No, the earth is not flat.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes, there are all a small minority who believe in the concave hollow earth, like me.
It is very strange to people who first hear of it, and thanks for not laughing.
We still believe the earth is round though, so it relates to this thread. It's just round on the inside, instead of the outside, like most believe.
It is very strange to people who first hear of it, and thanks for not laughing.
We still believe the earth is round though, so it relates to this thread. It's just round on the inside, instead of the outside, like most believe.
Ok, i have read something now about this theory. Well, why then it was never possible to proof it? We know that in history and present exists towns under the earth. Like in Göreme in Turkey, where Christians lived in big cities under the earth to protect themselves from the islamic Invader.
But never it is reported something what supports this concave hollow earth theory.
Of course it sounds fascinating.
But never it is reported something what supports this concave hollow earth theory.
Of course it sounds fascinating.
-
1
- Show all
I appreciate your open mind on the subject.....
It was proved a few times, but is never mentioned. I think it's a conspiracy to cover up truth, so you will never rarely hear it mentioned. I never heard of it, until trying to figure out, why people believed the earth is flat (Which I don't believe).
A book was written called, The Cellular Cosmogony, "Earth is a Concave Sphere, with Proof". I actually own a copy as use some of the information in discussing earth's shape in a few threads.
You can get a copy on Amazon, if interested.
https://www.amazon.com/Cellular-Cos...sprefix=the+cellular+cosmogony,aps,150&sr=8-2
Professor G Morrow I believe created the Rectilineator that proved the earth is concave. I would post some videos to show how technical this device was, but so many sites get removed, if I post them. You can look for them or just buy the book.
Also, the Tamarack Mine Experiment also proved the concave. Not to mention Edmond Hailey believe the earth was concave.
Anyways, I'm about 99% sure, we live in a concave hollow earth, but it's up for everyone to decide for themselves.
It was proved a few times, but is never mentioned. I think it's a conspiracy to cover up truth, so you will never rarely hear it mentioned. I never heard of it, until trying to figure out, why people believed the earth is flat (Which I don't believe).
A book was written called, The Cellular Cosmogony, "Earth is a Concave Sphere, with Proof". I actually own a copy as use some of the information in discussing earth's shape in a few threads.
You can get a copy on Amazon, if interested.
https://www.amazon.com/Cellular-Cos...sprefix=the+cellular+cosmogony,aps,150&sr=8-2
Professor G Morrow I believe created the Rectilineator that proved the earth is concave. I would post some videos to show how technical this device was, but so many sites get removed, if I post them. You can look for them or just buy the book.
Also, the Tamarack Mine Experiment also proved the concave. Not to mention Edmond Hailey believe the earth was concave.
Anyways, I'm about 99% sure, we live in a concave hollow earth, but it's up for everyone to decide for themselves.
I don't understand how you got the question. Why do you think earthquakes and volcanoes are important when discussing the shape of the earth? Do you want to rephrase your question?
I honestly never really thought about why earthquakes happened and why volcanoes explode. Your question comes across like this..... So in this theory, how do you explain waterfalls and the wind blowing? It's like all of sudden I'm the waterfall and jet stream goto guy?!?!
Can you explain your reasoning for asking this question? It's gonna cost you some tin foil for an answer, I do hope you are prepared to pay up! lol
It also reminds of that one lady who posted a sarcastic remark, that went something like...."so volcanoes are like earth pimples". lol Why is that so important? I don't understand your reasoning.
I honestly never really thought about why earthquakes happened and why volcanoes explode. Your question comes across like this..... So in this theory, how do you explain waterfalls and the wind blowing? It's like all of sudden I'm the waterfall and jet stream goto guy?!?!
Can you explain your reasoning for asking this question? It's gonna cost you some tin foil for an answer, I do hope you are prepared to pay up! lol
It also reminds of that one lady who posted a sarcastic remark, that went something like...."so volcanoes are like earth pimples". lol Why is that so important? I don't understand your reasoning.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
My curiosity concerning different theories lies in the ability of a theory to explain the phenomena that occurs on a regular basis. For example, ball earth explains earthquakes and volcanoes with plate tectonics.
I could have chosen ocean currents or any of the cycling processes or wind patterns and so on. I was wondering how concave earth theory explains phenomena.
And I can't imagine an answer by you being tin foil worthy, but you are welcome to make your best pitch.
I could have chosen ocean currents or any of the cycling processes or wind patterns and so on. I was wondering how concave earth theory explains phenomena.
And I can't imagine an answer by you being tin foil worthy, but you are welcome to make your best pitch.
Why can't concave hollow earth theory, share plate tectonics?
I will keep your question in the back burner, when I have more time, or stumble across a different reason, I will try to remember to post it. Tesla believed he could create a earthquake machine and some speculate the U.S. has the technology now to do so.
I still have to do my survey experiment, to confirm what others have already proved. Can you remind me in 3 months?
I will keep your question in the back burner, when I have more time, or stumble across a different reason, I will try to remember to post it. Tesla believed he could create a earthquake machine and some speculate the U.S. has the technology now to do so.
I still have to do my survey experiment, to confirm what others have already proved. Can you remind me in 3 months?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I'm not familiar with concave earth theory so I have no idea how it explains different phenomena. It could employ plate tectonics. But if it does, what forces are producing the effects? How does hollow earth produce the energy to drive plate tectonics?
These are the kind of questions that float around in my head.
I have no problem reminding you in 3 months. But you might want to remind me the day before that I will be reminding you.
These are the kind of questions that float around in my head.
I have no problem reminding you in 3 months. But you might want to remind me the day before that I will be reminding you.
Not fascinating. But if you are going to change people's beliefs, you will need to be able to have explanations for phenomena.
Ball earth has a hot core emanating heat from the core to the surface. Below the crust is a molten layer that provides elasticity and heat provides the energy for convection.
I'm not beholden to any model, but the explanations associated with ball earth make sense. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it reasonable.
I'm open to other explanations, but it's hard for me to accept alternatives that can't explain things that happen everyday.
My goal here isn't to tear down your theory. I just think a theory is made stronger when it answers more and not fewer of people's questions.
Ball earth has a hot core emanating heat from the core to the surface. Below the crust is a molten layer that provides elasticity and heat provides the energy for convection.
I'm not beholden to any model, but the explanations associated with ball earth make sense. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it reasonable.
I'm open to other explanations, but it's hard for me to accept alternatives that can't explain things that happen everyday.
My goal here isn't to tear down your theory. I just think a theory is made stronger when it answers more and not fewer of people's questions.
As soon as I create my molten lava proof submarine, I will be able to confirm or deny this plate shift science dogma. Until then, not sure how I'm gonna go 100 miles (or whatever altitude it is) below sea level to see it.
My goal isn't to change minds, that's where you got me wrong. There is a well written book for concave hollow earth, if people have an open mind on the subject, it's probably the best there is. If the book doesn't change people's minds, why should I bother? I find it fascinating though and believe these people were pioneers in many ways, but may have some faulty religious beliefs, but that is another topic.
Well, I don't think your mind will be changed, but to be perfectly straight, I don't see how earthquakes and volcanoes are pinnacle to this discussion. It's more of side topic, that will probably distract more, than benefit, and really will not persuade anyone's mind from changing.
It would be nice for me to be prepared for any question that pops up, but I lack the resources for that. If you want to tear down the concave hollow earth theory, maybe ask questions that directly related to the earth's shape, rather than, things that will be almost impossible to prove, and don't really relate to shape. That's just my take.
I would encourage you to read the book and maybe draw questions or criticism that is in there. Asking random questions, will get you random answers. Honestly, how is the average person gonna figure out why earthquakes happen? Just read a science book right? You took the answer straight from science class and offered no criticism, or personal insights on how you came to conclusion, except "it makes sense", or something very similar.
You obviously never seen this plates shift from underneath, so you really have no eye witness account. Maybe seen a video, but that's hardly proof with the age of photoshop.
"I'm not beholden to any model, but the explanations associated with ball earth make sense."
This is your personal bias.
I think there are many flaws with ball earth, and have pointed them out many times, in many threads. I will say, ball earth makes more sense, than flat earth, but it doesn't mean we live on the outside walls of the earth.
"Not fascinating. But if you are going to change people's beliefs, you will need to be able to have explanations for phenomena."
So, your just asking questions to test my knowledge. O.k. great! You got me on volcanoes and earthquakes. I feel so defeated. Hanging my head in shame. lol
There is 179 pages that covers a million topics on Concave Hollow Earth. How about you read the book, find something you disagree with, than state your reasons for disagreeing with. A page number would be helpful or not. I think you would be on the right track this way, if you want to discredit concave hollow earth. Asking random questions, that are near impossible to conduct experiments on to prove, seems rather disingenuous.
"Ball earth has a hot core emanating heat from the core to the surface. Below the crust is a molten layer that provides elasticity and heat provides the energy for convection."
You have any proof of this? Eye witness accounts? Web cams? I'm guessing this is science book stuff that you are supposed to just believe, and don't question. Not saying it's wrong, but would like to see some proof of these statements. This is a science topic, so show me the proof.
Stated another way, how would an average person discover for themselves, how earthquakes and volcanoes erupt? You would need x-ray glasses to see through earth. Maybe I failed to explain to you how unreasonable your question is. I could possibly come up with an opinion on how these effects happen, but it would hardly aid in the shape of the earth discussion. I will refrain from the volcano and earthquakes question until a later day.
My goal isn't to change minds, that's where you got me wrong. There is a well written book for concave hollow earth, if people have an open mind on the subject, it's probably the best there is. If the book doesn't change people's minds, why should I bother? I find it fascinating though and believe these people were pioneers in many ways, but may have some faulty religious beliefs, but that is another topic.
Well, I don't think your mind will be changed, but to be perfectly straight, I don't see how earthquakes and volcanoes are pinnacle to this discussion. It's more of side topic, that will probably distract more, than benefit, and really will not persuade anyone's mind from changing.
It would be nice for me to be prepared for any question that pops up, but I lack the resources for that. If you want to tear down the concave hollow earth theory, maybe ask questions that directly related to the earth's shape, rather than, things that will be almost impossible to prove, and don't really relate to shape. That's just my take.
I would encourage you to read the book and maybe draw questions or criticism that is in there. Asking random questions, will get you random answers. Honestly, how is the average person gonna figure out why earthquakes happen? Just read a science book right? You took the answer straight from science class and offered no criticism, or personal insights on how you came to conclusion, except "it makes sense", or something very similar.
You obviously never seen this plates shift from underneath, so you really have no eye witness account. Maybe seen a video, but that's hardly proof with the age of photoshop.
"I'm not beholden to any model, but the explanations associated with ball earth make sense."
This is your personal bias.
I think there are many flaws with ball earth, and have pointed them out many times, in many threads. I will say, ball earth makes more sense, than flat earth, but it doesn't mean we live on the outside walls of the earth.
"Not fascinating. But if you are going to change people's beliefs, you will need to be able to have explanations for phenomena."
So, your just asking questions to test my knowledge. O.k. great! You got me on volcanoes and earthquakes. I feel so defeated. Hanging my head in shame. lol
There is 179 pages that covers a million topics on Concave Hollow Earth. How about you read the book, find something you disagree with, than state your reasons for disagreeing with. A page number would be helpful or not. I think you would be on the right track this way, if you want to discredit concave hollow earth. Asking random questions, that are near impossible to conduct experiments on to prove, seems rather disingenuous.
"Ball earth has a hot core emanating heat from the core to the surface. Below the crust is a molten layer that provides elasticity and heat provides the energy for convection."
You have any proof of this? Eye witness accounts? Web cams? I'm guessing this is science book stuff that you are supposed to just believe, and don't question. Not saying it's wrong, but would like to see some proof of these statements. This is a science topic, so show me the proof.
Stated another way, how would an average person discover for themselves, how earthquakes and volcanoes erupt? You would need x-ray glasses to see through earth. Maybe I failed to explain to you how unreasonable your question is. I could possibly come up with an opinion on how these effects happen, but it would hardly aid in the shape of the earth discussion. I will refrain from the volcano and earthquakes question until a later day.
I'm not offering proof. But I'm not propagating a theory. I just think if a theory doesn't offer explanations for recurring events, no amount of evidence concerning shape will be convincing.
Differences in shape, though, necessitates alternative explanations for phenomena. If a theory only has partial explanations, it would stand to reason that it would be more difficult to believe.
As far as my curiosity, I was interested how a concave hollow earth would explain certain seemingly naturally occurring events.
Differences in shape, though, necessitates alternative explanations for phenomena. If a theory only has partial explanations, it would stand to reason that it would be more difficult to believe.
As far as my curiosity, I was interested how a concave hollow earth would explain certain seemingly naturally occurring events.
The suggested 5% inclination of the moon orbit in the Ball Earth model is enough to discredit the whole thing - if it were true, we would never be able to see a 100% New Moon or a 100% Full Moon - there would always be a [significant] 'sliver' seen at the top or bottom of the moon (of 'light' for a New Moon; of 'dark' for a Full Moon) - due to the very same effect that is suggested by the Ball Earth model to create the moon phases - only 'vertical' instead of 'horizontal'.
The 5% inclination - on a Ball Earth model solar-system earth-moon scale - is actually quite a bit of removal from the "straight-on" (zero-degree) angle required to see a 100% New Moon or a 100% Full Moon.
Moreover, the 5% inclination completely does away with the ability to have a lunar eclipse (full, or even partial) - because, at that scale - the moon is so far removed from the "Ecliptic Plane" (Earth Orbital Plane) that the Earth would never actually be between the sun and the moon (with specific regard to the direction of sunlight, which is considered by the Ball Earth model to be perfectly parallel to the Earth Orbital Plane).
Also, for the same reason, we would never see a solar eclipse (full, or even partial) - because, the moon would never actually be between the sun and the earth.
All of this stuff becomes a whole lot more clear/evident when looked at on a SCALE diagram/drawing.
The 5% inclination - on a Ball Earth model solar-system earth-moon scale - is actually quite a bit of removal from the "straight-on" (zero-degree) angle required to see a 100% New Moon or a 100% Full Moon.
Moreover, the 5% inclination completely does away with the ability to have a lunar eclipse (full, or even partial) - because, at that scale - the moon is so far removed from the "Ecliptic Plane" (Earth Orbital Plane) that the Earth would never actually be between the sun and the moon (with specific regard to the direction of sunlight, which is considered by the Ball Earth model to be perfectly parallel to the Earth Orbital Plane).
Also, for the same reason, we would never see a solar eclipse (full, or even partial) - because, the moon would never actually be between the sun and the earth.
All of this stuff becomes a whole lot more clear/evident when looked at on a SCALE diagram/drawing.
-
1
- Show all
