It cannot be denied however that there is a massive discussion going on on Youtube and social media about the Globe model of the earth being challenged by the flat earth model and, to a lesser extent, the earth being the inside of a concave globe. If you type 'flat earth' for example into youtube you will get 179,000 results and the Flat Earth Conspiracy documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFjG4jpUhQI) currently has 137,000 views. The reason that this discussion is growing is not because many people have decided to do away with reason and science. It is because evidently the case for the flat earth is actually strong when somebody actually goes to check and the case for the spinning ball model looks weak. People tend not to think to check. The idea of the flat earth seems primitive and conjures up images of sailors afraid to fall off the edge. However the popular model for flat earth is surrounded by the ice of Antarctica so you cannot sail off the edge. Is it just conditioning that stops us questioning our beliefs on this subject without checking them for our selves?
Take for example the curvature of the earth. With a circumference of about 25,000 miles it can be calculated that after 1 mile there roughly an 8 inch drop from the tangent to the side of the sphere. After 2 miles the drop is 2 x 2 x 8 = 32 inches. After 3 miles it is 3 x 3 x 8 = 72 inches or 6 feet.
The lack of curvature becomes apparent when looking at structures that are the other side of a body of water at several miles away, that should be below the horizon.
This recent example is of a photo taken of Chicago taken from Michigan nearly 60 miles away. It would mean the shoreline should be 2,400 feet below the horizon, if this image is genuine of course.
This type of experiment can be done by anyone with a good telephoto lens or telescope over a body of water over 3 miles. A 6 foot drop should be measurable.
One example on youtube is somebody looking at a lighthouse 8 miles away over the sea. The lighthouse should be half hidden by the curvature of the earth.
The evidence for the ball earth consists of complicated mathematical arguments concerning gravity, which few people can understand but mostly, in the popular understanding, from photographs by NASA. We are all familiar with the two main images.
This images from 1972. That could be a taken through a round window at high altitude. There is a documentary called A Funny Thin Happened On The Way to The Moon that shows rare footage of the astronauts creating this effect for the camera:
This image called the Blue Marble is from originally 2001 and has been modified since but it is a computed-generated composite image and not a single full frame shot of the earth in space. NASA say on their website that this is a composite image. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BlueMarble/BlueMarble_histor y.php
The upshot is that there is likely to be no image or video of the entire earth from space that is not a composite or manipulated. It therefore begs the question of how do we know what form the planet takes.
These are just some of the reasons that people are seriously looking into this issue and I like to hear people's thoughts and open up discussion. The people on this site I'd hope are not afraid of controversy, open to questioning consensus and be willing to go where the evidence leads them.
I recommend the funny and challenging videos on youtube by Matt Boylan as a place to start and the interviews with Eric Duaby which I will link below.
The concave earth crowd challenge the flat earth theory with a few experiments that suggest a curve upwards.
Plumb lines hung down mine shafts that diverge suggesting opposite of a centre of gravity below us in a sphere.
the clockwise rotation of the stars in the southern hemisphere around Sigma Octantis, the southern pole star.
Another experiment is the rectiliniator, which was a contraption that was extended along a shoreline with lots of spirit levels on it. It apparently gave readings on an upward curve on the land. http://concaveearth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-rectilineator.html
The flat appearance of the horizon is explained by bending light that gives the illusion of flat plane.
The main proponent of the CET on the internet, Steven Christopher, is eccentric and claims to be God and is either suffering from some psychosis like Jerusalem Syndrome (http://www.livescience.com/50373-jerusalem-syndrome.html) or could be a government agent to make the concave model look ridiculous or confuse the flat earth movement maybe? That should not necessarily make all observations about the natural world he makes questionable however. He may have some valid insights. His bad language and odd claims about himself will put al lot of people off the subject.
Some of the better information is found at the link below.
http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/ _________________ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
John 3:19
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
