cosmogony ). Me founded Koreshian Society which followed his ideas. Later, he did Naples survey, (refitation: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm )
Why waste time on every silly possibility?
Just see that the simple Heliocentric Solar System with its slowly rotatin Earth fit all we can see and determine quite well.
Spend you time understanding that, along with a bit of simple physics and astronomy, then you might more easily see the obvious flaws in these new ideas.

So many flat Earthers, especially those on YouTube, simply have distorted ideas about the Globe Earth, Sun, Moon etc.
As a result, there arguments against the Globe Earth, Sun, Moon turn out to be unintended straw-man claims.

Bit why didn't Felix see any stars?
Who's this Felix who see any stars?

https://g.co/kgs/LqofwN

For those beliving in "true flat Earth planets":

1. Wait for night
2. Look at nearest street light
3. "Blur" your eyes
4. See how light looks
5. Admit it is optical phenomenia

Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2020, 04:39:43 AM »
There are actually vastly more, and technically round and flat are just descriptions of subsets.
For example, a flat disk is a different shape to a flat infinite plane.

But yes a concave Earth is another option which isn't supported by reality.

The main benefit it has over a FE, is that a map of the surface is correct.
With the sun and celestial objects up in the sky (without any explanation of what magic keeps them there) there is nothing to cause them to appear to set.

Basicly, we can't find diffirence in globe vs concave.
We can, the difference is the explanation.
Concave Earth requires Earth to hold a space itself to distort, bending the path of light and changing the apparent size of objects.
If you remove all that and instead have it be just an inside out Earth, without magic bendy light and normal space, then the 2 are vastly different.

He says that there aren't any stars in ballon videos form amateurs.
And you wouldn't expect them.
But before going down that rabbit hole, the better question to ask is what difference is there between concave and convex Earth?
This is one of many issues that would be a problem in general, and not actually a problem at all.

What explanation does he provide for a concave Earth which wouldn't work for a RE?

can’t pick up stars even in the best low-light conditions
No, they can't pick up stars in some of the worst conditions, where the footage often goes directly towards the sun and is shot during the day, with an extremely bright Earth.
Likewise, Felix couldn't see stars because he could see Earth and his eyes adjusted to that.
Try observing stars, from inside your house, through a window, with the lights on.

Having said that, there is not one example on You Tube where one single star is visible at all at any time.
Why should there be?
Most people aren't sending up balloons to observe stars.

He then claims that NASA is rich and that they shoud have brought us photos of stars
And they have.
Have you seen the images from Hubble?

*

rabinoz

  • 25730
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2020, 05:45:31 AM »
Bit why didn't Felix see any stars?
Who's this Felix who see any stars?

https://g.co/kgs/LqofwN
Simply because stars, apart from our Sun, are simply not bright enough for either a camera or the human eye to when adjusted (or adapted in the case of the eye) to daylight conditions.
  • The human eye adjusts for dark conditions automatically, but it can take a long time - about 20 minutes to get good adaption to nighttime conditions even from artificial light - as for ships lookouts.

  • The camera can adapt to varying light conditions, but only if set for automatic exposure but needs far greater exposure to see stars than to photograph a bright sunny day.


The following might be too much detail but here are approximate figures:
The typical exposure on earth for a bright sunny day would be 1/1000 th of a second at f/11 with ISO 100.
but the exposure for star photos (on earth and little different in space) 30 seconds at f/2.8 with ISO 1250.

And that is a massive amount of extra exposure - work is out from ((30 seconds)/(0.001 seconds)) x 2(11 - 2.8) x (1250/100).
That means to photograph stars about 110 million times the exposure might be needed than for a bright sunny day though the brighter stars and planets would show for less exposure and the full moon needs about the same exposure as a bright day.

Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2020, 08:16:16 AM »
There are actually vastly more, and technically round and flat are just descriptions of subsets.
For example, a flat disk is a different shape to a flat infinite plane.

But yes a concave Earth is another option which isn't supported by reality.

The main benefit it has over a FE, is that a map of the surface is correct.
With the sun and celestial objects up in the sky (without any explanation of what magic keeps them there) there is nothing to cause them to appear to set.

Basicly, we can't find diffirence in globe vs concave.
We can, the difference is the explanation.
Concave Earth requires Earth to hold a space itself to distort, bending the path of light and changing the apparent size of objects.
If you remove all that and instead have it be just an inside out Earth, without magic bendy light and normal space, then the 2 are vastly different.

He says that there aren't any stars in ballon videos form amateurs.
And you wouldn't expect them.
But before going down that rabbit hole, the better question to ask is what difference is there between concave and convex Earth?
This is one of many issues that would be a problem in general, and not actually a problem at all.

What explanation does he provide for a concave Earth which wouldn't work for a RE?

can’t pick up stars even in the best low-light conditions
No, they can't pick up stars in some of the worst conditions, where the footage often goes directly towards the sun and is shot during the day, with an extremely bright Earth.
Likewise, Felix couldn't see stars because he could see Earth and his eyes adjusted to that.
Try observing stars, from inside your house, through a window, with the lights on.

Having said that, there is not one example on You Tube where one single star is visible at all at any time.
Why should there be?
Most people aren't sending up balloons to observe stars.

He then claims that NASA is rich and that they shoud have brought us photos of stars
And they have.
Have you seen the images from Hubble?

They say they explenation for day-hight cycle

http://www.wildheretic.com/how-is-there-night-and-day/

And they can make accurate predictions.( http://www.wildheretic.com/can-this-theory-make-predictions/ )

And world leading mathematicans calcualted that if light bended unlike mainstream science says than it will be inpossible to see diffirence just by looking. Concave offers answers that flat Earth can't and for me, and it is superior to FE form my point of view.


For those beliving in "true flat Earth planets":

1. Wait for night
2. Look at nearest street light
3. "Blur" your eyes
4. See how light looks
5. Admit it is optical phenomenia

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5622

Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2020, 02:43:03 PM »
They say they explenation for day-hight cycle
http://www.wildheretic.com/how-is-there-night-and-day/
But notice how just like FE, they try a very superficial explanation. They focus on simply the existence of day and night.
They make no attempt to explain how the sun appears, how the sun appears to set.
If the sun had a light side and a dark side, we would not always observe it as a bright circle, that appears to set below/beyond the horizon.
Instead we would observe it high in the sky, with phases like the moon. At midnight we would see a new Sun. Just after midnight we would wee a waxing crescent sun. At roughly 6 am we would see a 1st quarter sun, and just after it would go to a waxing gibbous sun. Then at midday we would get a full Sun. Then it would start waning, go through the gibbous, quarter and crescent sun phases, until it again reaches a new Sun at midnight.
So that doesn't explain it at all.

If they want to claim it is a disk instead of a sphere, then it is slightly better, but still has massive issues.
You have darkness from it until roughly 6 am, at which point it starts out as a thin line, becoming an ellipse and gradually stretching out into a circle at midday, before getting squished again to a line high in the sky for roughly 6pm.
Yet again, failing to match reality.

Instead it is just a superficial explanation to pretend it is solved, in the hopes that you don't bother actually thinking about it to see if it matches reality.

And they can make accurate predictions.( http://www.wildheretic.com/can-this-theory-make-predictions/ )
The important part is not if they can make accurate predictions, it is if these are based upon their model.
And in the page you linked, they don't predict anything.
Even with a further link to their attempt at an explanation for the sun, they just leave it as magic bendy light.
No justification for light is bending like that, nor any formula to describe the path of the light, nor any formula to determine the sun's apparent position at any time of day based upon their model.

And world leading mathematicans calcualted that if light bended unlike mainstream science says than it will be inpossible to see diffirence just by looking.
You don't need world leading mathematicians to know that.
The simple fact is you can map every single point in 3D space in our universe to many different equivalent ones, including that of a concave Earth and even a cube Earth.
Pretty much anything that is topologically equivalent to a sphere it can be mapped to.
This mapping will require significant distortion, requiring light and even space itself to bend and distort.

Concave offers answers that flat Earth can't and for me, and it is superior to FE form my point of view.
While is is superior, in that it accepts Earth is round, that is about the only superiority.
Neither are based upon any actual evidence.
Neither are backed up by reality.
Both require nature conspiring against them to pretend the model is wrong in almost every way.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5622
Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2020, 09:46:19 PM »
Neither are based upon any actual evidence.
Neither are backed up by reality.


You don't have any evidence either for your RE fairy tale.

You cannot explain how trillion of tons of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere.

No actual evidence.

No connection to reality.

You are in no position to complain about anything else, since your fairy tale requires pure magic to explain attractive gravity.

Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2020, 12:55:58 AM »
You don't have any evidence either for your RE fairy tale.
You ignoring the evidence doesn't magically mean it doesn't exist.
We have the sun setting, just like you would expect on a RE.
We have the position of the sun and other celestial objects just like you would expect for a RE.

Gravity has been repeatedly observed and demonstrated in the lab.
So no, that is covered as well. In fact, RE is in a much better position.
The concave Earth, being inside a hollow shell needs some force pushing us to the outside of the shell, rather than falling towards the centre. It can't be due to the rotation, as that would just bunch things up at the equator.

So no, I would say the real, round Earth is backed up by plenty of evidence and in no way a fairy tale.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5622
Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2020, 01:04:14 AM »
You don't have an explanation for attractive gravity.

You have a miserable fairy tale where trillion of tons of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC.

Where is your explanation for the attractive mechanism?

You are worse than the INQUISITION, which demanded absolute faith with no questions asked.

Where is your explanation for the attractive mechanism?

You have none.

Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2020, 02:24:30 AM »
You don't have an explanation for attractive gravity.
You ignoring it doesn't make it not real.
But I notice you made no attempt to deal with the evidence provided, and instead just deflected yet again.

I take it that means you accept that plenty of evidence exists that indicates Earth is round, and convex.

If you want to try and discuss the mechanism for gravity, go to one of the threads on it.
You bringing it up here is just another attempt at covering up yet another failure of yours.

*

rabinoz

  • 25730
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2020, 06:15:51 AM »
You don't have an explanation for attractive gravity.
Of course not! Why should we have "an explanation for attractive gravity" when gravitation is not an attractive force but an inertial force.

You keep on and on with your straw-men arguments. You might get an answer if you ask the right question.

In any case not having an explanation for something does not mean it isn't real.
Light has been real almost since the beginning of the Universe but the real explanation did not come until the 20 th century.
Electrostatic attraction has been observed for millennia and in 1785 Coulomb presented his law but again the explanation did not come until the 20 the century.

So, not having an explanation for something does not mean that something isn't real - not by a long shot.

Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2020, 03:38:55 AM »
Concave Earth worls of light bended ublike modern science says. Maybie sandokhan's ether (proofs) work on concave Earth? And as I said, it is inpossible to see are we on ball or bowl just  by looking

And they got scientific evidence for light bending outside of refraction

http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/#Micro%20cavities
For those beliving in "true flat Earth planets":

1. Wait for night
2. Look at nearest street light
3. "Blur" your eyes
4. See how light looks
5. Admit it is optical phenomenia

*

rabinoz

  • 25730
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2020, 05:53:17 AM »
Concave Earth worls of light bended ublike modern science says. Maybie sandokhan's ether (proofs) work on concave Earth? And as I said, it is inpossible to see are we on ball or bowl just  by looking

And they got scientific evidence for light bending outside of refraction

http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/#Micro%20cavities
Sure "bending outside of refraction" using microcavities but not on a large scale in free space.

Re: Discussion of Concave Hollow Earth by WildHeretic
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2020, 06:54:03 AM »
And they got scientific evidence for light bending outside of refraction
http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/#Micro%20cavities
Inside an exotic metatmaterial under quite specific circumstances.
Nothing like what they need.

They are just misusing science to pretend they have evidence to support them.